Light and Truth

This talk was given in Layton, Utah, at the “Remembering the Covenants Conference” on September 30, 2018.

Transcript

Paper

I haven’t had an opportunity to go through all of the questions that have been submitted but I have to tell you, kids write a lot better questions than adults do. I probably should just use this instead of what I’ve prepared.

Let me thank the organizers of this conference. First of all, I appreciate the invitation and the opportunity to come and to speak but I also appreciate all of the effort, the work, and the sacrifice that goes in when someone volunteers to put together a conference because we don’t have any standing fund. The people who volunteer to do conferences undertake a burden that’s not just physically and emotionally demanding, it’s also financially demanding. The people who put together a conference make enormous sacrifices, individually and collectively, and I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak and the work that has gone into this. 

Like the other two speakers this afternoon, I want to talk to the kids who are here today, and the parents are perfectly well invited to eavesdrop. My comments are tailored to the children who are present, or who may listen to this at a later point. 

I’ve been looking forward to talking to the youth since I first learned I was invited to speak at this conference. The future always belongs to the next generation. If the next generation is not able to learn and continue their parents’ faith, every achievement can be lost.

All talent, intelligence, and skill are perishable. Unless studied, knowledge can be forfeited. It’s by your effort to preserve what has been newly restored that the covenant given by God will endure. Every past covenant has been broken. There are still remnants who benefit from past covenants but today only one covenant exists intact.

Many of you are being raised apart from formal, institutional church organizations. You are being taught in your homes instead of church-owned buildings. Your experience will be very different from that of some of your friends. It helps you to understand that God can be close to you wherever you worship Him. Most of your parents, when they were children, likely experienced religion only in a formal, organized setting with officials leading and controlling everything. Now they ask you to commit to following God with much more of the responsibility resting upon you.

Institutional, formal churches invest in programs and productions to help their members believe in God. Institutions pre-package what is taught, so their members will agree with them on religious worship. God has provided you scriptures and given you the ability to read and think. You need to find God directly, and let your religion include your individual search for truth.

Joseph Smith defined “Mormonism” in this way: “One of the grand fundamental principles of ‘Mormonism’ is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.” (DHC, 5:499).

We all want to freely search for truth, and when we find it, we want to be free to accept it. That is Mormonism. That is us.

There is a new edition of scriptures available in paperback and online. They will soon be available in a leather-bound edition. These new scriptures are the most accurate and complete volumes of Joseph Smith’s work made available. If you study them, your understanding of the restoration will exceed all others. Make them something you review daily, even if you only have a few minutes.

While Joseph Smith was alive, he taught that the restoration would fail if the saints did not have the new translation of the Bible published as part of their scriptures. Joseph said, “God had often sealed up the heavens because of covetousness in the Church. Said the Lord would cut his work short in righteousness and except the church receive the fulness of the Scriptures that they would yet fall.” (JS Papers, Documents Vol. 2, p. 85, as in original.) 

After that warning on July 17, 1840, two men were assigned to go on a mission for the purpose of raising money to publish the scriptures. These included a new edition of the Book of Mormon and the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.

In October 1840, a letter to all the saints was published in the Times and Seasons asking for their full support in the effort to publish “the new translation of the Scriptures.” That effort failed to put the Joseph Smith Translation in print, and Joseph died without it ever being published. Excerpts with edits done by others were published by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but it failed to include all of Joseph’s work.

The new edition of the scriptures is the first time the full work Joseph accomplished, without additions and including hundreds of punctuation changes previously omitted, has been made available in print. You are the first generation to have these scriptures available. Do not neglect them.

There are two things that will bring you closer to God than anything else. Start this in your youth. First, personal scripture study. Learn from them when you have time. Your private study will be more important than what others tell you about the scriptures. Second, personal prayer. Your private time spent in prayer will have the power to shape your life. If you study the scriptures when you are alone, and you pray in private, these two things, more than anything else, will draw you to God. They will change your destiny.

There is a great gulf separating us from the first fathers of mankind. At the very beginning, a book of remembrance was kept in the language of Adam. Enoch taught repentance and knowledge of God using that book of remembrance. Those records were passed down for generations until Abraham. He learned of the first fathers, the Patriarchs, from those records. Abraham wrote: “But the records of the Fathers, even the Patriarchs, concerning the right of Priesthood, the Lord, my God, preserved in mine own hands.” (T&C Abr. 2:4).

At the time of Abraham, Egypt was the greatest civilization on earth. Egypt was great because it imitated the original religion of the first fathers. Abraham explained:

Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Zeptah, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was Patriarchal. Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first Patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood. (Abr. 2:3).

Egypt began by imitating the pattern Adam, Seth, Enos and their direct descendants through Noah used to organize the family of the faithful. Abraham calls it a “government” but it was a family. The title “Pharaoh” originally meant “great house” or “great family” because Pharaoh was the “father” over Egypt who taught and led them. Over time, however, the title “Pharaoh” came to mean “king” or “tyrant” who controlled people.

The first Pharaohs, or founding father[s] of Egypt, imitated the first fathers of mankind. He could only imitate because he did not have the right to act as the patriarchal head of mankind. He nevertheless tried to be a shepherd who led by righteous example. Abraham knew more about the first fathers than did the Egyptians because Abraham had the original book of remembrance written by the fathers in the language of Adam.

Today, scholars are trying to understand ancient Egypt. The earlier or farther back in time you look, the closer Egypt’s imitation is to the government of Adam and the Patriarchs down to Noah.

The records of Egypt from the very earliest time are lost. But we have some records. The oldest are the Pyramid Texts. Then a few centuries later there are Coffin Texts. Then much later are the Book of the Dead Texts. Near the end we have the Book of Breathings Texts. There are thousands of years between the first Pyramid Texts and the last Book of Breathings Texts. Within those thousands of years, the religion and knowledge of Egypt became more and more corrupted.

The earliest records of the Egyptian religion carved in the Pyramid Texts date from 2,500 BC. That was before Abraham, before Joseph was sold into Egypt, before Moses, and before the Exodus from Egypt. It was long before King David, King Solomon, and Elijah. These are their earliest records.

More than two thousand years later we have the last records, The Book of Breathings Texts. These were written at about 300 years before Christ. They were written during the time when Greece and Rome controlled Egypt. After Alexander the Great subdued western Persia, Syria and Tyre, he conquered Egypt and became an Egyptian Pharaoh. When he died, one of Alexander’s generals, named Ptolemy, replaced Alexander as Pharaoh. The descendants of Ptolemy followed him as Pharaohs in what is called the Ptolemaic Dynasty of Egypt. 

You have probably heard of Cleopatra. She was a descendant of Ptolemy and was Queen of Egypt at a time when Rome controlled Egypt. Rome fell into a civil war during Cleopatra’s lifetime, and Mark Anthony, one of the generals of Rome, fought against Octavian hoping to become Emperor. Cleopatra sided with Mark Anthony. Cleopatra and Mark Anthony both died by suicide when Octavian defeated the Roman-Egyptian military controlled by Mark Anthony. When Octavian won, he became the undisputed Roman Emperor and Egyptian ruler, and his name was changed to Caesar Augustus. Jesus was born while Caesar Augustus was the Roman Emperor and ruler of Egypt.

Beginning long before Abraham, and ending just before Christ was born, the records of Egypt were carved, painted or written. The religion of Egypt changed and became more elaborate in places and more vague in others over those thousands of years. The very first Pyramid Texts date from the 4th Dynasty. The next records, the Egyptian Coffin Texts, date from the 7th and 8th Dynasties. They show changes in the religion of Egypt from the earlier Pyramid Texts.

Abraham lived during the 9th or 10th Dynasty, at a time called the “1st Intermediate Period.” This was a period of significant change, or apostasy, for the Egyptian religion. But even before Abraham, the order established by the first fathers, despite efforts to keep the faith, had been poorly preserved. The Pyramid Texts are the oldest records, but they were carved during the 4th and 5th Dynasties. By the time these records had been carved, six or more centuries had passed between the original and their preservation. This would be like us composing the history from the time Robert the Bruce gained Scottish independence through the death of Joan of Arc, for the first time today.

After the 1st Intermediate Period came the Middle Kingdom, during the 11th and through the 14th Dynasties. It was during the 1st Intermediate Period that Joseph was sold into Egypt. The Book of the Dead dates from the New Kingdom, or 18th Dynasty. Moses lived during the beginning of the 18th Dynasty and Josephus dates the Exodus from Egypt at that point.

Over the long time period of their history, Egyptian religion changed. It began emphasizing ascending to heaven following this life. But it later emphasized navigating the dangers of the underworld where the dead face perils, tests and judgments. It’s more accurate to say Egypt had “religions” rather than a religion, because so much changed over their history.

Solomon dedicated the Temple at Jerusalem during the 20th Dynasty, a little over 1,000 years BC. An attempt to reconstruct the religions of Egypt requires the study of materials that date over nearly three thousand years. Over that time a great deal of change, uncertainty, apostasy and error crept in. Much was lost but also much was added. Some things were amplified or extended and represent uninspired efforts to improve on the original. Even the most meticulous scholar, using the most inspired approach, will never be able to reconstruct the original religion, or “that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first Patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam.”

Yet God demands that 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 wrongheaded 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 fathers.

God declared to Abraham that the chosen descendants, the people of God, would call Abraham their father. They would need to have that same religion belonging to the first fathers. God explained, “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.” (Abr. 3:1, emphasis added.)

The term used by God (“this gospel”) is the original holy order the first fathers, including Adam, possessed at the beginning. Our hearts must turn to the fathers because their religion – not apostate Christianity, or Judaism, or apostate Mormonism, or some remnant or relic of Adam’s religion, but the order of the first fathers – must be fully restored before we have this gospel possessed by Abraham, who had the records of the fathers and therefore knew the original. 

Adam still presides and still holds the keys. Joseph Smith said, “Adam holds the keys of the dispensation of the fullness of times; i.e., the dispensation of all the times have been, and will be revealed through him, from the beginning to Christ, and from Christ to the end of all the dispensations that are to be revealed.” (T&C 140:3).

I’m going to interject a thought. Every single dispensation that has ever been or ever will be is always the last dispensation, until apostasy, and then it’s no longer the last dispensation. You are living in the last dispensation, and hopefully it won’t end as all others have ended. 

In an October 1840 proclamation to the saints, Joseph and the High Council in Nauvoo hoped to see happen in 1840 what did not happen then, has not happened, and may only happen if people honor the covenant offered last year. The proclamation said:

The work of the Lord in these last days, is one of vast magnitude and almost beyond the comprehension of mortals; its glories are past description and its grandeur insurpassable. It has been the theme which has animated the bosom of prophets and righteous men from the creation of this world down through every succeeding generation to the present time; and it is truly the dispensation of the fullness of times, which all things which are in Christ Jesus, whether in heaven or on the earth, shall be gathered together in him, and when all things shall be restored, as spoken of by all the holy prophets since the world began: for in it will take place the glorious fulfillment of the promises made to the fathers[.] (JSP Documents Vol. 7, p. 412; also Times and Seasons, Oct. 1840, p. 178.)

Joseph understood that the project was reclamation and restoration of what once was and had been lost. We’re not trying to create something new; we’re trying to reclaim that which is the oldest of all, the original religion. 

That grandeur was not achieved in Joseph’s day. The restoration has never reached the magnitude God intends. All the institutions of Mormonism are drifting away, aimlessly. They are more interested in preserving power for themselves than in preserving the restoration. Taking the scriptures as your guide, you will be better prepared than any other generation to arise and fulfill the promises and the prophecies. Joseph Smith did not complete the restoration. But he laid a foundation that should not be ignored. The Community of Christ and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are both being led down to destruction and are bound in the chains of hell because of their studied ignorance.

Apostasy means a deliberate rebellion against God. They are in apostasy because they are deliberately changing the ordinances, have broken the covenant, and are rejecting Joseph Smith’s teachings and revelations. They have been deliberately walking away from the restoration and choosing to align themselves with a doomed world. This process was described by Alma:

… he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word. And he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until they know them in full. And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the Devil and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell. (NC Alma 9:3).

Ignorance and hell go hand in hand, you see. The loss or the failure to retain the truth is the chains of hell. 

Increasingly these largest branches of the restoration are abandoning Joseph’s work and, like the Egyptians, are replacing their beliefs with uninspired additions and shocking deletions because they do not know what to keep or how to keep it. You can behold the growing ignorance in the meetings, conversations, conferences and spirits of these people. Online discussions by rank-and-file members of these churches are filled with corrupt ignorance and vanity. Voluntarily they “know nothing” about the mysteries of God. This erosion of knowledge has grown year-by-year until now their meetings and conferences are astonishingly superficial and banal. I do not rejoice in this, but mourn it. It does not need to continue. They can repent and return. Nothing would please me more than to see the Community of Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints decide to change their downward course. Like everyone else who is lost in darkness and foolishness, I invite them to repent and return.

The gospel is vast, and only the beginning, introductory part of the restoration was established through Joseph Smith. There is still a great deal left to recover. The task is daunting. Unto what can I liken it to help you see it clearly: 

I stand beside a great ocean and I cannot convey it to you. I am but a man and all I have is a cup with which to show you. If I labor all my life using my cup I can never convey the ocean to you. Using the limited talent and means I have, and with only a cup at a time, I can never convey enough to allow you to comprehend the ocean’s sheer size. My effort mocks the great ocean because my measure is too modest, comparatively microscopic.

Using a cup, how can I ever portray the depth and pressure of the ocean? How can you ever discover its vast range of temperature in my small cup? How will you understand the relation between temperature and current, or the great power of the ocean’s current? How shall I explain the effect of the moon on the ocean’s tides when I have only a cup to declare it to you? How will the great diversity of both plant and animal life living in the ocean ever be understood when I have only a cup to show you? 

In the top 600 feet of the ocean lives 90% of known oceanic animal life, but the ocean is over 36,000 feet deep. Mount Everest rises 29,000 feet, and the ocean plunges down more than 7,000 feet beyond Everest’s height. If 90% of the animal life we know lives in less than the top 2% of the ocean, how much life is there in the oceans we know nothing about. Life we have not even a hint exists may thrive in abundance in depths completely hidden from our knowledge.

The grandeur of Christ’s gospel makes my capacity to declare it pitiful. I confess my inability, and I fear I can never do enough to help this generation to awaken and arise. If I can help you grasp even a little of it, then let me point you to God who can do the rest. Men cannot utter what you need to learn. I am not capable, and it is not lawful.

[G]reat and marvelous are the works of the Lord, and the mysteries of his Kingdom which he showed unto us, which surpasses all understanding, in glory, and in might, and in dominion, which he commanded us we should not write while we were yet in the Spirit, and are not lawful for men to utter, neither is man capable to make them known, for they are only to be seen and understood by the power of the Holy Spirit, which God bestows on those who love him and purify themselves before him, to whom he grants the privilege of seeing and knowing for themselves that through the power and manifestation of the Spirit, while in the flesh, they may be able to bear his presence in the world of glory. (T&C 69:29).

You can know. God can show it to you. I testify to you that that has and does happen. But if God deigns to show you some of His great mysteries, never think that excuses you from the labor still left undone. Rejoice in your knowledge, but do not forsake God’s work.

There have been some people who have been pointed to the greatness of God’s work and have been so captivated by the wonder of the ocean’s shoreline that they have gone astray. They have wandered off into their own exploration, thinking they have found something greater in a starfish than what has been shown to them in my cup. They have failed to continue because they think themselves independently enlightened and self-sufficient. One of the immediate casualties of their arrogance is their loss of any part in Zion. Zion will be interdependent, cooperative and community based. Zion will not consist of a solitary spiritual sojourner wandering the vast intertidal zones of an almost infinite shoreline. No matter how much they may discover along that journey, they will not grasp the ocean’s depth they could have found in Zion.

There are many paradoxes, meaning apparent contradictions, in the gospel. Very often we must accept two truths that seem opposed to one another. The gospel is more art or music than math or science. But some kinds of art require math and science to engineer its creation. The scientist and artist may believe their skills conflict, but the gospel includes all truth and therefore unites both.

You will find paradoxes. Welcome them. Often ocean life depends on the pressure of the great deep to exist. Pressure more than a thousand times our atmosphere at sea level exists at ocean depths, yet there is life there. That life exists with 15,750 pounds of pressure on each square inch and is utterly dependent on the physical law that you cannot compress a liquid. Things that live there would explode if suddenly brought here, and if you were taken there suddenly, you would be crushed. The gospel is an ocean and includes both.

We live with conflicts, paradoxes and opposing opinions. We must be at peace with all these.

There is a poem in the Book of Job I rather like. This is taken from a modern version:

Have you given the horse strength?

Have you clothed his neck with thunder?

Can you frighten him like a locust?

His majestic snorting strikes terror.

He paws in the valley, and rejoices in his strength;

He gallops into the clash of arms.

He mocks at fear, and is not frightened;

Nor does he turn back from the sword.

The quiver rattles against him,

The glittering spear and javelin.

He devours the distance with fierceness and rage;

Nor does he come to a halt because the trumpet has sounded.

At the blast of the trumpet he says, ‘Aha!’

He smells the battle from afar,

The thunder of captains and shouting.

(Job 39:19-25.)

The culmination of the ages will require us all to face the conflicts, the unease, anxiety, or what Jesus described as “the distress of nations, with perplexity.” (NC Luke 12:17). The paradoxes and perplexities will require us all to charge ahead, like Job’s horse to the battle. A final conflict may still be comparatively afar, but it is coming. It can be seen in the news, media, politics and society of our day. It creeps ever closer and is even now only held at bay by the providence of heaven. This is a time to prepare. We are now in a season to reclaim and restore incomplete gospel understanding. These are precious moments and need to be well spent. We need to gallop into the clash of arms and devour the remaining distance with the fierceness and rage of a committed heart determined to defy the idolatry and foolishness of our vain age. Stand fast in the truth. Defend yourself with knowledge. Knowledge of the truth comes from above and fortifies the soul with light and truth.

Social media makes minds weak, hearts faint, and fills a person with vanity and foolishness. It should not be embraced but relegated to the insignificance it deserves. The fabric of the electronic world consists of widespread opinions based on misinformation and lies. These are accepted as truth or proof in our day. Those who are most engaged in social media are the most prone to believe in lies. Social media can cause emotional and mental deficiencies. Turn from it.

Political leaders do not want to solve problems; they want to preserve them so they can falsely promise to find an answer one day. They need problems to support their craft. But if an actual leader labors to solve a problem, it threatens the lying craft of the political class. The politicians of our day need persistent problems to motivate voters to give them authority and uphold them in their ambition. Do not be fooled. Our deliverance will never come from Washington or any other nation’s capital.

Still, in almost every measurable way, the world is in a better state today than at any other time in history. Manufacturing can produce more useful things all throughout the world. We can grow more food, transport more material, produce more energy and create more wealth than any prior generation. But there is a great threat hanging over it all that can destroy every part of it – the lies and madness of deluded mankind. The contention, anger and hatred that dominate daily conversation have stirred up the world to anger. “For the kingdom of the Devil must shake, and they which belong to it must needs be stirred up unto repentance or the Devil will grasp them with his everlasting chains and they be stirred up to anger and perish. For behold, at that day shall he rage in the hearts of the children of men and stir them up to anger against that which is good.” (NC 2 Ne. 12:4).

Do not be angry with anyone, but certainly not with one another. Nearly all of the violence described in the Book of Mormon came because of anger. Christ condemned this. “Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger one against another, but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.” (NC 3 Ne. 5:8).

There will be no deliverance by any government, church or institution operated by men. The pitiful arm of man is nothing compared with the arm of God. The Lord is the creator of this world, and He gave dominion over His creation to Adam. Adam still presides, and the original order set up in the beginning will return before Christ comes to take back His creation. His kingdom is coming. Accomplishing what needs to be done before His return will make us subjects to the Divine King.

Skills are needed. Learn useful things to help preserve order and comfort. Agriculture, metallurgy, medicine, mechanics, construction, engineering, hydraulics, husbandry, and every practical skill will benefit God’s kingdom. So will literature, music, art and humanities. Society needs to have fire to cook, and fire in our hearts to make life whole. Learn all the useful knowledge the world can offer and remember that knowledge of God is more valuable than it all.

The Apostle Paul is credited with being the Father of the Protestant Reformation. His words about “grace” were used to re-conceive man’s salvation. Martin Luther saw in Paul’s words the possibility of salvation by grace, separate from institutional authority and control.

At the time when Jesus Christ had living officials administering rites of the gospel, Paul was able to wrestle from heaven a dispensation. Using that dispensation, Paul became a dispensation head who did more, worked harder, and labored more abundantly in ministering to Christ’s sheep and spreading the gospel than any other man we know of. Paul was not jealous of the others who knew Christ and had been called by Him to the ministry. But there is some evidence of fear and jealousy towards Paul for his success in obtaining an independent dispensation of the gospel.

Paul explained his diligence in spreading the gospel:

[I]n labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft; of the Jews, five times received I forty save one; three times was I beaten with rods; once was I stoned; three times I suffered shipwreck; a night and a day I have been in the deep; journeyings often, perils of waters, perils of robbers, perils by countrymen, perils by the heathen, perils in the city, perils in the wilderness, perils in the sea, perils among false brethren; in weariness and labor, in sleeplessness often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness; beside those things that are outside, that which comes upon me daily, the care of all the churches. (NC 2 Cor. 1:39).

Despite the opposition Paul experienced among believers and non-believers alike, he remained of a cheery disposition. “… I have learned, in whatever state I am, to be content.” (NC Phil. 1:6).

It is this kind of contentment that should be seen among people today. When God’s people are stirred to anger with each other, then even God is against them. After the spot for a temple in Missouri was revealed, the people who went there polluted it by their jealousies and fighting. The unbelieving Missourians were used by God to expel them from the place they had hoped to build a temple. They were surprised the holy spot could be taken from them. After it was taken God explained why:

Verily I say unto you, concerning your brethren who have been afflicted and persecuted and cast out from the land of their inheritances, I the Lord have suffered the affliction to come upon them wherewith they have been afflicted, in consequence of their transgressions, yet I will own them, and they shall be mine in that day when I shall come to make up my jewels. Therefore, they must needs be chastened and tried even as Abraham, who was commanded to offer up his only son, for all those who will not endure chastening, but deny me, cannot be sanctified. Behold, I say unto you, There were jarrings, and contentions, and envyings, and strifes, and lustful and covetous desires among them, therefore, by these things they polluted their inheritances. They were slow to hearken unto the voice of the Lord their God, therefore, the Lord their God is slow to hearken unto their prayers, to answer them in the day of their trouble. In the day of their peace they esteemed lightly my counsel, but in the day of their trouble, of necessity, they feel after me.(NC T&C 101:1-2.)

If the covenant with God is kept, then He will allow His house to be built. The covenant cannot be kept if there is jarring, contention, envy, strife, lustful and covetous desires. If we do the same as those who went before, we would pollute the ground again. I am thankful we do not yet have a place to pollute. It would be better to never gain a promised place for God’s house than to take possession and pollute it.

The content Apostle Paul taught the believers of his day, “Let your consecrations be without covetousness, and be content with giving such things as you have; for he has said, I will never leave you nor forsake you, so that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper and I will not fear what man shall do unto me.” (NC Heb. 1:58).

Alma taught a lesson that we accepted by covenant as a statement of our faith:

And now my beloved brethren, I have said these things unto you that I might awaken you to a sense of your duty to God, that ye may walk blameless before him, that ye may walk after the holy order of God after which ye have been received. And now I would that ye should be humble and be submissive and gentle, easy to be entreated, full of patience and longsuffering, being temperate in all things, being diligent in keeping the commandments of God at all times, asking for whatsoever things ye stand in need, both spiritual and temporal, always returning thanks unto God for whatsoever things ye do receive. (NC Alma 5:6).

The greatness of a soul is defined by how easily they are entreated to follow the truth. The greatest of those who have ever lived have been submissive and gentle souls. In a day when Satan accuses and rages in the hearts of men, it requires extraordinary will and steely determination to remain easily entreated by truth.

I have pondered how much more ought to have been accomplished during Joseph Smith’s lifetime? Joseph was only able to accomplish a fraction of what needs to be restored. Joseph faced continuing troubles because of the ambition of the believers. Too many of the saints aspired to lead. They wanted control over others. It hindered the work. Joseph was not able to finish the restoration. Our hearts must turn to the fathers in heaven, and we cannot ignore that duty because of any other vain ambition here and now. We should be less astonished by the earlier failure and far more astonished at how little we have learned from their failure.

In a letter written in July 1840 Joseph explained:

In order to conduct the affairs of the kingdom in righteousness it is all important, that the most perfect harmony kind feeling, good understanding and confidence should exist in the hearts of all the brethren. And that true Charity—love one towards one another, should characterize all their proceedings. If there are any uncharitable feelings, any lack of confidence, then pride and arrogancy and envy will soon be manifested and confusion must inevitably prevail… (JSP Documents Vol. 7, p. 362, as in original.)

In that same letter Joseph said he wished the people would progress, but did not see that possible until a different spirit led them:

It would be gratifying to my mind to see the saints in Kirtland flourish, but think the time has not yet come and I assure you it never will until a different order of things be established and a different spirit be manifested. (JSP Documents Vol. 7, p. 363.)

It is in consequence of aspiring men that Kirtland has been forsaken. (JSP Documents Vol. 7, p. 364.)

After nearly a half-year of imprisonment, Joseph described the importance of a calm mind in order to hear the still small voice of God. His mind was afire with all the distractions of being in prison, and his family and friends expelled from Missouri at gunpoint. Friends had been killed. Church members had betrayed him. God spoke to Joseph when he freed his mind of these concerns and quietly pondered, opening himself up to inspiration.

Learn from these words Joseph wrote while in Liberty Jail about how to set aside all that distracts us to hear God’s voice:

We received some letters last evening: one from Emma, one from Don C[arlos] Smith, and one from bishop Partridge, all breathing a kind and consoling spirit. We were much gratified with their contents. We had been a long time without information, and when we read those letters, they were to our souls as the gentle air is refreshing. But our joy was mingled with grief because of the suffering of the poor and much injured saints, and we need not say to you that the floodgates of our hearts were hoisted, and our eyes were a fountain of tears. But those who have not been enclosed in the walls of a prison without cause or provocation can have but a little idea how sweet the voice of a friend is. One token of friendship from any source whatever awakens and calls into action every sympathetic feeling. It brings up in an instant everything that is passed. It seizes the present with a vivacity of lightning. It grasps after the future with the fierceness of a tiger. It 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, your adversity and your afflictions shall be but a small moment, and then, if you endure it well, God shall exalt you on high[.] (T&C 138:11).

This world is a place of trial and testing. Before creation it was planned that when we came here, we would be “proven” by what we experience. That happens now. Prove yourself by listening to God, hearing His voice, and obeying. Sometimes we are like Alma and want to do greater things to help God’s work, but the greatest work of all is to respond to God’s voice and prove you are willing to listen and obey Him.

I want to show you the depths of truth that spreads through the ocean, distances and directions that are infinite. But I must be content to use only a cup to give what little a man can measure and convey. Only God can show it because it is too great, too far above man’s poor ability. It is not lawful for man, neither is man capable to make it known, for it is only to be seen and understood by those who purify themselves before God; to whom He grants this privilege of seeing and knowing for themselves, while in the flesh.

It was a year ago that a renewed covenant was given to all willing to accept it by God. New covenant people sprang into existence when a few accepted that gift. Until that moment, there were only lost and scattered remnants who, although the object of God’s earlier covenants, lived in ignorance of God’s renewed labor in His vineyard. Now, in addition to other remnants, there is a new covenant remnant aware of God’s renewed labor, a remnant who has been asked to labor alongside the Master of the Vineyard as He sends His final invitation to come to His wedding feast. Christ spoke of this very thing when He taught the Nephites. He foretold that the barren gentiles would eventually produce more children for His Kingdom than the remnants on this land and at Jerusalem. Christ said:

And then shall that which is written come to pass: Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child, for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord. Enlarge the place of thy tent and let them stretch forth the curtains of thy habitations; spare not, lengthen thy cords and strengthen thy stakes, for thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left, and thy seed shall inherit the gentiles and make the desolate cities to be inhabited. Fear not for thou shalt not be ashamed, neither be thou confounded for thou shalt not be put to shame, for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more. For thy maker, thy husband, the Lord of Hosts is his name, and thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: the God of the whole earth shall he be called. (NC 3 Ne. 10:2).

We can see a new and different meaning in Christ’s Book of Mormon prophecy to the Nephites. Before Christ’s words seemed to foretell that the lost and scattered remnants would build the Lord’s House and the New Jerusalem, now it appears that there are covenant receiving gentiles who are included. Gentiles who repent and hearken to Christ’s words, and do not harden their hearts, will be brought into covenant as His people. 

Christ mentions three distinct bodies. First, those who have accepted the covenant and are numbered among the remnant of Jacob to whom Christ gave this land for their inheritance. Second, the lost descendants of the remnant of Jacob on this land who will repent and return. Third, as many from the House of Israel who will repent and return. These three will build a city that shall be called the New Jerusalem. All three of those will come to know God in gathering and laboring to build the New Jerusalem. Then they will go out to assist all of God’s people in their lost and forgotten state to be awakened to the work of God and gathered as if one body of believers. Then all who have any of the blood of Abraham, who are scattered upon all the face of the land, will come to be taught in the New Jerusalem. There the Power of Heaven will come down to be among them, the angels and Enoch with his ten thousands will come down, the Ancient of Days or Adam our first father, and Christ also will be in the midst of His people.

The spirit of God is withdrawing from the world. Men are increasingly angry without good cause. The hearts of men are waxing cold. The scriptures describe events now underway and call it the end of the times of the gentiles. This process of the spirit withdrawing will end on this continent, as it did with two prior civilizations, in fratricidal and genocidal warfare. For the rest of the world, it will be as in the days of Noah in which, as the light of Christ or spirit of truth is eclipsed, men’s cold hearts will result in a constant scene of violence and bloodshed. The wicked will destroy the wicked. The covenant established a year ago, if it is kept, will prevent the loss of light and warmth of heart as the spirit now steadily recedes from the world. Be charitable and be patient and labor to reach others. Even if they should judge you harshly because of their traditions, you should nevertheless be kind to them. They are going to grow to fear you, but that’s only part of how darkness responds to light. Give them no reason to fear you. The time will come for us to gather, but between now and then, be leaven. Preserve the world. Be salt. Preserve the world, even if it hates you. The soul of every person is equally precious to God as is yours. If your kindness and example should awaken another soul, you will rejoice with the angels over them.

There is a need “to set in order the House of God,” which can only be accomplished through a temple where that work can be performed. The temple is not the “House of God” needing to be set in order. But a temple is required to accomplish the work for God’s House, or family, to be set in order. As once described by God:

“Organize yourselves, prepare every needful thing, and establish a house, even a house of prayer, a house of fasting, a house of faith, a house of learning, a house of glory, a house of order, a House of God, that your incomings may be in the name of the Lord, that your outgoings may be in the name of the Lord, that all your salutations may be in the name of the Lord with uplifted hands unto the Most High.” (T&C 86:29).

Let me end with a few concluding words of wise counsel:

First, just because you young folks have thought about something, that does not necessarily mean you know enough to form a reasonable opinion about it. Likewise, holding an opinion does not mean you know the truth yet. Always be open to learning more and the possibility that more information may well change your thinking, change your opinion, and bring you closer to the truth.

Second, and I hope you remember this, words only have the control over you that you allow them to have. Some people use coarse language because they do not know any better. Coarse language alone does not necessarily reveal the worth of the individual or the thought underlying the words. As Joseph Smith once said, “I love that man better who swears a stream as long as my arm. And administ(er)ing to the poor & dividi(n)g his substance. than the long smoothed faced hypo(c)rites.”

Many of my childhood friends and most of their fathers could conjugate obscenities into nouns, pronouns, adjectives, adverbs and conjunctions. That reflected little on their inner character. An afternoon I spent with my father and a few of his friends, all of whom were veterans of World War II, reminded me of the heroic deeds and selflessness for others matters a greater deal more than coarse language. That afternoon humbled me. I was a law student at the time, and thought myself better educated than all those men, my father included. A few hours in their company, however, brought the sober realization that they had done great deeds, laying their lives on the line, and through their valiance I had inherited privileges they secured. Do not give a handful of coarse words power they do not deserve to have.

God’s great power does not require an earthquake, a fire, or a whirlwind. Sometimes God’s mighty power comes in a still small voice, or in a dream warning a family to flee to safety. God uses “small means” and “simple things” to accomplish His greatest influence. If you will allow Him to guide you with small means He will save you from destruction here and in the hereafter.

Finally, virtue matters, morality matters, chastity matters. One of the greatest sources of joy and misery is our ability to produce children. The union of man and woman inside a marriage, where children can be born to parents who want them, and are prepared to love and care for them, is how the power of procreation was intended to be enjoyed. Separate from that, it has produced a great deal of misery in this world. Be moral. Be chaste. Guard your virtue.

I teach these things in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

—–

Questions & Answers

Now, there are a couple of things before I start answering these questions. There have been several people who have asked me about large print editions of the scriptures and the first large print volume that is now currently available is the Book of Mormon. It can be purchased through Amazon and it is available. I brought one with me that was given to me by the folks at the Scriptures Committee. There were multiple people who have asked me about large print edition set of scriptures. I don’t know who asked first. The people who asked were elderly, so it’s really ungracious of me to say this but whoever is first up here to pick this up, it’s yours. Some of you may want to stay seated and be entertained by what could be a potential rush between the elderly. 

One other thought. I know that there are those who have reasons that have inhibited them after they had been rebaptized. They did not want to submit their name to the Recorder’s Clearinghouse. There are some people who have what I consider to be legitimate reasons for that. But precautions are taken. Any incoming information to the Recorder’s Clearinghouse is recorded in handwriting in a book. There is no database. There is nothing that can be looked up electronically. No one can hack and retrieve a site. The only thing that gets recorded is the name, in handwriting, with archival ink on archival paper, a single copy, the purpose of which is to go into the library at the Temple to keep the record. Whatever reason you may have to inhibit you from submitting the name, the process is not completed until after you have submitted the name for recording at the Recorder’s Clearinghouse. Rest assured that the confidences will be kept and there is nothing to be hacked. 

With that, I have got a bunch of questions. These are from the kids, as you will presently see. 

Question: I and many other teens would like to get to know you better, so what is your favorite color? It’s the only question I could think of. 

Denver: Blue. It’s the color of my eyes. It’s also the… well, enough said. 

Question: What do we need to do individually to prepare for the end times? 

Denver: Don’t suck. 

There are people who are so alarmed about the idea of the end times that they want guns and ammo, they want food storage, they want all kinds of precautions to be taken, when if you are young, what you should be doing is prepare for a full life, gaining skills, gaining the ability to help in a community. 

There are a lot of skills that simply do not exist anymore. My guess is, if I asked for a show of hands, and I went through the particular skills necessary to take and preserve, first of all to grow and then to preserve, the kinds of things that you would need for gardening and preserving food over winter, that among us there probably isn’t anyone under the age of 15 that has a clue about how to do that. Learning how to cultivate and how to preserve food is a kind of skill set that is vanishing from the world. Everything is being mechanized. Everything is being automated, and we are relying upon distant sources for everyday items. When in fact, if there’s a disruption in the supply transportation system, you may find yourself in a position where it would be nice if you knew, not just how to grow food but how to preserve food. 

Beyond that, carpentry skills. Blacksmithing. There are a number of fundamental skills. Learn something useful. Mechanics. Architecture. Engineering. A community is barren if there aren’t people. Cowboy poetry may be the greatest thing that people enjoy to take their minds off the fact that every batch of stored tomatoes has now fermented and no one likes tomato wine. So, cowboy poetry, get some of it. 

The best way to prepare is to prepare for a full life, and then bring the fullness of that with you to a community and make everyone who gets in your presence richer by your presence. The songs that were sung, the talent that was exhibited, the mandolin that was played, the guitar that was played, the singing that went on here, those are important parts of rounding out a community. Prepare for life, and if you do, prepare to bless others’ lives.

Question: Why did Jacob never write about his experience of seeing Jesus and why did he never talk about it with Sherem? Nephi says Jacob beheld Christ’s glory in his youth, and later Nephi says that Jacob is a witness. 

Denver: The only way in which Nephi could have said that Jacob beheld Christ’s glory is if Jacob did in fact talk about it. The only way that Nephi could know that Jacob was also a witness is because Jacob explained, declared, [and] testified concerning it. I don’t know what was going through the heads of those who maintained custody of the small plates of Nephi. But the small plates of Nephi appear to have been created one hundred percent by Nephi, and then they were handed down. 

Nephi wrote 85-90% of the small plates of Nephi material in First and Second Nephi and then he handed that record, with blank pages, to Jacob. Now, implied in that is, here is a record, it includes blank pages, you can add more. Apparently, no one took any thought for generations to add more. If you read what happened to the plates in the handing down in the small books that follow after, some of the people made their carving on the very day that the plates were delivered to them. They said, “I’ve got the plates and now I’m turning the plates over to this guy. Tag, you’re it.” That’s their entry into the record of the small plates of Nephi. No one appears to have looked at it and said, well, why don’t we add yet more? 

Nephi left explicit instructions. Early on when they arrived in the Americas he made the large plates, and on that there was history carved. It was approximately 30 years after that, it was 40 years from the time of the first experiences they had in the wilderness, so it was decades after the first experience, it was three decades after the large plates were made that the small plates were made, and the purpose for that was very specialized. Its purpose was not to record history. He says, the more history part of our people are on these other plates, so if you want to know everything that went on you need to go to the other plates because that is the location of which the history of the Nephites. He wanted only those points of sermons and teachings which were the high points, to lead the posterity, in order to come to Christ. That was the purpose of the small plates. 

Apparently, whatever it was that Nephi learned about Jacob’s experience in coming to Christ, he learned directly from Jacob, and in all probability it got recorded on the more history part, the large record, but Jacob’s record – which he ends twice, he actually completes his record and then he writes a supplement or an addendum to his record – it’s a well-conceived, well executed, and well thought-out record that ends before he winds up with another episode that he thought really needed to go into the record. Then he adds onto that and his record ends a second time. 

He had a very specific purpose in mind. He was following the example of Nephi, who gave a record, adopted the testimony or language of Isaiah in order for Nephi to testify to the things he had seen and he had heard, because he was forbidden from writing his own record about them, so he adopted the words of Isaiah to bear his own testimony, and then he ends, as our young Brother O’Rullian talked about in that 2 Nephi chapter 27-28 area. He even quotes a verse, (I’m using the LDS chapter and versification) 2 Nephi 28:14. The very first book I wrote, The Second Comforter, has a dedication in it that dedicates the book to the few who are the humble followers of Christ and cites 2 Nephi 28:14. Embedded within that verse is the reality that there are only a few who are the humble followers of Christ. Nevertheless, they are led, but in many instances they do err. So, Nephi explains why he used the Isaiah text. 

Jacob followed the example of his older brother and he does the same thing for the same purpose. He takes a lengthy, prophetic description of the house of Israel down to the end of the history of the world and into the millennium, which he turns into what’s traditionally called Jacob chapter 5, to bear testimony of what God had shown him. He begins, or prefaces, the Jacob chapter 5 material with saying, “I told all of the people to come up to hear me deliver a sermon on the morrow, and if you’ll come up to the temple and hear me I will deliver to you a prophecy.” The people come up and he says, here are the words of my prophecy, and then he quotes Zenos, because it is his prophecy, his – Jacob’s – prophecy. It is his –Jacob’s –vision. It is something he can testify to because he had seen it. It’s unnecessary for Jacob to say, “I’m going to rewrite the entire allegory of the history of God’s people into a new story. I’m going to drop vineyard and olive trees. I’m going to use apricots or strawberries or pomegranates or pineapple. I’m going to use pineapple. That way Rob Adolpho will identify and resonate with this when the final day comes. Aloha!”

I think that the testimony of Jacob and what Christ showed him is in Jacob chapter 5, and I think he was working on a text to try and duplicate the work that his elder brother had set, in the pattern that existed in the Book of Mormon before that. 

Question: In your…they started to write “opinion” and then they crossed that out and wrote, “view,” and then, parenthetically, “hopefully informed by scripture”. (Kids are more candid than adults.) Would Zion and its temple be established before or after judgments are poured out on the world? And then he or she gives some examples: EMP, nuclear, ground war, et cetera. 

Denver: It’s really clear that you can use the scriptures to only figure out timing in a macro setting. Their purpose is not to permit you to figure it out in a micro setting and to be able to know when to buy and when to sell General Motors stock. If you knew that then you could frustrate God’s work. But let me give an example: 

There was a series of events that occurred during the creation of the world. At one point there is a council, and in the council, there is a selection that gets made. Two critical roles that were necessary to fulfill in this world was the role of the first father, or Adam, and the role of the Redeemer, or the Messiah. The first role to be filled was the Messiah, because the Messiah needed to redeem the whole of creation. In fact, it was as a result of the appointment and the identity of the Messiah that the creation itself could then proceed, because He then says, let us go down. The creation, in order for the Redeemer to redeem it, needed to be the Redeemer’s creation. It needed to be infused with His ownership, possession, control, legal right, His inheritance. He had to choose him at the very beginning, before the creation itself could even commence. 

There was one who stood up and said, “Hey, I want to be that role,” and he was rejected. He resented the fact that he had not been chosen. In the new scriptures, the Old Covenants, the Book of Genesis, you get a description of those events, and in the Teachings and Commandments, where the Book of Abraham is preserved, you get another description there. You can find it in the Book of Revelation. You can find it in Isaiah. The best descriptions are in the Moses account in Genesis now, and Abraham’s account. They get a conflict. One is disappointed with the conflict, and one is appointed, and then the creation proceeds. 

The creation goes on for several indeterminate periods of time, during which certain milestones have to be achieved. They go down. They do a labor, and the labor is given the demarcation or identifying term of “day”. You learn in the Book of Abraham that as they commence the labor of the first day that they go down to achieve this discrete part of the work. While they are doing that, it occupies perhaps some lengthy period while they watched and they waited, in order for certain things to come together. How long that lasted we don’t know, because the labor is called “a day” but the labor took so long as the labor took. Time had not yet been appointed and so it could have been, in our temporal well that we live in, it could have been millennia. It could have lasted a long time, but it’s called a day. And they watched. This period of creation we have no way of knowing and I’m not going to conjecture, but it’s a long period of time. 

When it’s all done you get, in two places, this really clearly put. One is just in a side comment by Christ. Christ says, “I saw Satan fall as lightening to the earth.” Another place is in the Book of Revelation where John records that there was not “place found for him” any further in heaven and he was cast down to the earth. From that, we know that Lucifer’s disappointment and consequently his invidious rebellion lasted from before the time when the first was chosen and the creation began, until finally the earth was finished. It had to be completed because he was cast down to the earth, and he can’t be cast down to the earth if the earth does not exist. 

You know from reading the scriptures and taking them all as one and putting them together, that information leaks out. There must be a people in a city of righteousness in which the tabernacle of God has been erected, looking up when the Lord returns. There must be a period of destruction of the wicked that precedes the Lord’s coming. How much those events may overlap… 

Sometimes I get in trouble. 

It’s apparent to me that some skills exist that the Lord is going to require in order to complete the House of God. It cannot be completed if, as a result of warfare and disruption, there is no ability to get those skills employed in the work of fashioning and fabricating the appointments that are necessary for the House of God. I don’t know how much of an overlap there is going to be but there certainly has to be some very specific things done to make the House of God suitable and appropriate for the restoration of the original religion. I think that the New Jerusalem has to be in existence, the House of God has to be in existence, it has to be accepted by Him, and there has to be a righteous group of people that are gathered and looking forward to His return. Sometimes God is a minimalist, and the way in which prophecy gets fulfilled is so modest that it can escape the notice of all the great ones of that age, as in the coming of Christ when He was born in Bethlehem. Sometimes He does rather dramatic things like the cleansing that occurred on this land before He visited the people in Bountiful.

Question: What is your best method for interpreting scriptures?

Denver: Number one, I assume that all the scriptures are trying to tell me the same thing and they are not trying to contradict one another. There are simply different facets triangulating in onto the same subject matter. I have learned through a legal career that it is possible for multiple witnesses to all be telling the truth, yet giving very different accounts of exactly the same event, and it’s because of the vantage point of the observer. I don’t think that you can take many of the prophets and divorce them from their day and have them be sensitive and focused on a distant audience in another language, at another time, with another culture. One of the very best at doing that was Nephi. Isaiah did that but his focus was on the house of Israel and the remnants of the house of Israel. As Nephi said, it must necessarily be so that he speaks concerning the gentiles, because you can’t get this far down in history without the mingling of the blood between the one and the other. Nephi wrote, but he had a very particular audience in mind. He had the gentiles to whom the Book of Mormon would come in the last days, and he talks as if that’s his audience. He wants to speak to us. He wants us to be informed about how it all fits together. 

I got into a lot of trouble with the powers that be in the LDS Church because I took what Nephi wrote and the prophecies that came through Joseph Smith, and I said, let’s assume that Nephi knew what he was talking about concerning our day, and let’s assume that Joseph’s prophecies are addressed to our day. What would our history look like if we wrote it from the humbled standpoint of people who had incurred God’s ire because of the way in which we had failed to measure up to what had been asked of us? The Book of Mormon rather looks like the gentiles are going to get it and fail with it. Christ’s prophecy, in the LDS version in chapter 16 of 3rd Nephi, talks candidly about when the gentiles shall reject the fullness. If we take Christ at His word, then we only have two choices. One choice is that the glorious gentiles have not yet rejected God’s word and, therefore, everything is intact, and all is well in Zion, but we’re going to. The second option is, the gentiles managed to reject the fullness of the gospel right then upon the death of Joseph. If you read what the Lord said in January 1841, he described how you could know whether or not the gentiles, to whom the restoration came, were going to be rejected. 

If they were not moved out of their place, and they were blessed and God defended them, then they’ve done what God asked. But if they were driven out of their place, and they suffered scourging and sore trials after being run out of their place in Nauvoo, then you could know that they didn’t measure up. I accepted the premise that prophecy ought to control the themes of history instead of our theoretical reconstruction of history like historians and scholars do. If we’re humble enough to say, we’re not going to try and write a historian’s account, we’re going to try and write what the prophets told us would happen, well then, it looks rather like Passing the Heavenly Gift. 

My method of interpreting scripture is to try to take them all as one, to take them literally, to try and understand them. In particular, if they’re condemning me, if they’re warning me, if they’re telling me to repent, to take it personally and to assume that I’m not great, I’m not right, I’m not all that, and that like so many who have gone before, I can fail. I can fail miserably, and that only through the humble acceptance of every word that comes out of God’s mouth can I have any hope for salvation. 

Question: In the Covenants and Commandments Section 33 it says, “And I, John, saw that He received not the fullness at first… and in this way He qualified (different from D&C 93) to be called to become the Son of God[.]” Could you elaborate on “qualified” and “become”? 

Denver: There is actually another place in Alma where Alma is talking about how, in the first place, they were all on the same level and that it was through heed and diligence that some rose above, and so they qualified to become called to the Holy Order. 

If I had a board, I would draw a line and I’d say, in the beginning when the souls of men are created, we all stand on exactly the same plane, there’s none greater and there’s none less. Everyone stayed on the same plane. There was God the Father, and God the Mother. These were exalted beings whose glory surpasses all description. But we, their children, are not like them. They are something altogether much greater. Jesus Christ was the one who – the words are “heed and diligence” in Alma – gave heed and diligence to what the Father commanded. And so Christ began to rise in glory, in knowledge, in intelligence. The glory of God is intelligence, or in other words, light and truth. He became a greater light. He became a possessor of greater truth. Christ rose above. In fact, I think the argument can be made from scripture that we collectively, and perhaps every one of us individually, could not have faith that we could be like God the Father until Jesus Christ proved, that by His heed and diligence, it was possible to become like God the Father. We gained faith through Christ in the Father, because Christ proved the word of God, so much so that Christ came to be known as the Word of God. Whatever the word of the Father was, that did Christ. When we saw Christ’s ability to rise up as a consequence of that, we had faith in the Father through Christ. And so Christ’s example as the Word of God led us to have faith that if we were to do the same thing, that is, give heed and diligence to the words, that we might likewise rise up. 

Christ qualified to be the Son of God by giving “heed and diligence” to the word of the Father. And we, in turn, gained faith in the plan, in the word of the Father, by witnessing what it was that Christ exemplified. As a consequence of that we had the faith to come here, to place ourselves in peril, knowing that the only way you get out of this world is through death, and that the grave can forever take possession of and imprison the dead unless someone rescues you from death and hell. We had the confidence to come here knowing that when we arrived these tabernacles are not going to last. Sometimes they wear out before we get a chance to exit here, but if you work them hard they work better, so exercise. Take your vitamins. 

Christ qualified, not because he was created uniquely, individually, and differently, or occupied a different level than did we at the beginning. Christ qualified because he gave heed and diligence in a way that exemplified the plan of the Father and the possibility that all of us can likewise do the same thing.

Some of these questions are so good that I’m going to keep them, and I’ll probably talk about this in the future. I like that one a lot. 

Question: Are there any signs in the heavens we should be watching for? 

Denver: Yes. 

I’m pretty sure you’re getting tired of hearing me talk, and I know that there are other things that people want to take care of before they leave here today. I’m going to hold onto these and try and fashion another talk at some point in the future. Here is one I’ll mention.

Question: How often should we be getting rebaptized? 

Denver: There was a time when baptism was done as a sign of commitment or recommitment. For example, in the Kirtland temple they had an ordinance that they initiated involving the washing of feet. When that was first done, several of the people who wrote about it in their journals mentioned that they would like to do that every year on that same date; they would like to come back and go through the same experience. You go one year later and there was a little of that, but as you get further down the road on the annual, they wound up with a mess on their hands in Kirtland and it was discontinued. That was a similar kind of ordinance practice, the purpose of which was designed to turn over a new leaf, put sins behind, rededicate yourself, and be more committed. 

Joseph once commented that daily repentance and daily returning to God is not pleasing to God because He expects you, when you repent, to stay committed, but if at any time a person feels the desire to be rebaptized as a sign of renewed commitment to God, I don’t think there is anything wrong in it. If you’re rebaptized one time as someone who is accepting God’s work as part of a new dispensation, that is the only one you ever need to report to the Recorder’s Clearinghouse. All other baptisms are for your own personal edification. 

When they had a wooden font in the basement of the incomplete Nauvoo temple, they instituted an ordinance of baptizing seven times for healing, akin to the captain of the Syrian host coming to Ahab to be healed of leprosy and the king sending the captain of the Syrian host to Elijah, and Elijah telling him to go be baptized seven times in the Jordan River. Elijah did not even come out to meet him, he just sent word. The captain was indignant and left, and his cohort said, “Well, if he’d asked you to do some great thing, you’d have done that. This is a trivial thing. Why aren’t you willing to do the trivial thing?” It persuaded him. He went back, he dipped himself seven times in the Jordan River, and he was healed of his leprosy. That’s when the story really gets interesting because it involves graft incorruption of the priesthood, but we won’t go there. 

When Emma Smith was ill, she had been blessed, but things hadn’t gotten better for her. Joseph had Emma in the wooden font of the Nauvoo temple baptized seven times for the healing of the sick. It wasn’t baptism for renewal or recommitment, it was baptism for healing, which is a completely different purpose. 

There was a time in pioneer Utah when baptisteries in the temples were used for baptisms for healing, being baptized seven times for healing. That was accepted but it’s been long since discontinued. In fact, that practice is little known and rarely practiced. I think I’ve only seen it done one time. But I was there when it was done once among us, and I see nothing wrong with that. Rebaptism as a dedication I think ought to be when you feel the need to rededicate yourself. I don’t think anyone should be forbidden from being rebaptized. But report it for recording at the Recorder’s Clearinghouse only one time. 

I have said before and I’ll say it again: Anyone who wants to be rebaptized – a Catholic priest or a Mormon mission president – anyone who wants to be rebaptized is welcome to be rebapized. We don’t exercise control over anyone. We’re interested in studying, knowing, and obeying the gospel of Christ. If you feel some denominational loyalty, I don’t care if you want to be a Mason, or you want to be a Knights of Columbus, if you want to be a Baptist, or you want to have fellowship with Presbyterians. Rebaptism is a sign that you have accepted the restoration that began through Joseph Smith and has recently been renewed again with God willing to extend a covenant to the gentiles. We’re not trying to organize anyone into a group in which some preside over another. 

I only come here and talk because I’m invited. I don’t presume I have the right to be here. If I’m not invited, I won’t speak. I may come but I won’t speak. Everyone, in my view, occupies the equal and exact position as do I. There is no one greater and there’s certainly no one lesser. Among the people that I have come to know, some of you are great individuals who have lived more commendable lives than have I. I mentioned that I grew up in Mountain Home, Idaho. If it wasn’t criminal, it wasn’t entertaining when we were kids. Heavens, the Supreme Court Justice who has been accused of inappropriate conduct would have been a paragon of virtue in my high school. 

I admire and look up to many of you. I think that in some respects, God wants to make sure that no one haughty, proud, and who thinks themselves better than another, will ever be permitted to speak on His behalf. I think God wants the weak things of the world, I think He wants the broken things, the things that have no doubt about their admiration for God because they see nothing about themselves that’s worthy of admiration. Someone who only wants to be as accurate [and] as truthful as they can be, and to trust God as the author and the finisher of His work. To get themselves out of the way and let God be the one who is the mover. 

I bear testimony of the things that God has said to me. I communicate them as honestly and as forthrightly as I’m able to do, but I take no credit for it. I don’t pretend that I deserve to be anything. I think many of you are greater people than you hardly comprehend. 

You young people, early in your life, having an opportunity to grow up without many of the regrets and foolishness and stupidity that others… I did not seriously cross the restoration’s path until I was 19 years old. You are growing up exposed to it so early in life that you can become an encyclopedia of truth if you’ll dedicate yourself to it. The gospel is vast and it is glorious. It is edifying. Don’t waste your time with science fiction. The gospel is far more interesting. It has so much more reach. 

In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

Hey, that Book of Mormon is up here. Someone with bad eyesight, hobble up here and grab it. 

The post Keep the Covenant: Do the Work appeared first on Restoration Archives Blog.

The following address was presented and recorded in Sandy, Utah on September 8, 2018.

Transcript

In, in examining the mission of Christ and what was accomplished during His lifetime and what was left unaccomplished during His lifetime – but intended by the Lord to be accomplished at some point before His second coming – even the record of the Lord’s accomplishment is incomplete and suggests that there is a great deal more that might have been learned or might have been recorded at the time of His ministry, but simply omitted from the record of the New Testament. 

After His resurrection and His appearance to the women at the garden Tomb, He appeared and spent the better part of the day walking on the road with two disciples from Jerusalem to Emmaus – about a seven-mile walk. He sidled up beside them and He walked beside them and they talked throughout the day. It was evening when they arrived at their destination. And they asked Him to come in and to sup with them, to eat with them, because they had enjoyed the fellow’s company. And He went in and blessed the food. Actually, He took bread, blessed it and brake it and gave it to them. And then their eyes were opened and they realized it was Him. But their reaction to Him after they recognized who He was, was a reflection on how they ought to have perhaps recognized Him earlier in the day. Not because of seeing Him as He is and recognizing His person, but instead because of the message. Reflecting on what He had said, asked one another, 

“Did not our heart burn within us while He talked with us by the way and while He opened to us the scriptures?” 

And then they rose up from there and scurried back to Jerusalem to announce the news that He had appeared.

So, we know that the Lord spent the better part of the day walking with two disciples on the road to Emmaus and that the subject that He discussed was the scriptures in such a way that the scriptures were opened to them and the effect of that was to have their hearts burn within them from the conviction that what they were being taught was truth. Not one word about what the Lord said or taught when the disciples’ hearts were touched and when they were brought to understand by having the scriptures opened to them.

And so when something is missing from a record, a page or a hole in the record, that is called a lacuna. So one of the more obvious lacunas in the narrative is the failure to tell us anything about what Christ did to open the scriptures in order to have these disciples, these believers, these people who He deliberately chose as witnesses of His resurrection, and that too as priority witnesses. 

It’s an interesting study to take a look at who the Lord appeared to and in what order because there appears to be a pattern in the appearances of the Lord and the priorities of the people to whom He appeared in order to have witnesses of His resurrection. But these are two of the earliest and so they have a high priority. And I believe that one of the two witnesses was in fact Luke, who leaves his own name out. He identifies the companion who was with him, Cleopas, but he doesn’t identify himself. And I think that it was Luke who wrote the books of Luke and Acts, in which he explains the history, the life, the death, the resurrection of Christ, the message, the importance of the message, the vindication of the promise of Him being a Messiah because of His resurrection, and then the immediate effect of the post-resurrection ministry of the apostles. All of those things are written about, and they’re written in some detail by Luke. And yet, that talk that was so convincing that the hearts of both him and his companion, Cleopas, burned within them is left as a glaring lacuna in the narrative by a fairly exhaustive biographer. Luke picks up upon some details of Christ’s life that only appear in the Gospel of Luke. This incident on the road to Emmaus is one of those, but some of the more intimate details about the birth of Christ are preserved by Luke. There are things that Luke was fully capable of preserving and conveying and he clearly, if his heart was burning within him, that kind of a message is going to have some durability, some persistence, capable of writing it, and it’s gone from the record. 

In the Book of Mormon, there’s an early visionary encounter before they migrate very far from Jerusalem in which Nephi is shown the whole sweep of history and he begins to record the account of what it was he saw. And he’s interrupted and told you can’t write a record of what I’m going to show you hereafter because this record is going to be entrusted to another person who is going to write it. His name is John. And the account that John would record, the Book of Mormon doesn’t recite, but we all can identify it as the Book of Revelation. And so Nephi is told, “Don’t write about this visionary material. Someone else is going to do that.” (1Nephi 14:20-25) So, Nephi is told he cannot write that. A fuller account is going to be given by John. But Nephi is also told that this same kind of material has been shown to others. Nephi later, in the second book that he composes, by that time 40 years has passed from the time of the visionary encounter near Jerusalem. He’s now on another continent, a new world, a promised land given to them. And he’s had 40 years of reflection on what he saw and what he heard. And from that 40 years of reflection he realizes that he can bear testimony of what he saw, without infringing upon the right of John to write the fuller account, simply by quoting Isaiah who wrote about much of the same material. And so Nephi adopts as his text in large measure the text that came from Isaiah as it appeared on the brass plates – slightly different than the version that we have in our Bibles that descend from the Masoretic Text – but he preserves as his testimony words that were composed by Isaiah in the form that he had them as his testimony. Then as his entire account is winding down at the end of the second book that Nephi composed, he begins at about – in the standard LDS-published version it’s chapter 27 – he begins to change from quoting the Isaiah text to paraphrasing the Isaiah text in order to adapt it to a very specific, prophetic foretelling of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon in the last days in order to make the Isaiah text fit exactly what would be happening with the Book of Mormon coming forth. Then he gives his interpretive key from that point explaining exactly why it was that he put those Isaiah materials in in order to have people understand that it is his testimony of what he knows and what he was shown, and to convert the language of Isaiah into the prophecy of Nephi to convey Nephi’s message.

Well, we don’t have any explanation from Luke as to why there is a lacuna in the record and the omission of Christ’s post-resurrection exposition, opening up the scriptures, explaining what it was in the scriptures that bore testimony of Him. We just have Luke leaving it out. But in the Book of Mormon, the record that we have of Christ’s appearance to the Nephite descendants, includes Christ opening up the scriptures in order to show how they bear testimony of Him, not merely of Him coming as the sacrificial lamb, but also of Him coming in the last days. Christ’s missing material from the Book of Luke is back-filled by the Book of Mormon’s account of Christ’s appearance and Christ’s ministry and teachings to the Nephite people. 

So if anyone is a devoted follower of Christ and attentive to the scriptural record as the way in which they come to understand and know who Christ is and to gain a conviction of His status as the Redeemer of mankind. Anyone who is sincere about searching into and trying to find how and why and what the Savior was, is, and what He did, is going to be eager to back-fill the lacuna that appears in the Gospel of Luke and find out what it was that the Lord was saying. And they’ll be eager and willing to look at the Book of Mormon with that in mind. 

I can tell you that the Book of Mormon has received perhaps the greatest amount of neglect of any volume of scripture since its coming forth in 1830. The one who translated the record, Joseph Smith, made almost no use of it in his public ministry. He was dealing with people who were largely converts from other denominations, including initially predominantly people who had been followers of Alexander Campbell. They were among the most devoted people to the Bible. New converts who came in believed the Bible and accepted the Book of Mormon, but regarded the Book of Mormon largely as a sign that God was up to something. When Joseph Smith taught, even as the one who translated the Book of Mormon, he largely focused upon the Bible and an exposition of the content of the Bible, because prospective converts and new converts to the idea relied upon and had a priority for the Bible above any other volume of scripture. So adapting to the audience, Joseph Smith’s teachings largely focused upon the content of the Bible. You can see leaking through in the talks, the transcripts of the talks that are preserved of Joseph Smith, that there was tension that ran all the way up to the highest level of the church. Sidney Rigdon was a counselor to Joseph Smith, and in a talk that has been called the King Follett discourse. It was a funeral sermon about the recently deceased man named King (first name) Follett (last name). We used to give names like King to people. King Follett was a fellow who had been killed in an accident in a well. He was recently deceased at the time that Joseph gave the King Follett discourse. In the discourse, he talks about a variety of things stretching on into the eternities, and the post-death course that mankind will take. In the middle of that, Joseph makes an aside. Sidney Rigdon was not in the audience at the time. He wasn’t in the city of Nauvoo. He was elsewhere. But he makes an aside, specifically calling Rigdon by name, and saying, to the absent Sidney Rigdon, “I suppose that the inquiry has to be supported by the Bible.” And then he goes on to use the Bible in order to demonstrate the teaching that he is going to advance to the audience is Biblical. It is based in the content of the Bible itself. So, Joseph Smith is saying, “Rigdon, I’ll prove the truth of what I’m about to teach from the Bible.  I suppose I have to support it by the Bible.” That tells you that one of the problems Joseph was confronted with is that people, including those very closest to him at the top of his organized church at the time, didn’t want to hear anything that wasn’t supported by the Bible, didn’t want to hear him talking about the Book of Mormon, didn’t want to accept something based upon the new revelations. At a still later time, a fellow who was one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon, who got excommunicated and disassociated himself with Joseph in 1838, he wrote in the late 1870s or early 80s a pamphlet that was called “An Address to All Believers in Christ.” And in that, David Whitmer, one of the three witnesses of the Book of Mormon, complained that the revelations of Joseph Smith were given too much priority. I assume that the attitude that David Whitmer reflected 30 years after the death of Joseph Smith was an attitude that he held even while Joseph was alive, one of the reasons why he became disaffected and that he didn’t want to see the revelations of Joseph Smith expounded upon. He didn’t want to hear material that was more recent. Although David Whitmer did hold the Book of Mormon in some considerable regard and he remained true to his witness as one of the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon. 

Well, after the death of Joseph Smith, among the people who are nicknamed “the Mormons”, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints being the largest one of those, the one that most Christians would be familiar with, the church that sends out the missionaries two by two in their white shirts and ties to knock on people’s doors, the one that sponsors the Tabernacle Choir, the one that sponsors Brigham Young University, the largest single denomination. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did not give any serious consideration to the Book of Mormon until the 1950s, and only then, in the 1950s, because the church president – at the time it was a man named David O. McKay – asked a professor at Brigham Young University, whose name was Hugh Nibley, to write a priesthood manual that could be used by the institutional church to teach a course in priesthood for a year. When that interview took place, in the accounts that Hugh Nibley tells of it, he wanted to focus upon the Book of Mormon, and David O. McKay’s reaction was surprise because no one took that book seriously. And Hugh Nibley was saying, No, he believed in it. The seriousness with which the Book of Mormon was taken after the 1950s is largely the result of a now-deceased Brigham Young University professor, Hugh Nibley, and his conviction that the Book of Mormon was an authentic book.

I say that to a Christian audience because the Book of Mormon has largely been so neglected by the people who are nicknamed “Mormons” that if Christians were to take that book up and to examine it through the eyes of a devoted Christian believer, I believe that Christians are going to find treasures within the Book of Mormon, an understanding, as a result of their Christian background from the Book of Mormon, that the Mormons themselves have never been able to harvest, have never noticed, and do not have the eyes with which to even see its presence. The Book of Mormon remains a Christian treasure that has yet to yield its greatest results, having only been taken seriously. In 1950 there were leadersin the church who had never read the Book of Mormon. Mormon church leaders who did not read the Book of Mormon, much less understand it. It was quite some time after that before the Book of Mormon became something in which there was some regular study among Latter-day Saints. 

Because the Book of Mormon was published before there was an LDS church, and because the Book of Mormon stands as an independent witness, there is no reason why accepting the Book of Mormon requires you to be institutionally loyal to anyone. You can be a Baptist and believe in the Book of Mormon and there is at least one minister out there who is doing that right now. There is no reason why Catholics, and Presbyterians, and other mainstream Christian denominations can’t pick up the Book of Mormon and make use of it without pledging allegiance to any institution that claims ownership over the Book of Mormon. In fact, the most accurate edition of the Book of Mormon currently in print is one that was prepared independent of any institution and is available for purchase on Amazon. It is part of two books combined in a single volume called The New Covenants. The first half of the book is the New Testament and the secondhalf of the book is the Book of Mormon. They were intended to go together as a witness by people who on one side of the world and on the other side of the world both witnessed the ministry of a resurrected Lord, who showed the prints of the nails in His side, and in His hands, and in His feet. And had people bear testimony that it was Him who was sacrificed, that rose again from the grave, and who is the Savior prophesied of by Isaiah; He uses Malachi in the Book of Mormon; He uses other texts to demonstrate and to teach His identity as the Son of God and Redeemer of mankind. And I believe if the Presbyterians, and the Baptists, and the Catholics were to pick up the Book of Mormon and treat it seriously it wouldyield truths to them which they could then preach independent of the LDS church or the people who are nicknamed “Mormons” and they would find themselves growing closer to Christ as a consequence of having this material available to their study.

It’s been too long that the Book of Mormon has been neglected. It’s been too shoddily handled by the people to whom it was originally given. The copyright has expired. The book is now available to the public. The institution that got it originally has made precious little use of it. And if you find yourself not only disbelieving the LDS church, but because of your institution’s native hostility towards the LDS church, you will find in the Book of Mormon a great deal of ammunition to use to condemn, to criticize, to censure the LDS institution because the Book of Mormon spares very little ink in criticizing, condemning, and judging harshly the people to whom the Book of Mormon would be delivered, including the LDS church. The use to which the Book of Mormon can be put by Christians is so relevant to the Christian belief system that if Christians will soften their heart and consider it and allow for the record that is latest in time to be used to help understand the records that are earlier in time – because God’s latest word clarifies and governs the interpretation of His earlier word – Christians are going to reap a fabulous reward in doing so. And, unlike the texts that we have in the New Testaments, many of which are copies of copies of copies, that we know have been altered in the process of transmission. Bart Ehrman, a one-time believer, now agnostic, parsed through the texts of the New Testament, compared it to quotes in the anti-Nicaean, the pre-Nicaean fathers, and to internal evidence in the New Testament itself, and reached the conclusion that the New Testament text deserves great deal of skepticism because the method and manner of its transmission has been demonstratively shown to be inaccurate and the record to be muddled. In one place, the less-altered text of Hebrews, preserves the words that are drawn right out of the seventh chapter of Proverbs: 

“This is my son; today I have  begotten you,”

A statement that was made prophetically about Christ. The Book of Hebrews preserves it in that form. 

The gospels, however, were altered, and the statement that was made at the time of the baptism of Christ when John the Baptist was baptizing the Lord was changed to be:

“This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased”

Because of a controversy that erupted over the nature of Christ during the Christological debates of the third and fourth century and it’s one of the illustrations that Bart Ehrman points to in his book, “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture.” That title tells you something about the transmission of the New Testament The Orthodox corruption of scripture.  Bart Ehrman isn’t the only scholar, but his books are fairly easily available if you’re interested in the topic through Amazon.  

Another scholar who has done essentially the same thing in picking apart the Old Testament and the integrity of the transmission of the Old Testament text is a Methodist scholar in England named Margaret Barker, whose works demonstrate that there was an earlier, an older religion that got defeated at about the time that the Jews were taken captive into Babylon and on the return from the exile a new religion that had been altered emerged. Christians generally view information like that as threatening the very core of their religion because, if their Bible is flawed and not inerrant, if their Bible has been poorly transmitted and is inaccurate, then the basis upon which they seek salvation is itself threatened. 

The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, bears witness of the very same Lord, in essentially the very same kinds of terms, identifying Him as having accomplished the work of the redemption by the sacrificing of His sinless life in order to defeat death and to restore mankind back to life. But unlike the transmission of the Bible record, the Book of Mormonrecord was preserved for generations by a singular transmission through a line of record holders. At the end of that line, a prophet named Mormon, hence the name for the book, did a summary explanation excerpting from all of the prior records a final and inspired God-commanded and prophetically-infused record summary of the preceding nearly millennium of history, giving us the truths that God wanted preserved. He turned that record over to his son. His son finished it up and then buried it up. And when it came forth out of the ground it was translated by the person who accomplished the translation through the means he called the gift and power of God. And the original language in which The Book of Mormon was first published in the last days was English. The original of the first transcription has been preserved in part. It was put into a cornerstone and water damaged it and so we only have about 28% of that original. But, the original was hand copied before it was taken to the printer for the first printing. And all of that printer’s manuscript still exists. And then the one who was responsible for the translation of the Book of Mormon had the opportunity to review it for another edition in 1837, and to review it and again publish it in 1840. We do not have the transmission issues with the Book of Mormon that are existing with the current Bible. Christians hear this criticism about the Book of Mormon that there’s been 9,000 changes made to the text. Those 9,000 changes have been located and largely dealt with, every single one, in that New Covenants edition of the Book of Mormon that is currently in print and available through Amazon. Most of those purported changes are punctuation changes. Many of them come from the fact that when it was first printed it was printed like a book, but it later became versified and divided into chapters, and footnotes were added, and in the tally of changes, many of the changes also are superficial changes to versification, and chapter divisions, and other such things. There were some errors made. There were some lines that were dropped out between the original manuscript and the printers manuscript that have been located and have put back in. But even with every one of the identified changes to the Book of Mormon, the fact is that it is demonstrably, on a whole other order of magnitude, more faithfully preserved and more reliably a text attesting to Jesus Christ, than anything that we have transmitted in the bible. 

In short, if you are a Christian who feels some insecurities as a consequence of the criticism leveled at the Bible because of its clear transmission issues, it’s very demonstrably true problems of conveying the text from the original authors down to what we get printed – and, the vagaries of how you convert some Greek lettering into other languages. At the time the New Testament was written, the form of Greek that was used didn’t have lower case, it only had uppercase. It didn’t have punctuation. And in almost every text there’s no separation from the end of one word and the beginning of another. Dividing it up into words, upper and lower-casing the alphabet that was used, all of that was accomplished by monks hundreds of years after the original text had been handed down. Well, the Book of Mormon has far greater integrity. So if you’re insecure about the reliability of the content of the Bible, none of those insecurities should attach to the text of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is not only a testimony of Jesus Christ, but it is perhaps the most reliable testimony of Jesus Christ that exists in available print right now, today, in the English language. 

So, if you’re a Christian and you’re sincere about your faith, I think you neglect the Book of Mormon at your peril. If God has sent to you a message, a testimony about His Only Begotten Son, in order to bring you closer to Him, to prepare you for the day of His coming to judge the world, and you decide that you’re simply going to dismiss that message that came from God, then what kind of a Christian are you really? Have you no faith? Do you think that God cares less about the generation of people who will be on the earth at the time of His returning to judge the world, cares less about them, than He did about the people to whom He came and ministered when He came here to sacrifice His life to redeem mankind?  

Now, it’s true at His first coming precious few took seriously the message and accepted Him. But God bears testimony whether you will listen to it or not. Wise men, who were some distance from the place of the Lord’s birth, watched for and understood the signs testifying of Christ in the heavens above. Based upon the appearance of the sign, and the journey, and their arrival, it took them two years, according to the New Testament record, to get from where they were to where the Lord was. And Christ is called a young lad when they bring gold, and frankincense, and myrrh in order to worship the newborn King. And when they depart, they depart without advising Herod where they’d found the newborn king because they’d been warned in a dream, which means God had been talking to them also, and they returned perhaps on a two-year journey somewhere else. The people who were on this continent, the American continent, watched for signs in the heavens, knew about His birth, knew about His death, and were anxiously testifying of Him before He came to visit with them.

The testimony of Christ to the world by God at His first coming was not local. Admittedly, the record begins with Zacharias [Zechariah] bringing incense to burn before the veil of the temple, to recite the prayer asking God for the redemption of Israel to take place, when an angel appeared. And the record begins with the angel announcing that, “Your prayer about the redemption of Israel is going to be answered, and your wife’s going to have a son who is going to go before the face of the Redeemer of Israel,” (Luke 1:5-13) which seemed improbable to Zacharias [Zechariah] because of the age of his wife. Nevertheless, it was vindicated.  That’s not the beginning of the testimony concerning Christ by God throughout the world. And at least some company, two-year’s journey away, heard the message and appeared to worship Him. How many others were there throughout the world? Has a Christian ever contemplated the fact that God’s testimony to mankind was not tightly confined to a small group of people in Palestine, but it went out so far and so widethat one group responding to it took two-year’s journey to get there? The Book of Mormon testifies that there were yet others, on the entire other side of the world, separated as they were by oceans, to whom Christ went to minister.

The purpose of the Book of Mormon, among other things, is to remind us living at the time when Christ’s return is imminent, that His message is global. If you think you can just brush off a message that was intended to help prepare Christians for His return, well, you’re like those whose hearts were hard and refused to hear even when Christ walked among them. We ought to be rather like those who would undertake an arduous two-year journey just to come into the presence of the Redeemer of mankind.

If you refuse to take the Book of Mormon seriously as a Christian, you are no more Christian than the Jews whocrucified the Lord, giving lip-service to a false and inadequate religion, rejecting the message of a Messiah who intends to save your soul, because you prefer your false, inadequate, partial tradition to the truth of a living Redeemer. The Jews didn’t reject Jesus because they had no religion. The Jews rejected Jesus because the religion they had did not adequately encompass the truth concerning Him and so they felt comfortable rejecting Him – just like Christians who feel themselves adequately informed from a false and incomplete set of beliefs about the work of Jesus Christ to be willing to accept the record that was intended to come forth to prepare the world for His return. 

You’re no different if you reject the Book of Mormon. And I testify of that in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

The post 6th Address to Christians appeared first on Restoration Archives Blog.

The following address was presented and recorded in Sandy, Utah on September 7, 2018.

Transcript

When we have the history of the Jews and the loss of the Northern Kingdom and the ten tribes, the lost ten tribes of Israel, and then the captivity of the Southern Kingdom or the Babylonian captivity of the Jews, there’s an intermediate event that occurs between the moment that you lose the Northern Kingdom and the moment that the Southern Kingdom gets taken captive. And that was an event in which another planting of Israel took place by the outmigration of a small group that were in the Southern Kingdom but had been warned by God to flee before the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon. That record or account is contained in the Book of Mormon. 

The Book of Mormon details the history of people who leave the land around Jerusalem. They take with them some records in order to preserve their religion. They migrate across the Arabian Peninsula, settle into a place where they’re commanded to build a ship. They build a ship and then they begin to migrate. The route that they take appears, from the record, to go down the Eastern edge of the continent of Africa, around the cape at the bottom of Africa where there was a terrific storm, coincidentally, a terrific storm at the very moment when things are getting out of hand inside the family and there’s a rebellion of sorts going on. They return to peaceful navigating after that. They appear to come up the western edge of Africa and then across the English Channel, Iceland, Greenland, the Northern Canadian shore and down somewhere into the Americas where they settle. And this planting then practices their religion in a new land in which they are never exposed to the head of gold. They are never exposed to the influence of the Medes and Persians, or the Greeks, or the Romans. They preserve their civilization for a period of about a thousand years. And over the course of that thousand years, they not only practice the earlier, more ancient form of the religion that they had, they also qualify to have their own prophets come teach, preach. They have their own instructions, revelations, and connections with God. And ultimately they get visited by Christ who comes to minister to them as one of the scattered branches of the house of Israel. 

Now, if we are looking for something that will come about eventually to fulfill a prophecy about a stone cut out of the mountain without hands that will succeed in defeating the head of gold with Babylon and all the other cultural influences that came about thereafter, one of the chief candidates that every Christian should be curious about investigating is the possibility that preserved in the Book of Mormon is a record that is independent of and uninfluenced by the head of gold, the shoulders, the belly of brass, the legs of iron; uninfluenced by any of that because it sprang into existence separate from those influences, was never taken captive, overrun, or imposed upon culturally, religiously, economically, governmentally by any of them. They simply had no influence. 

One of the big criticisms of the Book of Mormon by people who have taken the time to look at it is that there is too much Christology in the Book of Mormon for it to be an authentic 600 BC reflection of what the Jews believed. Well, that’s an interesting thing because what you are accepting when you make a statement like that is an idea that the correct barometer, the correct measuring stick, are the traditions that got handed down from those who were influenced by the head of gold, the Babylonians, the Medes, the Greeks, the Romans. You’re saying that that’s your correct measuring stick, instead of saying, let’s flip that and let’s apply the measuring stick that has been handed to us from the source that purports to be free of those influences, and let’s see if the Book of Mormon can’t give us a more accurate gauge from which to measure all these things.

There was a Christian radio preacher who styled himself “the Bible Answer Man,” Dr. Walter Martin. I mean, I listen to a lot of radio preachers even when I disagree with them because they entertain me. And one of those I’m entertained by today is Joel Olsteen. And there’s a Catholic program on the Catholic channel on SiriusXM that gives some interesting stuff.  Dr. Walter Martin, the Bible Answer man, used to use this slogan in almost every other broadcast: “It is the first principle of Biblical Hermeneutics that you interpret the old in light of the new.” Meaning, when you encounter in the New Testament an interpretation of a prophecy that came in the Old Testament you don’t go to the Old Testament to decide whether or not that prophecy fit the events in the New Testament. You reverse that, and you say, what does the New Testament tell us that the Old Testament means? And the Old Testament means whatever it is that the New Testament says it means. You arrive at your Biblical interpretation always by using the new to tell you what the old meant. Which is another way of saying that prophecy is so obscure that it requires it to be fulfilled in order for you to understand what it was all about. When it is fulfilled, then the evidence of what was in the mind of God and the prophet, when it first got composed, is apparent, but it is not apparent until the events happen. Which is why all of the people trying to date and foretell all of the events are always surprised because they missed something. They’re always advising Herod when the wise men show up and say, 

“Now where’s the king that was born?” 

And they’re shocked there was a king that got born and they have to search around and rummage before they say: 

“O Bethlehem, thou art not least among the princes of Judah;

 for out of thee shall come a ruler.”

And lo and behold, “well, he must be in Bethlehem.” 

“If you find him, hey you bring him to us so we can worship him.”

Wink, wink. Nod, nod. Because they had the prophecies in front of them, but they didn’t know what God was doing. And they wouldn’t know it, they couldn’t know it. Just like today. God’s doing things and but no one knows it because it requires its fulfillment before people can comprehend what happened.

Well, if we accept Dr. Walter Martin’s Biblical injunction that you interpret the old in light of the new, then, if you’re a faithful Christian, and you accept that premise, what that requires that you do, is that you interpret both – because the Book of Mormon did not come translated into English until 1830, so it is the latest in time, even though a composition that began 600 years before Christ and a composition that continued to record until 400 years after Christ, it did not come forth for our access until 1830. Now clearly, the last 400 years were post-Christ, but the entirety of the text reckons in its public availability post-Christ by 18 centuries. So if we accept the edict to interpret the old in light of the new, then if you want to know what the New Testament was about, and in turn the Old Testament, if you want to understand the ancient religion, then the first principle of interpretation is: you must go to the Book of Mormon to find out what that was all about. 

One of the clearest examples, right in the Book of Mormon, that helps you see why Dr. Walter Martin’s edict is useful is when Christ appears as a resurrected being, showing the wounds in his hands and in his side and in his feet, to the people who are gathered as a faithful body on the American continent and He tells them,

‘ Ye are they of whom I said, Other sheep I have which are not of this fold.

I must go to them and they must hear my voice. And there should be one

fold and one shepherd.” 

He explains that the disciples at Jerusalem didn’t ask Him about that and they didn’t understand Him when He said that. And that they wrongly supposed that what that meant was that Christ would only come to speak to other sheep through the ministry of the people in Palestine as they spread the message outward. Instead, what He meant was He, Christ, would go as a resurrected being to scattered remnants of the House of Israel and that He would let them hear His voice, see Him, and He would minister to them. And that included within the body of those that Christ intended to minister to, when He made that statement preserved for us in the New Testament, was the intent to go and visit with the people who were writing the Book of Mormon. And then He extends that and He says, 

“I have still other sheep, in addition to you, and I’m going to go visit with them also.” ( 3Nephi 16:1-3)

And so, from the record of the Book of Mormon, in just one example, if you want to understand the obscure statement that Christ made, preserved in the New Testament, that He has other sheep to whom He’s going to go minister, in order to understand that prophecy, you go to the last in time, the later to interpret the earlier, and the Book of Mormon supplies you that interpretation and explains, yes, Christ meant as a resurrected personage that He would go and He would appear. The record of Christ’s appearance in his post-resurrected state in Palestine include appearing first to two women. Then He spent the better part of the day walking on the road to Emmaus with two disciples – Cleopas and an unidentified other who wrote the record, Luke. Then He appeared to the twelve. Still later, He would appear to the apostle Paul. And then when He ascended there were above 500 gathered together at the time that He ascended from the mount. And so there were multiple sightings, multiple witnesses, and multiple audiences to whom He ministered as a post-resurrected being. Then in the Book of Mormon, He does exactly the same thing. He appears as a resurrected personage and he ministers.

The Book of Mormon helps contextualize Isaiah, Psalms, Christ’s Sermon on the Mount. It helps contextualize the prophecies about that time that is coming in which the head of gold is going to be ground to dust. It foretells the coming ultimately of the Kingdom of God on earth. There are a lot of prophecies that are requiring fulfillment right now that must precede the return of the Lord in His glory. In addition to everything else that you learn from the Book of Mormon, there are prophecies about a kingdom, an incipient planting, a return of a religious body, small though it may be, that will build what’s called a New Jerusalem – an antecedent to the establishment of Zion – and that the Old Testament prophecies about Zion and Jerusalem at the time of the Lord’s return is not talking about one location. It is talking about two separate locations because when the Lord returns the sun will never set on His kingdom. One of them will be on one side of the world and the other will be on the other side of the world. And He will establish in Jerusalem, that is, at old Jerusalem, a kingdom. And He will establish in the New Jerusalem, that is in Zion, a second part of His kingdom. And out of Zion and out of Jerusalem will go the law and the teachings that will constitute the effort and the government and the society and the culture that’s going to finally free itself from the toxic influences and the corrupt traditions that have been passed down from generation to generation, being influenced all the way back to Babylon. That’s why the prophecies of John talk about the fall of Babylon the great. Because the head of gold is still with us. The Babylonian influence remains with us still in our banking, in our profit motives, in our culture, in our education, in our false ideas about what’s important and what’s not, in our desire for power and wealth and influence. All of those things remain with us still today. And they corrupt everything. They corrupt business, they corrupt governments, they corrupt churches. They corrupt society. Everyone is vying with one another to gain influence, power. And in turn wealth and the acclamation of this world. And it all goes back to Babylon. Which is why John prophecies the fall, not of every one of these components of the great image that Nebuchadnezzar saw, but he goes right to the head because as soon as you destroy the head everything else is going to unravel. And he prophecies about the destruction of Babylon, the head of gold that holds sway over all else. So, if youwant to tune in to the work that God began in 1830 to preliminarily prepare for a coming harvest, you have to consider, if you’re a sincere Christian, the possibility that the Book of Mormon is an actual planting of something God wanted planted in order to permit that work of God to be fulfilled in the last days. The Book of Mormon came forth as a record of a fallen people in order to testify of the great work of Christ.

I mentioned that one of the criticism of the Book of Mormon is the prevalent Christology as a criticism because people don’t believe that Christ was so openly known, openly talked about, openly expected in the pre-Babylonian captivity of the people in the Bible. But in the Book of Mormon, we learn that there were some prophets who had left a testimony and a record before we get to Isaiah, who clearly influenced Isaiah, and who spoke openly about the coming of Christ. One of those prophets was named Zenos. In the Book of Mormon – I forget the total number of words; I went through and I copied and I pasted every quote of the prophet Zenos in the Book of Mormon into a single Word document one time – and I’m going from memory and my memory could be off, but it was in excess of 3,000 words, and I think it was 3,200 words, that are from the record of Zenos quoted in the Book of Mormon. From the vernacular within the Book of Mormon the references there about “the prophet” appear to identify Zenos. When we talk about “the prophet” of the Old Testament we think about Isaiah; they thought of Zenos. Zenos and Isaiah talk about the same topic. Zenos went before and Isaiah came after. Zenos was apparently a Northern Kingdom prophet and Isaiah was a Southern Kingdom prophet. Isaiah’s record about Christ is poetic and, like most poetry, tends to be obscure. Beautifully crafted language with difficult allegories to understand. Zenos, on the other hand, was pretty blunt and pretty straightforward. You could not miss the point of Zenos. Whereas it’s very possible to take the Isaiah text and you can construe it, because of its vague allegories, to mean just about anything. Zenos could not be reformed to eliminate Christology. It was blatantly present in the Zenos text. Therefore, Zenos got dropped from the Old Testament. Isaiah, on the other hand, could be used to obscure the Christology because, although he points forward to, in magnificent ways, the coming of the Savior and His sacrifice, the suffering servant passages could be interpreted to not mean an individual Savior, Jesus Christ, but rather the people of God or Israel who went through so much persecution because they preserved a religion that testified of the true God and therefore the language of Isaiah was susceptible of interpretation to construe it away from pointing to Jesus Christ. Zenos could not be so handled or interpreted. He clearly spoke about this coming Savior. As a result, in the reconstitution of the scriptures, the references contained in Zenos were too plentiful to allow it to get into the canon of scriptures, and it got obliterated from the scriptures that were re-gathered at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. But the record of Zenos was included within what that planting of people in the Book of Mormon took with them. They didn’t lose the prophecies of Zenos, and so it informed them about Christ in very specific ways. The presence of Christology in the Book of Mormon are the inevitable result of possessing scriptures that speak candidly, openly and frankly about the coming of this Messiah. And so, when you pick up the Book of Mormon and read it, you literally are reading a text that has not been corrupted by these other influences. And the abundant presence of a Christological theology in the Book of Mormon is not evidence that the Book of Mormon is false, but it is evidence that the traditions that surrounded the religion of the Jews, as it came to be understood when Christ came to earth, that was what was corrupted. That was what was incomplete. That was what failed to preserve the original religion that began all the way back with the first fathers when they learned of a promised Messiah who would save us from the fall of Adam and death entering the world by reversing that as the second Adam, as the apostle Paul described Him, the second Adam who would plant a restored family brought back to life through the power of the resurrection so that as in Adam all die, [even] so in Christ shall all be made alive (1 Corinthians 15:22).

We also learn through the Book of Mormon that the first fathers were not so ignorant as we think them, but that they had from the beginning knowledge of a coming Savior and a promise of redemption from the Fall. That they had from the beginning the practice of baptism. That they had from the beginning animal sacrifice to point to, as a type and a shadow, the sacrifice that Jesus Christ would make to redeem them from death. That Christology was not merely present at 600 BC, at the time of this planting the Book of Mormon refers to, but that Christology was present in the religion from Adam to Enoch and from Enoch to Abraham and from Abraham to Moses, and then because of the slave culture of Egypt and the corruption that they experienced there, Moses had to bring them along with the lesser law of carnal performances and ordinances in order to point their mind forward to the coming of a Savior who would offer an infinite and final and eternal sacrifice for the redemption of mankind. 

So if you want to begin to get your hands around what it is that God has yet to do in order to set the stage so that His kingdom may come and His will be done on earth as it is in heaven, and you’re a Christian, the place you ought to begin your search to find what God is really up to now, is the Book of Mormon. And you ought to interpret the old in light of the new and accept the Book of Mormon as a guide in order to bring you along. The Book of Mormon poses a question that I’ll paraphrase: 

        “Wherefore murmur ye? Because ye receive more of the word of God?” (2Nephi 29:8)

 I mean it ought to be self-evident to anyone who claims themselves to be a Christian and to love the Lord that if a record comes about that purports to be a record testifying of Christ written by people who believed in, obeyed, and followed Him, that that record bears not just serious consideration, but prayerful acceptance if it is true.

Now I was raised by a Baptist mother and a Christian, but non-denominational father. My father was a Mason and Masonic lodges require that you be a believer in God and my father believed in God. He just didn’t necessarily extend that belief all the way to the exuberance of the Baptist faith. But my mother was ever hopeful of turning the whole clan into Baptists. We had our Baptist preacher over for Sunday dinner with some regularity and I always liked the fried chicken. For some reason Baptist ministers and fried chicken dinner, it just goes together like hand in glove. And if you’re a Baptist and you’re listening to this you know this is authentic because you’ve been there and done that. So when missionaries came and said, “Hey, here’s the Book of Mormon. It’s about Jesus and it’s going to help you,” my response to that news was less than enthusiastic. I mean I had had all of the indoctrination that comes from Dr. Walter Martin and all the other anti-Mormon critics. I’d read his book, “The Kingdom of the Cults.” I’d heard all the flaws and problems with this idea. The Book of Mormon grew on me very slowly. I had actually determined the other reasons to affiliate with Mormonism than the Book of Mormon and did so for years before I ultimately discovered the Book of Mormon to be something terribly significant. It took years of reading, of study, and of actually teaching the Book of Mormon before it began to penetrate into my understanding and my heart. Once the Book of Mormon began to be taken seriously by me, I discovered things in there that were beyond the capacity of a forger and a fraud to assemble as the critics of Joseph Smith and Mormonism have claimed. Now I am not a member of the Mormon church today. Although they’ve recently asserted that their name isn’t the Mormon church, it’s the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I was one time a member. I had been excommunicated because I prize historical truth above institutional loyalty. And the institution, as it turns out, is disloyal to believing followers of the restoration if they’re not sufficiently institutionally loyal. I don’t hold any institution, at present, up as the ideal model, an example of the work of Jesus Christ. I think Jesus Christ’s work has to be done independent of institutional control at this point because every institution that’s out there, just by reason of being institutional, becomes the subject of laws and taxes and rules and Babylon. Just because the institution exists, it’s part of the great conglomerate that includes the head of gold, Babylon, the Medes and Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, on down to the present. I believe that Christ’s work must stand independent of every other influence under heaven and owe its allegiance, owe its loyalty, and owe its faith to Christ and Christ alone, which makes me really ill-fitted in an institution that prizes above everything else, loyalty to the clan.

Well, the more I began to take in the truths of the content in the Book of Mormon, the greater the gap grew between the lip-service paid to the restoration by the Mormon church, the LDS church, and the practice of the institution itself. In fact, the Book of Mormon, used as a guide or measuring stick, condemns all of the institutions of Christianity. In fact, it condemns everyone except the few who are the humble followers of Christ, and points out, despite that “few being humble followers of Christ, nevertheless they are led that in many instances they do err because they’re taught by the precepts of men.” (2 Nephi 28:14)

If you want precepts that come from God, the best place to look at this point is the Book of Mormon text. The closer you look the more you’ll see. The more you see the more you’ll find that right now the religion of Jesus Christ is hardly practiced anywhere on this earth. If it’s going to be practiced at all it needs to be done by you, by someone who is eagerlysearching for and trying to find words that come from Jesus Christ as your guide, as something to lead you back to Him, as the message intended for the last days, and as the means by which you can interpret the earlier New Testament, the earlier Old Testament, to find out exactly what they mean because the key to unlocking all of what God has been, is presently, and will ultimately be involved with to fulfill all the prophecies is contained primarily in the text of the Book of Mormon. And so, if you want to escape before the ultimate destruction of that great image with the head of gold beforehand, to be prepared for the coming of the Lord, if you’re a sincere Christian, you don’t need to go and join another denominational institution, but you better take seriously the Book of Mormon and study it, and take its interpretations, its meaning, its guidance seriously, because it is the standard that has been planted in the last days as the ensign of truth to which all Christians, if they believe in Christ, need to rally in order to be part of His great latter-day work.

In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

The post 5th Address to Christians appeared first on Restoration Archives Blog.

The following address was presented and recorded in Sandy, Utah on September 7, 2018.

Transcript

I think for an understanding of Christianity you really have to go back to the condition of Israel at the time of the birth of the Savior because Christ was introduced into an environment in which the whole of Judaism had been transformed by events that took place between about 600 BC and the time that the Lord was born. Judaism divided at the time of Solomon’s death into a Northern and a Southern Kingdom.  And the Northern Kingdom was taken away captive into Assyria and they ultimately never returned. They’re the lost ten tribes of Israel. And while there is some reference of them departing out of Assyria as an organized group being led by prophets, they did not return to the area of Palestine. They turned instead and went North, into the North countries and we lost record of them. There are prophecies about their return, but history and their accounting for themselves is absent from the record. 

It was some time after that, that the Southern Kingdom, which identified itself as either the Southern Kingdom or the Kingdom of Judah, or still later they identified themselves as the Jews, but some of the anachronistic statements in the Bible identify them earlier as Jews than when they were self-identifying as that. That group got also taken captive, dispossessed, and moved into the foreign power of Babylon. It was while they were in Babylon that Judaism underwent a fairly significant revisioning. When you think about it, up until the time of the Babylonian captivity, they either had from the time of Moses until that moment a tabernacle in which they could practice their formalized religion, or they had the temple that had been built by Solomon. In Babylon, they were dispossessed of their homeland, their sacred sites, their temple, their functioning religion. And so the first dispossession from their land, or their first diaspora, their first separation from their holy land in Babylon was a prelude and a practice to try and figure out how to make Judaism portable. And so in the Babylonian experience you have a kind of portability to their faith that allowed it to survive dispossession of land, dispossession of sacred sites, dispossession of temple, and a non-functioning Aaronic and Levitical priesthood. Literally, it was non-functioning. When they return again, they had to resort to genealogical study and Urim and Thummim in order to declare who could be a priest, because the priestly functions had lapsed into decay, disuse, and forgetfulness.

And during that time, because of the Babylonian society, the religion took on a kind of Babylonian intellectualism that led in turn to rabbinical Judaism in a way that Judaism had not existed before that moment. When they return, you get into the time of Ezra and Nehemiah and the reconstruction of the temple. There is reason to believe, and I won’t go into it at this moment, but there is reason to believe when they reconstructed the temple upon the return from Babylon that what they built was not a reflection of what had been there previously. That 70 years of captivity in Babylon was long enough so that people with the kind of continuity of knowledge, familiarity, understanding were gone, and so you get a reconstruction.

At the time that they were taken captive into Babylon there was a lot of tension inside Judaism as reformers were trying to make the faith fit a model that was becoming popular among other competing religions and peoples. And those people have been given the nickname by scholars of the Deuteronomists. But the tension between the competing viewpoints had not been resolved at the time of the Babylonian captivity. So they leave with a fight going on, then they have to reconstruct the religion in order to make it portable and fit into a new culture. Then they return and it appears that the people who reconstruct the temple and who re-established Judaism included people who had been persuaded by the Deuteronomists in the pre-exile. And so the reconstruction of the religion that takes place, including the books that were purportedly discovered when the ruins of the temple were being rummaged through in order to reconstruct the temple site by Ezra, that were used to rebuild the Old Testament that had been lost, were rather more influenced by the Deuteronomists as the prevailing party in the argument than Judaism had been at the time of the Babylonian captivity. So it’s a whole bunch of historical events that together create a different look, feel, and flavor to Judaism even after its return.

So in the prophecy that you have of Daniel interpreting the dream and explaining the interpretation, you have the head of gold, you have the shoulders of silver, you have the arms and so on, through the body, down to the feet of miry clay and iron, our day. Daniel declares that that head of gold is Babylon. It’s the kingdom in which the Jews were at the moment of that prophecy being held captive. So why the head of gold will persist all the way down to the time when there’s clay and iron in the feet, and will need also to be ground into dust by the stone cut out of the mountain without hands, should perplex people. Because Babylon fell and Babylon’s been gone and off the pages of history beginning sometime shortly after the Jews return and rebuild their temple in their holy land. So when the Jews return, they return knowing that there is this head of gold that not only followed them, but will follow all religion, it will follow all society, it will follow all culture on into the last days. Well there’s a series of kingdoms that come through between the time of the return to the holy land and the time in which Christ is born because the Medes, and Persians, and the Greeks, and then the Romans are all part of that vision of Daniel and all of them come through and sway Israel, hold influence, bring culture, bring attitudes, viewpoints, understanding. They bring government. They bring a variety of invasive thinking that cumulatively have an effect on the landscape at the time of the birth of the Lord. We have, what is it in Luke, when it’s dating the birth of the Savior. We have a statement so we know when Christ was born: “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.” Cyrenius being a Roman puppet appointed by Rome, Caesar Augustus being Octavius, who retook the name, or took the name of Caesar after he was the unquestioned head of the Roman empire, having defeated Mark Antony. So you’ve got the dating in the record of the Savior and the birth of the Savior based upon what’s going on in Rome. This is the legs of iron.

So there is a stone to be cut out of the mountains that is going to grind to dust all of the components of the cultural, governmental, economic influences that were foreseen by the king and interpreted by Daniel going all the way back to Babylon. And Christ arrives in the middle of those pernicious, corrupting, social influences in the remnant of Israel, in Palestine, with a reconstructed temple. This one built using the family of Herod’s money and influence, under the Roman Empire’s economic, social, governmental, and cultural influence in order to come into the world and to discharge His mission and ministry.

So when you put the entry of Christ into the full sweep of both history and prophecy you should not expect the Savior to establish the Kingdom of God on earth that is intended at some future point to destroy all of those influences. He’s going to leave all of those things intact. The Savior is going to come. He’s going to minister. He’s going to accomplish His mission. He’s going to die. He’s going to be resurrected. And the great image is going to continue happily on its way developing down through the channels of history with all of those influences unimpeded, unimpaired, uninterrupted by the coming and going of the Savior.

Now, arguably, it was because of the presence of the Savior that some of those later anatomical developments occur with the legs, the feet, the clay, the iron as the influence of Christ’s ministry took over and ultimately the desire to separate church and state came about, the desire to have religious freedom came about, the desire to create a benign environment in which it’s possible for people to worship according to the dictates of their own heart came about because Christianity itself became rather a malignant force in the wake of the Savior coming and going. But that gets ahead of where we are in the story. We’re going to look at the time of the coming of Christ, because Christians tend to read Christianity as if it sprung into existence with Christ’s birth and it came fully formed, fully functioning, and fully capable of accomplishing the very thing that the culmination of the ages was intended to achieve. Christ didn’t do that. It wasn’t time yet for that to happen. In the Lord’s Prayer He prays about a future kingdom: “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” is a petition prayer begging the Father that the time will eventually come when that event will take place. The stone cut out of the mountain without hands; it did not happen in Christ’s time, and he knew it didn’t happen. It didn’t happen and He prayed for that eventuality. And He said, ‘this is one of the things when you pray, if I’m going to teach you how to pray, this is one of the things you ought to be praying for, you ought to be asking that at some point this future kingdom will come about, so that God’s will can be done on earth like it is being done in Heaven’. Because on earth we’re down here in this cultural, social, legal, religious environment that is heavily influenced beginning with the head of gold and going through all of the cultures that had succeeded one another in dominating the world.

So Christ enters onto the scene inside a milieu that is corrupt. It is disconnected significantly from pre-Babylonian religion of Israel. It holds very little content that reckons pre-Moses. It has hardly any connection to Abraham, and the beliefs of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and it includes only two of the twelve tribes as the nation. And for that it includes only that remnant that returned from the Babylonian exile back to Palestine to reoccupy the land after they had been dispossessed. So He’s talking to a tiny remnant of what was once a great people that consists of primarily the tribes of Judah and Benjamin in the Southern Kingdom who were willing to come back from Babylon. The ten tribes were scattered; much of those tribes were left behind. And in this Southern Kingdom you probably have onesies and twosies of the other tribes represented through marriage that had stayed within the Southern Kingdom, but primarily the blood of Israel is gone, and the religion that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and that family had, has been radically altered, revised, poorly preserved. Abraham himself was trying to restore an even earlier version of the religion that goes back to the first fathers.

So when Christ comes to minister and to serve and to sacrifice in Israel, He’s dealing inside a very corrupt environment. He sets up Peter, James, and John as three who were significantly isolated and elevated from the other members of the twelve for such things as the Mount of Transfiguration when they were taken up on the mount and they saw Moses, they heard the Father, they experienced the events on the top of the Mount of Transfiguration. And then there were the twelve that were called to be a group that were ordained and sent out as messengers. And then there were seventy who were called as missionaries also to go out. If you go back historically and you say, ‘what is the type that Christ is organizing as the way in which he’s going to plant a seed for the religion that He’s trying to get people to recognize? What is the model that Christ employed?’ You would say, ‘Peter, James and John are an echo, an homage, a remembrance of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and the quorum of the twelve that he organized and He sent out as messengers are a remembrance, an honor to the twelve sons of Jacob, the twelve tribes of Israel. And the seventy, when you go to Exodus chapter 1 verse 5, you find that there were seventy souls who went into Egypt at the time that the rest of the family joined Joseph and the brothers and their descendants came to live in Israel.’

So what Christ is doing is He’s reestablishing a kind of restoration of the family of Israel in a model that is pointing back to an earlier time, before Babylon, an earlier time when there was a different religion on the earth. An earlier time, at the time between Abraham and the twelve sons of Jacob or Israel, when Judaism had not been influenced by Babylon, the Medes and Persians, the Greeks, the Romans. And I say the Greeks, much of the New Testament was actually written in Greek. If you don’t think that the influence of Alexander the Great in going through and conquering first in Persia, and then second he came through Syria, and then next he went down to Egypt. And they made Alexander a Pharaoh in Egypt. If you don’t think that the influence of these predecessor cultures wasn’t persistent in the land at the time of Christ, then you’re oblivious to the fact that the New Testament was written in Greek because Greek was a predominant language.

So when Christ begins his planting He’s actually a restorer of an earlier religion. Instead of this being something altogether revolutionary and new, Christ was a restorer. He was an antiquarian. He was bringing back something which once had been. He was trying to get people to understand. See, the religion that Moses was trying to restore was originally significantly greater than the one that he wound up restoring because the people were unwilling to accept the earlier version so those things were broken, destroyed, discarded, and a new innovation was established through Moses the great law giver, who gave a law of lesser performances, observances, rites in order to point forward to something else that would be coming so that maybe when that something else, when it came, could explain to them what the law was intended to have them observe. The paschal lamb that occurs where the blood on the lentil on the door post saves you from the destroying angel is a type of Christ because Christ’s blood will save you from destruction. The rites involving the shedding of blood in the courtyard of either the tabernacle or later the temple was designed to be a propitiation, a form of paying the debt for sin. The wages of sin are death. Therefore, it’s necessary that death be demonstrated through the sacrifice of animals in order to have your mind pointed forward to some great sacrifice whose effect will be saving you from sin. In the courtyard of either the tabernacle or in the temple, when you sacrifice animals and you spill their blood by cutting the neck and letting the blood flow out, blood gets all over the ground; it gets tracked, it gets splashed, it gets upon you. And prophets use this analogy of blood and sins, and blood on your garments and shaking the blood off of your garments as an analogy that’s based upon the effect of performing the law of Moses, which itself is intended to point you to Christ. And Christ demonstrated, by His teachings and actions, that He fully understood that was what was happening, and that was who He was and what His role was. When Christ knelt to wash the feet of the disciples, one of the things that washing feet in that culture accomplished was cleansing the blood off the feet, that was tracked everywhere when you got near the courtyards of the temple, in order to show that they were unaccountable for sin. He was removing from them the guilt that the blood was intended to exhibit.

All of the sacrifices were intended to show that there was some great and final and last sacrifice that was intended to be offered. And Christ was that. The law of Moses pointed to a fellow. Jesus was that fellow. He came along to fulfill that. Now the people at the time predominantly rejected the idea that He was that great sacrifice. In fact, at the moment that the Savior was being tortured on the cross and in His last moments, He was being mocked, ridiculed, and invited to come down off the cross and save Himself so that they would believe. But had Christ succumbed to the temptation to come down off the cross so they would believe the effect of their belief would have been rendered null. It would have been void because it was necessary for the shedding of that blood. He had to die in order for Him to complete the journey, the circuit, the atonement, the propitiation for sin, the actual sacrifice to which everything else pointed, and therefore Christ had to die. He had to remain on the cross and He had to die. And the temptation to come down and do something demonstratively miraculous so that we could believe was an invitation to destroy the very object in which you were saying you wanted to have belief. He had to die and He did. 

But, unlike all those who had entered the grave from the time of Adam until that moment, Jesus Christ did not have sin and error that kept Him in the grave. Death could have no hold on him because the wages of sin is death and Christ had not committed the kinds of things that can hold you in the grave. Anyone who can get through this experience without succumbing to the sins of this world is equally entitled to come forth out of the grave because death can have no hold upon you. And so the Savior came back out of the grave. Once the Savior had forfeited life in order to suffer death while in a state that did not require Him to die, so that His death became unjust; what was taken from Him was eternal, it was everlasting. If He should never have died because He led a life that did not justify death, then His death was, by definition, an infinite and an eternal loss, and so His death compensated fully the law of justice that requires death. He died literally for all mankind. His death represents an eternal and an infinite sacrifice, which was the very point that the law of Moses was intended to point to because the people were unwilling to receive a restoration of the earlier religion. So Christ came and sacrificed, fulfilled the law of Moses. People didn’t necessarily accept or believe that the mission of the Savior was designed and did achieve the things that He was sent to achieve. And so God, using those legs of iron, achieved the end of the law of Moses externally by the siege of Jerusalem, the destruction of the temple so that, as Christ said, ‘Not one stone shall be left upon the other’ and the observances of the law of Moses ended in about 70 AD when they destroyed the temple at Jerusalem and the organized practice of the law of Moses inside a sanctuary / temple set up for that purpose ended a second time. And this time ended from that moment until today. It’s gone. It has not been returned.

When Christ’s missionaries, His messengers, went out to proselytize and bring people aboard the religion, for the most part people believed and taught Christianity as if it were the culmination of all things Jewish – the achievement, the crowning jewel achievement of everything that was intended to be achieved in religion; that Christianity was it. And yet, Jesus pointed forward to some future, still greater event, in which everything that had been around at the beginning would be fully restored, a time when there would be a refreshing or a restitution. A time when that kingdom He prayed would come so that God’s will could be done on earth like it’s done in Heaven, a time when that would come to pass. Christ spent some time prophesying about what the signs would be that would be immediately preceding His return. And while He talks about some more immediate prophecies about the destruction of Jerusalem and about the coming loss of the temple, the greater part of what He explained in that chapter of Matthew is about one single generation that would live at the time when He would return in glory. The prophets have pointed forward to that future event repeatedly. Prophets that existed in the Northern Kingdom spoke about it. Prophets, whose records we actually have preserved in the Southern Kingdom, also have spoken about it. And the prophecy that Daniel interpreted in the dream of Nebuchadnezzar points to it, in which something will happen likened to a stone being cut out of a mountain, which will roll down and grow and fill the earth and grind into pieces this false religious, economic, cultural construct that still prevails on the earth today. And so Christ made an initial effort at restoring something that was far more ancient and that has yet to be fully achieved.

So Christians and Christianity fail to contextualize either Christ or His teachings when they look at Christianity as if it were an end in itself. It was a step in a process. And the ministry of the Savior was essential to the salvation of all mankind. But God’s work has not yet been fully revealed. And God’s religion has never been fully restored.

The post 4th Address to Christians appeared first on Restoration Archives Blog.

The following remarks were shared at the Remembering the Covenants Conference held in Centerville, Utah on August 4, 2018.

Transcript

I actually prepared a talk and a PowerPoint and I brought my computer. I’ll put it up on my website and you can read it there. I’m just going to talk for a few moments. 

I’ve been struck by the content of what’s been talked about today. I don’t know how many here are descendants of Joseph Smith, Sr. or any of the children in that family, sons and daughters, but I appreciate very much the opportunity to address any who belong to that family. There was another great-great (I don’t know how many generations and how many greats ought to go to it) grandson of Hyrum born today. I got a couple of pictures of him sent to me. He apparently doesn’t like his picture being taken and he was making quite a face. The family expands. But as one of the Jewish leaders confronting Christ complained about and Christ responded, God is able to raise up seed anywhere, to Abraham and to the restoration. The work of God cannot be frustrated by anything that has, is, or will take place. 

When Joseph Smith organized an institutional form for the restoration, that institutional form gives the opportunity for utterly compromising the restoration itself merely by corrupting the head. If you have all of the authority within the institution concentrated into the hands of a single individual then all that is required is that that single individual become evil, become corrupt, become self-serving, become ambitious, become someone who fails to retain the connection to heaven necessary in order to move things forward – hence the limitation that was put by Joseph in the letter from Liberty Jail on priesthood authority. When people desire to exercise control or compulsion, or exercise and obtain their ambitions, then they are odds with what heaven is trying to do. 

The trick of the magician – if you’ve ever watched Penn and Teller, they try to figure out the magician’s trick – is to have something going on that distracts you while something else is taking place so that the focus is always upon what the magician is trying to get you to notice rather than what is happening under the control of the magician. The way in which the restoration has unfolded since the death of Joseph and Hyrum, or more correctly the death of Hyrum and Joseph, has been rather like the magician’s trick. Much of what those people who claim they understand and they can espouse to you their exegesis of scripture, their analysis of what the scriptures really mean, and their more obscure passages mean, are really like the magician’s trick in getting you to focus on one thing while something else is really taking place. 

God can fulfil the way in which he prophesied that the restoration will unfold in any manner but as soon as you think you’ve got some place to go that can be corrupted, the ambitions in this world are such that corruption most surely follows. 

I don’t lead anyone, and in my core I don’t want to lead anyone. In my core. It is abhorrent to me to think that I have the right to preside over another soul. I want souls free. I want them to stand on their own. I want to encourage others. I want to raise them up, if possible to raise them up above myself but I want control over no man. 

When you find those with ambition, even if they start out on a good path, the thing that the powers of this world desire above all else is to get a good person for a good reason trying to achieve a good result to resort to compulsion in order to achieve it. In that very same breath in which Joseph Smith said, “You don’t know me, you never knew my heart, no man knows my history,” (King Follett discourse 1844) in that same breath he says his voice has always been for good to every man. 

He raised an army and he marched to Missouri to liberate the saints that had been expelled and when they got there they were disbanded; they were disbanded without any violence. He had the city of Far West ready when it was under siege and he had them surrender their arms. He raised the Nauvoo Legion. At the moment that he went back to have them surrender their arms the Nauvoo Legion was a more powerful military force than the United States Army, and Joseph Smith disarmed them. He’s been accused of wanting ambitious control, of being another Mohammed, of being a variety of things but Joseph Smith’s heart would lay down a life, his own life, in order to protect his friends. He’s been falsely accused of many things. He’s been given attributes that he didn’t have. 

In the description that was given here today it was mentioned that Joseph turned everything over to Hyrum. Does a megalomaniac who wants to have control over others, does a megalomaniac turn the control of the church over to someone else, his brother? Joseph Smith’s heart is not what people say it was or is. He was a kindly man and he sought to do good, but he didn’t finish the work of the restoration. 

In July of 1840 Joseph Smith gave a talk in which he was encouraging the people that believed in the revelations that had come through him to build a temple. A temple needed to be built and he made a comment that if the temple could get built and he could see it finished from its top to its completion, if he could see that work completed, then he would gladly go in peace and let his life end, if he could just accomplish that work. This was in July 1840, In January of 1841 came the revelation commanding that the temple be built. Together with a statement at the beginning of the January 1841 revelation saying, Joseph, your petition and your offering is acceptable to me and I will allow them to build a temple, and it can be built on that spot, and you’ll have sufficient time to do that. But at the end of the sufficient time, then instead of blessings there will be an outpouring of cursings upon the people. And in three-and-a-half years the temple had not been completed to the second floor, and the time went out, sufficient time expired, the lives of Joseph and Hyrum were forfeit, and instead of blessings there were cursings. Well, why did Joseph, in July 1840, without a commandment from God that he knew was going to come, why did Joseph encourage the saints at that point to begin building a temple to God? Why did the commandment have to be given in January of 1841 for the temple to be built? And why were the lives of Joseph and Hyrum forfeited three-and-a-half years later when the work was still incomplete? 

There were accusations about the temple committee stealing money from the temple fund. There were complaints from the mission up in Wisconsin, floating wood down the Mississippi to Nauvoo for construction of the temple, that the wood was being diverted to construct houses for the leading members in Nauvoo, and houses did get built. In fact, the Nauvoo restoration has been a testament, a testimony, to how the community diverted the effort that God commanded be spent on constructing the temple into constructing the community, and so their lives were taken. 

Joseph did have a covenant and Hyrum did have a covenant, but the manner in which that covenant was to be disseminated Joseph understood required that the House of God be built, because some things do not get put outside of God’s house. 

We were told in a get-together in Boise, Idaho that God’s people are always required to build a temple. It will serve exactly the same purpose that was intended, at the beginning of the restoration, to have been accomplished while Joseph and Hyrum were alive. To this point we do not yet have a commandment to do so but we know it is coming and we know its purpose is exactly the same. Joseph could have accomplished a great deal more. Hyrum and Joseph together could have completed the process of the restoration. It is still a great undone work. 

At about the same time that Joseph gave that talk there were two letters, one written on July 25, the second one written on July 27, both of them from John C. Bennett who was the quartermaster of the militia in the state of Illinois. The first one saying he was coming to Nauvoo and that he wanted to be there with Joseph’s people. The second one said he not only wanted to come but he wanted to join, to become part of Joseph’s people. And both letters end with John C. Bennett, who had become the mayor of Nauvoo, saying, “Reply to this letter immediately!” Reply to this letter immediately, because John Bennett was a hasty man and an ambitious man and a corrupt man. 

And when it comes to the construction of Zion God has said in revelation it cannot be done in haste because haste brings pestilence. And what is pestilential is not just bugs and rodents, it is confusion. We have a season of peace and we have a season of prosperity, and we have an opportunity in which we might be able to accomplish something with nothing more than the same thing that Joseph Smith was talking about in July of 1840. But when a command is given and sufficient time is accorded and the clock begins to run, then the tendency is to move quickly, like John Bennett. Everything is in a hurry. When you have a season of peace upon you and an opportunity to reflect upon what went wrong with the restoration at the beginning, and we have again the opportunity established by the word of the Lord that was read to and accepted by, for the first time in the restoration, a Covenant to accept the obligations that were devolving upon us in the restoration, and we have an opportunity to prepare and to do something. We delay, we hesitate, and we squander the opportunity, ultimately at our peril. 

I don’t care how much you think you know about what God is up to, I guarantee you that unless God has shown it to you plainly as He has done to Joseph at the beginning, you’re not going to figure out what God is up to. There’s a reason for that. If you could figure out what God is going to do and where and when and how, then the adversary could prevent that work from being accomplished. It is precisely because God keeps his secrets and entrusts them carefully and guardedly that the work of God cannot be frustrated and the covenants will be fulfilled, and the prophecies will be vindicated, and what was offered through Joseph will, in fact, be accomplished. 

We have an opportunity, if we will avail ourselves of it, at a time of peace and prosperity, to do something to prepare in order to have that day come upon us with adequate preparation having been made in advance. 

Because the institution could be corrupted and because the institution began to inflate its role. You see, at the beginning the institution was the creature of the authority of the prophet. It did not own and control the prophet, but it was subordinate to that man who could declare what the mind of God was to them. Over time the institution arrogated, that is, in its arrogance assumed that it could control even the right to declare the mind of God. And so the institution puts people in a role to sit in the temple of God as if they were God, to declare to the people what things ought or needed to be done, and has amassed at this point billions of dollars in wealth with no Zion, hundreds of billions of dollars in property, with no ability to reconnect anyone through Covenants to the Fathers to anyone other than the dead who reside in hell looking for redemption from the grave. That was not the plan at the beginning. That was not the objective of the restoration. Billions of dollars have been accumulated in the pursuit of the damnation of the souls of men, damnation meaning hedging up the way so that they cannot progress. Billions of dollars! 

And where is the restoration precisely? How much closer are we now to having the covenants fulfilled, the rights vindicated, the opportunity to enter into sacred space where heaven and earth and the afterlife commune together in the process of redeeming the earth itself? There will be two of these locations on the earth before the Lord returns. One will be called Zion and one will be at Jerusalem. And in the Covenant things were set in motion that will vindicate those promises. Not all of what is happening to do that can be known publicly. It’s not necessary that it be known but there are things taking place, no matter how diminutive it may seem. God will vindicate His words. 

When Joseph Smith said, “You don’t know me, you never knew me, you never knew my heart,” he was lamenting the fact that it’s impossible, it’s impossible to know what it was that Joseph was tasked to accomplish unless you know what it was that God showed him and tasked him to accomplish. All of the biographers, all of the people that write their commentaries, all of the friends, all of the foes, everyone that has written, from Jan Shipps to Philastus Hurlbut to D. Michael Quinn, all of them fail to occupy the space that uniquely identified who and what Joseph Smith was. Joseph Smith stood in a position in which heaven was open and the future of the world was unfolded. And a task had to be done and a job was given to him. And at times Joseph was so overwhelmed by the enormity of the task to be performed that he couldn’t find words to describe it. 

Harold Bloom, the Humanities professor at Yale University, gives a great deal of credit to Joseph Smith, calling him a hermeticist and a modern cabalist. He’s grasping a little something of what was going on. The hermetic tradition, the cabalist tradition, that’s trying to search into the hidden mysteries that the world is unworthy to receive. Joseph Smith was tasked with the responsibility to take all of that, to embody it into something that would reconnect heaven and earth, and it required a temple in order for him to accomplish that work. He gave his life and his brother forfeited his life in an effort to support that very end. He died for the benefit of the restoration. He died for the benefit of the heirs of the restoration. He died for our benefit. It’s of some terrible significance that the last in the line who held the office of Patriarch in the LDS Church was made emeritus and allowed to die and the office die with it, because it stands as a hallmark in the rejection of the restoration itself by the institution. 

Don’t be reading into it what I’m saying that I dislike or condemn the LDS Church. The LDS Church just is. It’s like the Community of Christ; it’s like the Remnant Church. There are a lot of good people that belong to these various institutions who are very trusting of what the institutions are doing. The leaders of these institutions I’m fairly certain don’t intend to do evil but the result is evil, and all of the good intentions notwithstanding. Where, where is the fulfilment of the promise? Amassing wealth and waiting is not going to achieve any good end. Repentance, baptism, and finding yourself accountable directly to God, that’s where the work of the restoration is going to continue. As far as the scriptures inform us, the only thing that Enoch claimed for himself was the role of being a teacher. Melchizedek was given the praise of being called a King and a Priest, new name given to him, but his role was that of a preacher of righteousness. 

There’s this episode of The Simpsons where Bart has made a long-distance collect phone call to Australia and inflicted some family in Australia with a huge long-distance phone bill. The guy in Australia calls Homer to complain about his phone bill and Bart was laughing at him. The Aussie says, “Oh yeah? I’m going to complain to the prime minister!” and he hangs the phone up, opens up the window and yells out to this pond where there’s a guy on an inner tube. He yells, “Prime minister!” And the prime minister responds because that’s the way The Simpsons mock the government of Australia. 

The fact of the matter is that King Benjamin, in his description of how he’d served his people, described his service exactly like The Simpsons portray the prime minister of Australia. King Benjamin, who took no money for his support. King Benjamin, who labored by his own hand for his own support so he wouldn’t be a burden on his people. King Benjamin, who took up the sword in defense of his people and put his life in jeopardy for the protection of his people. King Benjamin, the commoner. King Benjamin, the servant. King Benjamin, who mirrored our Lord. Some claim to have great priestly authority, and it all derives from the carpenter, laborer, foot washer who said, 

“My kingdom is not of this world.” [John 18:36]

We’re not going to arrive where we need to arrive if we perceive ourselves as unequal, if we think of ourselves as greater and lesser, if we don’t think of ourselves as simply common servants, inadequate as we may be, to a Lord who loved and sacrificed Himself for our redemption. He is worthy. We can do our best and we can make a lot of mistakes along the way. Joseph did his best and it just didn’t work out. But what would have happened if the people, in July of 1840 when no commandment had yet been given, rose up and with alacrity decided that they were going to labor for the accomplishment of the task that Joseph was telling them was coming? What would have happened had the money raised and donated for the temple not been diverted by the temple committee to their own purposes? What would have happened if the lumber sent down from the Wisconsin mission been used for the construction of the temple rather than being diverted for the homes of the leading citizens? What would have happened if instead of God requiring yanking on the reins to pull the bit in the mouth of the horse of the restoration, what would have happened if all that was needed was for the reins to be lightly put on the neck of the horse of the restoration, to guide it where it needed to go? Horses are so sensitive that when a fly lands on their skin, they can twitch to remove it. The people of the restoration are nowhere near as sensitive to what God would have them do, then or now, as is a horse. 

Well, I want to end on time. I’ll publish the talk that I prepared. It will be on my website. 

It was a pretty good talk, but you can read it for yourself.  

I thought if I was going to add anything to what was said previously today that I really needed to say this: Joseph was not understood, and Joseph probably can’t be understood unless you have that same space to occupy with the same challenge. Given the opportunity to accomplish what the work of the Restoration is intended to result in, I would hope that we would cease from our jealousies and our ambition, our contention, our desire for one-upmanship, our desire to prove our individual greatness – and realize that none of us are ever going to be very good servants. But we’re supposed to be serving the perfect Master, and if we’ll serve him faithfully instead of our own agenda, he can lead us home.

He will lead some few home. But I hope it’s not with the same sort of miserable, inadequate, self-serving distractions that had to be overcome at the beginning. I hope we can take it a bit more seriously and be a bit more sensitive when the Lord is encouraging us in a way, rather than requiring that He command and demand us to go in a way. Commandments are often the things that produce condemnation. Encouragement and invitation is almost always the thing that produces blessing. I hope there will one day be a blessed people.

In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

The post Remembering the Covenants appeared first on Restoration Archives Blog.

This lecture was presented at the Sunstone Symposium in Sandy, Utah on July 28, 2018.

Transcript

Paper

Terry Turner: The title of this session today is The Restoration’s Shattered Promises and Great Hopes. Welcome to the closing session for Saturday. Following this session there will be a linger longer picnic with music by the Angela Soffe Band. Following the music there will be an evening of storytelling with Robert Kirby, Gina Colton, and Courtney Clark Kendrick. Tickets are limited but available for purchase at the registration desk. This session is being recorded and you will be able to purchase it after the presentation ends at the registration desk on the main floor. Please silence your cell phones and be respectful. As you leave us tonight we want to thank you all for coming and being part of Sunstone. You have now participated in a tradition of Mormon history that is over 40 years old. Mormonism can be what we make it and your participation helps us make Mormonism a little more diverse, listening, and inclusive. Regardless of your relationship with the Restoration we claim you as an important part of this community. You are wanted. Your voice is needed. You claiming the identity in your own way is an act of resistance against hate, division, and intolerance. Thank you for having the courage to show up and for engaging at Sunstone. Please support Sunstone by making a donation, subscribing to the magazine, by attending our regional conference. You are invited to attend our next regional conference in Glasgow, Scotland on September 1. Register at Sunstone.org. This session is 90 minutes long and we ask you, both the audience and presenters, to keep within the framework so that folks can get out to dinner on time. 

About this presentation: This session presents a candid assessment of the trajectory taken by the restoration during Joseph Smith’s lifetime and following his demise. The landscape of current restorationist factions will be considered. Our present disappointments will be considered against the background of hope to be found in the blueprint of the future presented in the Book of Mormon and by Joseph Smith’s teachings. This was going to originally be my role. My name is Terry Turner. I am here today to introduce the next presenter, the only presenter apparently, Denver Snuffer. I have known Denver for 41 years. We met on the first day of law school at BYU in 1977. Denver and I formed a study group during our first year of law school and we forged a lifelong friendship, and I began to develop an appreciation for his intellect and his irreverent sense of humor. On one occasion we were both at a brown bag luncheon in the Moot courtroom at the law school with LaVell Edwards, the legendary BYU football coach, and he was going to speak. I was called on to say the opening prayer. As I walked down the aisle, Denver shouted from the back of the room, “Give ‘em hell, Terry!” I was so discombobulated by his encouragement that I lost my train of thought completely and proceeded to give about an eight minute rambling prayer. In law school it was drilled into us to think like a lawyer, that was the famous phrase. We developed skills that included analysis, skepticism, and reason, and I knew that Denver had many of these qualities innately but as a friend I’ve watched him over the years hone these qualities and concepts in his professional and religious life. 

Denver converted to the LDS Church in 1973 while in the Air Force in New Hampshire. He was invited to a friend’s home to take the first discussion and showed up with a six-pack of beer as refreshments. Once converted, I watched him as he dedicated himself to a lifetime of rigorous analysis of the scriptures. He has written 13 books beginning with The Second Comforter: Conversing with the Lord through the Veil in 2006 and ending with A Man Without Doubt in 2016. He has written extensively on his website and blog space. For several years he also taught Institute classes at the University of Utah Law School and at BYU Education Week. I do not know another person on this planet who has scrutinized the Joseph Smith papers in more detail than Denver Snuffer. His unwillingness to cease publication of his 2011 work, Passing the Heavenly Gift – and only for that reason – was he excommunicated in 2013 from the LDS Church. With no intention of starting his own new religion or becoming a prophet, Denver’s lectures and writings have inspired the formation of many fellowships around the world, groups of like thinkers who have come together, thinking on several of the subjects regarding the restorations of Christ’s church through Joseph Smith. Many of these writings have been canonized into scripture by attendees of conferences around the world. In 2017 Mormon Wikileaks revealed a chart that was shown in 1015 to the LDS Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. On that chart, Denver was assigned a bubble that identified him as one of 17 “issues and ideas leading people away” from mainstream LDS doctrine. At lunch a few days later Denver asked me to be sure and tell John Dehlin, who is another good friend of mine, that Denver’s bubble on the chart was bigger than John’s, and that size does matter. I have always found Denver to be a seeker of truth, a good friend. I give you Denver Snuffer. 

Denver Snuffer: (I don’t want to hold the microphone. I feel like a lounge singer if I’m holding it.) 

This year’s Symposium addresses the theme: “Threads in the Mormon Tapestry.” In June, I participated in a conference at Boise, Idaho that invited various religious groups claiming Joseph Smith as their founder to meet and share ideas. That conference was the first Joseph Smith Restoration Conference, which is hoped to become an annual event. The theme of that conference was, “What Unites Us is Greater Than What Divides Us.” 

Both last month’s Boise conference and this month’s Symposium, reflect an undisputable fact about the restoration through Joseph Smith: It is fractured into over an hundred parts. All claiming Joseph Smith as their founder, these factions disagree with one another so strongly that they refuse to fellowship with one another. Last month’s Boise conference was an attempt to replace division with dialogue. The two largest bodies refused to accept an invitation to send representatives to speak at that conference but several others were represented. Perhaps the history of the two largest bodies accounts for their reluctance to participate.

The largest Mormon group is the one headquartered in Salt Lake City and controlled by the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But there is only one person who actually belongs to that corporation sole. Yet he claims to lead some 16 million followers at present, of which about 4 million are nominally active enough to self-identify as Latter-day Saints. I refer to this group of Mormons as “Latter-day Saints” in keeping with the directive from one of their presidents, Gordon B. Hinckley, who pronounced that members of that group cease to refer to themselves as “Mormons.” 

The Salt Lake City-based church has been the most fecund restorationist mother. Following her abandonment of plural wives, she gave birth to numerous fundamentalist organizations. Her progeny include: 

The Council of Friends: an early polygamist group founded by Lorin C. Wooley in 1920. It in turn gave birth to numerous other polygamist offspring. 

The Apostolic United Brethren, splintered from the Council of Friends, but like them, claims its founding reckons from 1886 with authority given by John Taylor. It has an estimated 9,000 members. 

The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, founded by Leroy S. Johnson in 1954 also claims its authority came from the 1886 John Taylor incident. It is progeny from the Council of Friends. It has an estimated 6,000 members. 

The Latter-day Church of Christ (Kingston Clan) incorporated as a church in 1978 by Ortell Kingston, and has roots that go back to 1926 with Charles Kingston. It has an estimated 1,200 members. 

The Church of Jesus Christ (Original Doctrine), Inc., is a daughter of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and great-granddaughter of Brigham Young’s Salt Lake organization. It split from its mother because Bishop Winston thought Warren Jeffs was too dictatorial, and led 700 people away from that group. This organization has about 1,000 members today and is also referred to as the Blackmore Group. 

There is no accurate count of all the daughters, granddaughters and great-granddaughters that have come from splits from the Salt Lake City mother-church. The overwhelming cause of these departures has been the abandonment of plural wives. When the corporation sole chose property over principle, some believed the principle more important than fidelity to their mother. The daughters want both principle and property, but as Warren Jeffs’ Fundamentalist Church has learned by sad experience, Federal Courts can still appoint receivers over sexually deviant religious cults that trade women like possessions.

The second largest church is headquartered in Independence, Missouri and is now called the Community of Christ. It claims to have 250,000 members. There was a time when the landscape of the restoration had the Brighamites in Utah and Josephites in Missouri, both claiming they were the authorized successor to Joseph Smith. Brighamites – because Brigham Young eventually claimed the right to succeed Joseph as leader. Josephites – because Joseph Smith III was the direct lineal descendant of the slain founder.

Like its larger sister, the Community of Christ also has produced unwanted daughters. One new daughter from the Community of Christ is The Restoration Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It is also headquartered in Independence, and split from the Community of Christ in 1991. They were disaffected by the decision to ordain women and adopt other innovations. Those who have departed the Community of Christ for the Restoration Church have other reasons for their changed alliance. During the Boise Conference, a Restoration Church leader lamented the Community of Christ’s change in attitude toward the Book of Mormon as one of his main reasons for changing his membership to the Restoration Church. 

In 2001, a year following the name change from RLDS to Community of Christ, church president W. Grant McMurray admitted doubts about the Book of Mormon as sacred scripture, declaring: “The proper use of the Book of Mormon as sacred scripture has been under wide discussion in the 1970s and beyond, in part because of long-standing questions about its historicity and in part because of perceived theological inadequacies, including matters of race and ethnicity.” Then during the 2007 Community of Christ World Conference, church president Stephen M. Veazey ruled it out of order to consider a resolution to “reaffirm the Book of Mormon as a divinely inspired record.” In so doing he stated “while the Church affirms the Book of Mormon as scripture and makes it available for study and use in various languages, we do not attempt to mandate the degree of belief or use. This position is in keeping with our longstanding tradition that belief in the Book of Mormon is not to be used as a test of fellowship or membership in the church.” 

Both of the largest two Mormon divisions have experienced significant splintering. They may have good reason to fear dialogue between these divisions. As part of encouraging dialogue, this talk will deal with two issues. Both have been used to attack and criticize Joseph Smith. If you are conversant with historical or theological Mormon material you may have seen or heard of these subjects, but some of the branches of Mormonism may not have provided any information related to these subjects. The first, and more important topic is Joseph’s ascent theology, encouraging man to seek reunion and at-one-ment with God and Christ in the heavens. The second defends Joseph against the accusation that he advocated and practiced the heresy of polygamy.  

The institutions claiming to be an authentic version of what Joseph Smith founded have failed to produce the results Joseph foretold. This failure is due, in large measure, because Joseph’s teachings have been abandoned or contradicted. There is still a great deal left undone.  

Joseph told us to expect great events among the gentiles, Native Americans and remnant of Jewish people before Christ’s victorious return. He did not live to see this happen. Upon his death, he left a great deal for others to complete. 

Assuming the work Joseph began is to be finished, it will not happen by heaven laboring independent of us. We have work to do. At the conference in Boise, speaker James McKay from the Restoration Church in Missouri observed, there was still no holy city and no gathering of Israel. He posed the question: “whose fault is that; God’s or ours?” The answer, according to the Book of Mormon, is that we must do the work, while God, as Master of the Vineyard, labors alongside us. But fault lies with us. God has been willing to do His part of the labor from Joseph Smith’s day until now. God directs the work, and in this way “labors alongside” us. We must resist the temptation to insert our own agenda for God’s. If we fail to grasp that the direction must come from heaven rather than as part of an agenda created by uninspired corporate planners, imaginative and even well intended individuals, then we risk working at odds with heaven. God’s kingdom is a kingdom in every sense of the word, and the King is entitled to direct all of its affairs.  

Today, we see all of the quarreling restoration mothers, daughters and siblings accusing the others of apostasy and preaching falsely. If you are trying to find a “true” version of what Joseph Smith founded from the quarreling contenders of today, you face the same query Joseph posed at the beginning: “Who of all these parties are right? Or are they all wrong together? And if any one of them be right, which is it? And how shall I know it?”

Sadly, it seems now as the Lord said to Isaiah: “the daughters of Zion are haughty and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes.” These daughters lust after women, and property, power, authority, and make merchandise of the souls of men.

I was a one-time member of the largest branch, but as some of you know, was excommunicated over the demand I retract things I had written about their history. The resulting independence has allowed me to pursue a more unfettered search into Mormon origins, miscarriages, and missteps. Latter-day history has been so radically revised by revelations in the recent records released that anyone reading is left reeling. LDS history written before 1980 is antiquated. And we never had the more complete panoply of Brigham Young’s conjectures, rants, and vulgarities until 2009.

The vast expansion of available and reliable historical materials for those interested has increased the schism rate for all the restorationist groups. There is a lot more kicking and pricking afoot, but it is increasingly more difficult to distinguish between kicks and pricks. The tapestry expands as more threads arrive. 

But Mormonism’s tapestry is not limited to the committed or devout. It now includes hundreds of thousands, perhaps more, disaffected former-Mormons who remain unable to fully depart. Mormonism exerts a religious gravitational pull almost impossible to fully escape. It remains with all of us, whether you are active in one of the two mother churches or one of their progeny. Mormon denominational splintering continues unabated.  

Sunstone attracts believers and disbelievers, the disaffected, the orthodox and the apostate. Why does Mormonism exert that pull? 

The religion Joseph Smith ignited echoes with the wonder and appeal of God doing among us what He once did long ago with the people in the Bible. The restoration suggests that the long, awaited moment of Christ’s return is at last approaching. Therefore we either hope this to be true or need it to be exposed as a fraud. Either way, our fears or hopes are emphatic. 

Accordingly, we all must decide what to make of Joseph Smith. All our fear, wonder and hope rests on resolving what to make of the life of Joseph:

This frames the dichotomy in the legacy of that man: 

-With hope in his authenticity, we see him as God’s messenger. 

-With doubts about him, we see him as a charlatan. 

Those polar opposites are inherent in his life and were foretold at the beginning and reconfirmed toward the end of his life. 

The angel who appeared to Joseph in September 1823 said: “He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me and that his name was Nephi, 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.” 

 My mother taught me to hold Joseph for evil. I’ve studied his life carefully, read what his critics and admirers have claimed for and about him. I’ve tried not to be hasty in reaching a conclusion. After four-and-a-half decades I have decided to hold Joseph for good. I’m all in. To me he is the real thing: a messenger sent from God to deliver a message that we reject at our peril and accept for our blessing. He had a great soul that searched, stretched, believed, hoped, fought fiercely, defied pain and persecution, and bore the hallmarks we should expect from a prophet messenger from God. He was a brilliant light: rough cut, homespun, and rustic. But he was also ablaze with insight, keen and penetrating, able to capture with a phrase a glimpse of the infinite.    

At the beginning, Joseph Smith’s restored religion included noble, thrilling and aspirational words, worthy enough for them to belong to God. If you divorce these words from an opinion of Joseph, and allow them to be independent ideas, they are worthy of meditation. Joseph Smith left religious writings and sermons that are the equal of the New Testament. They are the equivalent to the Vedas. They are as worthy as the Tibetan Book of the Dead.14 They stand alongside the Tao Te Ching. But they trace their origin to Joseph Smith, and therein lies the rub. 

I was raised among those who had Joseph’s name for evil. Baptists regard Joseph as a deceiver, liar and imposter. They find the English vocabulary has an insufficient supply of caustic adjectives to heap enough scorn on him. To paraphrase Billy Beane’s description of his Oakland A’s: There are bad men; and there’s devils. Then there’s 50 feet of crap. And then there’s Joseph Smith. 

When Mormon missionaries began pestering me in New Hampshire, I was amused at their sincerity and could not take seriously anything they offered. To me, they defended a false cult founded by a charlatan. I experienced an internal conflict between my mother’s credo to be polite to others and her instruction that Joseph Smith was a fraud. Without resolving that conflict, I listened politely while pondering profanity.  

Having nothing better to do one weekend, I went with the Mormons to a camp out in Sharon, Vermont, the birthplace of Joseph Smith. There I obtained a copy of the Doctrine & Covenants from the visitor’s center. Steve Klaproth, himself a convert, showed me Section 76. Reading it was the first time I took seriously anything that came from Joseph. The words gripped me. They inspired my mind to deep reflection. They had value. It shattered the paradigm and left me unable to trust a dismissive view for Joseph. He required evaluation. Joseph’s words inspired my investigation of the restoration. 

In Joseph Smith’s History there is a passage that still appeals to my heart and mind. He wrote, “During the space of time which intervened between the time I had the vision and the year eighteen hundred and twenty-three, (having been forbidden to join any of the religious sects of the day, and being of very tender years, and persecuted by those who ought to have been my friends and to have treated me kindly — and if they supposed me to be deluded, to have endeavored in a proper and affectionate manner to have reclaimed me)…” That is still going on. Joseph is still being posthumously persecuted.  

Persecution is what happens when an idea cannot be opposed on its merit. Persecution is the product of fear typically experienced by those lacking knowledge. There are two great competing forces in the whole of creation: Love and fear. I think God’s love for us is exemplified in Him speaking to Joseph Smith. And I am grateful for how that has enriched my life. 

Here are some of the great thoughts God inspired and Joseph Smith conveyed to us:

It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God. Nevertheless, they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart, only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him. And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word. And he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until they know them in full. And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries;

This is one of the great and succinct declarations about coming to know God. Finding Them is deeply personal. We come to God by giving “heed and diligence” to what God asks of us. I cannot do that for you, nor can you do it for me. It is the sojourn of every individual. 

The path requires motion. We remain in motion all the time. There is no stasis, no holding a position. We advance (that is, experience restoration) or we recede (that is, experience apostasy). There is no avoiding movement.  

The mysteries of God are His hidden but simple truths. They set a man’s bones on fire. 

To pay heed to God requires that we not harden our hearts. When we have hard hearts we know less. Even what we once knew can be lost. Eventually, we know nothing of God’s mysteries and we are left alone, without God in the world.

Another similar inspired thought: 

Woe be unto him that crieth, All is well. Yea, woe be unto him that hearkeneth unto the precepts of men and denieth the power of God and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Yea, woe be unto him that saith, We have received and we need no more. And in fine, woe unto all those who tremble and are angry because of the truth of God. For behold, he that is built upon the rock receiveth it with gladness, and he that is built upon a sandy foundation trembleth, lest he shall fall. Woe be unto him that shall say, We have received the word of God, and we need no more of the word of God for we have enough. (See NC 2 Ne. 12:5-6) 

All truth must come from God. The precepts of men are not only unreliable but they are corrupted by their source. God’s truths do not end. This thought, like the one before, reminds us that we must seek the constant nourishment of our minds and souls to be in God’s path. When God is silent, then you are cut off from truth. Those God can save are those who listen for His voice. No matter how unlikely the source from which God’s voice comes, if it is God’s word it is to be prized. Even when it comes from the Joseph Smith your mother warned you about. 

The hallmark reaction from those disinterested in what God is saying is their angry rejection and refusal to acknowledge more. When you are content – you perish. When you hunger and thirst – you live. Living organisms require constant additional nourishment. That’s how you know they are alive.

Then another profound declaration along the same line:  

And because that I have spoken one word, ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another, for my work is not yet finished, neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever. Wherefore, because that ye have a bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words, neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written. (NC 2 Ne. 12:10)

Last year I delivered a talk at the Sunstone Symposium titled Other Sheep Indeed. In it I invited others with sacred writings to come and bring them. That invitation was first offered by Joseph Smith in 1840. He anticipated a temple to be built in Nauvoo to which records would be brought from all over the world “bring every thing you can bring and build the house of God and we will have a tremendous City which shall reverberate afar… then comes all the ancient records dig them up… where the Saints g[ather] is Zion.” Not all of God’s words are in the Bible. God has spoken to every nation (meaning religious body of people). Truth is everywhere, among all people. If we love God and truth we will want to search for it. We will not be content to leave it unexplored and undiscovered. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after more righteousness. Blessed are those who are followers of righteousness, desiring to possess great knowledge, and to be greater followers of righteousness and to possess greater knowledge. And blessed are those who do not suppose the scriptures contain all God’s words and They (the Gods) have not provided more.  

One of the world’s greatest religious epistles was composed in Liberty Jail. It includes the following passage:

[T]he things of God are of deep import, and time, and experience, and careful and ponderous and solemn thoughts can only find them out. Your mind, O man, if you will lead a soul unto salvation, must stretch as high as the utmost Heavens, and search into and contemplate the lowest considerations of the darkest abyss, and expand upon the broad considerations of Eternal expanse. You must commune with God. How much more dignified and noble are the thoughts of God than the vain imagination of the human heart? None but fools will trifle with the souls of men. How vain and trifling have been our spirits, our conferences, our councils, our meetings, our private as well as public conversations: too low, too mean, too vulgar, too condescending for the dignified characters of the called and chosen of God, according to the purposes of his will from before the foundation of the world[.]

These words enlarge the soul. Only a great religion challenges us to stretch as high as the utmost heavens! Search into and contemplate the darkest abyss! An expansive religion that urges us to become godlike in our interest, in our search for truth! We are clearly directed to turn our attention to the heavens and learn how they function, what they are, and who is to be found there. This is a vast religion. It is not confined to the earthly, and certainly not under the control of any institution’s administrative regimentation or stifling controls. It cannot be what institutional Mormonism has become: 

“O God, God! 

How weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable 

Seem to me all the uses of [modern Mormonism]! 

Fie on ’t, ah fie! 

‘Tis an unweeded garden 

That grows to seed. 

Things rank and gross in nature 

Possess it merely. 

That it should come to this.”

The restoration is far too great to have been reduced to the vain, trifling, low, mean, vulgar, and condescending versions presented in today’s Mormon institutions. If we are going to hold a conference, it should aspire to stretch our minds upward! To make us reach beyond, and never remain content. This Sunstone Symposium deals with diverse, interesting thought, important issues and wonderful contrasts. God is being honored here. Churches should aspire to be as informative and thought-provoking. 

This search into the highest heaven is the search to find holiness. Joseph Smith wanted us to ascend, like the ancients, into that realm of light and truth. How can any of us be content to listen to the institutional fare? It is incapable of sustaining spiritual life. Joseph’s ideas and teachings are as far above those teachings of today as the heavens are above the earth. The restoration once sought to find what God declared as “His way” to Isaiah: “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.” How the restoration has fallen! It is little wonder so many now hold Mormonism in contempt. It has become unnecessarily contemptible when it ought to be inspiring.

The restoration’s delight has turned to dismay; its ingenuity turned to ineptitude. Silk has become burlap. How have we allowed it to become so? 

During confinement in Liberty Jail, Joseph reflected on the tragic and sudden disarray that priesthood leaders inflicted on the restoration. Whereas Joseph first envisioned an authoritative administration for the incipient faith, in Liberty Jail he stripped priesthood of all its right to exercise control and dominion. These inspired words not only undo Joseph’s initial investiture of priestly authority, it also rejects the long-established Roman Catholic decision to make priesthood non-forfeitable and independent of individual worthiness:

Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen, and why are they not chosen? Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson — that the rights of the Priesthood are inseparably connected with the Powers of Heaven, and that the Powers of Heaven cannot be controlled nor handled, only upon the principles of righteousness. That they may be conferred upon us, it is true, but when we undertake to cover our sins or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control, or dominion, or compulsion, upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the Heavens withdraw themselves, the Spirit of the Lord is grieved, and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the Priesthood or the authority of that man. Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself to kick against the pricks, to persecute the Saints, and to fight against God. We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. Hence many are called, but few are chosen. No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the Priesthood; only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned, by kindness and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul… (T&C 139:5-6)

Consider how these ideas affect religion. A calling to priesthood does not accomplish anything if the individual is not “chosen” by God. We can ordain men but heaven must ratify and elect that man. No one is permitted to function on God’s behalf without God’s personal imprimatur of approval. 

Priesthood is connected to heaven. Without a connection to heaven, there is no priesthood. The “powers of heaven” are, of course, the angels themselves. Priests must have angelic accompaniment to claim priesthood. And angels cannot be manipulated by the ambition, self-will, or worldly ambition of men.  

The called, but unchosen, use office and position to cover their sins or to gratify their pride and vain ambition. They are like the Jews who persecuted Christ, while sitting in the chief seats. Likewise, there is no priesthood in the possession of any man who exercises control, dominion, or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men in the current sects of Mormonism. Christ’s gentle example of kneeling to serve presents a neon-bright example of how priesthood is to be used. He came to serve, not to be served.

He taught, invited, bid others to repent, and clarified a better understanding of the scriptures for others. He did not demand support. He ministered light and truth for all who would listen. Any other kind of conduct antagonizes the heavens, which then withdraw themselves. The Spirit of the Lord is grieved, and when it is withdrawn, that’s an end to the Priesthood. 

Imagine how different things are when you know that there is no power or authority in the priesthood itself. But the power to influence others comes only by persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, love unfeigned, and by kindly presenting pure knowledge. Imagine that a teacher must greatly enlarge your soul to actually claim priesthood. How different would that be for you? You would be drawn to attend a meeting for what great light it could provide to you. You would no longer endure those meetings, conferences and conversations that are low, mean, vulgar and condescending; leave if they do, if you’re not edified and your soul is not enlightened. Religious classes and meetings that bore us are an obscenity. Discussions filled with a myriad of unenlightened personal opinion are the real pornography of today’s Mormonism.  

Joseph Smith revoked the right of priesthood to govern and replaced it with the priesthood’s obligation to teach and inspire. This ideal should still be central. We should all repent and forsake the false models of a controlling hierarchy. All the accretions of power, wealth, compulsion and dominion of the various Mormon sects should end this instant.  

Another statement from Joseph makes it clear the restoration was intended to reintroduce the original religion of the Bible, not the diluted “Christianity” of his day. The original faith, in the first dispensations, had more understanding than what we find preserved in the Bible. Joseph was searching back into these beginnings. His heart was “turned to the fathers” of the first generations. He wanted a return of their original as part of the end. It was to be nothing less. Consider this declaration: 

[H]as the day of miracles ceased? Or have angels ceased to appear unto the children of men? Or has he withheld the power of the Holy Ghost from them? Or will he so long as time shall last, or the Earth shall stand, or there shall be one man upon the face thereof to be saved? Behold, I say unto you, Nay. For it is by faith that miracles are wrought. And it is by faith that angels appear and minister unto men. Wherefore, if these things have ceased, woe be unto the children of men, for it is because of unbelief, and all is vain. For no man can be saved, according to the words of Christ, save they shall have faith in his name. Wherefore, if these things have ceased, then has faith ceased also, and awful is the state of man, for they are as though there had been no redemption made. (NC Moroni 7:7)

If the heavens open to us, we have faith. If the heavens are brass, we are faithless. Without faith, it is as if Christ provided us no redemption. These words are as inspiring as they are sobering.

At the conclusion of the vision of the three-heavens, Joseph wrote the following. It clarifies that we are supposed to access heaven, and see for ourselves the glory to be found there: 

But great and marvelous are the works of the Lord, and the mysteries of his Kingdom which he showed unto us, which surpasses all understanding, in glory, and in might, and in dominion, which he commanded us we should not write while we were yet in the Spirit, and are not lawful for men to utter, neither is man capable to make them known, for they are only to be seen and understood by the power of the Holy Spirit, which God bestows on those who love him and purify themselves before him, to whom he grants the privilege of seeing and knowing for themselves that through the power and manifestation of the Spirit, while in the flesh, they may be able to bear his presence in the world of glory. (T&C 69:29)

This privilege of seeing and knowing for ourselves is available to us “while in the flesh.” The restoration aimed to reconnect us to heaven in a literal way. This is the same that transpired with Enoch and others in earlier dispensations.

The Book of Mormon is filled with ascension lessons and examples. There is one verse that captures Joseph Smith’s ascent theology. That verse compresses it into a single sentence. It explains why the Book of Mormon contains the “fullness of the gospel.” And it’s perhaps Joseph’s most inspired declaration: 

Verily thus says the Lord: It shall come to pass that every soul who forsakes their sins, and comes unto me, and calls on my name, and obeys my Voice, and keeps all my commandments, shall see my face and know that I Am, and that I am the true light that lights every man who comes into the world[.] (T&C 93:1)

“Every soul” includes you and me. Every one of us has equal access to the Lord. The conditions are the same for all. Forsake sins; come to Christ; call on His name; obey His voice; keep his commandments. This is far more challenging than obedience to a handful of “thou shalt nots” because so much is required to be done, so much required to be known. A great deal of study and prayer is required to stand in the presence of the Lord. Once done, we shall see His face and know that He is the true light that enlightens everyone. He is the God of the whole world. 

Immediately after His resurrection, Christ did not minister to gentiles. But after the Book of Mormon came forth, gentiles are also eligible for Christ’s ministry in very deed: 

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[.] (NC 1Ne 3:25)

His promise to us is predicated on “hearkening” to the Lamb. Gentiles failed to do so, and upon Joseph’s death, a great dearth set upon the restoration. Until there is gentile repenting and returning, it will continue to unwind. Since June 27, 1844 we have a restoration slow moving car wreck. The pace of that decay is accelerating.  

We must rage against the fading of that light. “And seek the face of the Lord always, that in patience we may possess your souls, and have Eternal life.” 

Evidence of Christ is everywhere. Joseph used cosmological terms in a passage describing the importance of light coming from Christ and His Father:  

[H]e is in the sun and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made. …[H]e is in the moon and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made, as also the light of the stars and the power thereof by which they were made, and the earth also…

If you are alive, you are connected to Christ. If you detect the light of the sun, you detect a testimony of Christ. If you behold the moon moving in her cycles overhead, you behold a testimony of Christ.  

False traditions are as destructive for us as outright disobedience. The result is the same. The difference is that when we know we disobey we feel guilt. But false traditions fool us into thinking we’re obedient when we are merely misled. 

Joseph Smith also provided us with Christ’s personal explanation of what He endured in order to atone for our sins. It is a profound statement, more so than anything found in the Four Gospels about the suffering that Christ had:

There are hundreds of potential quotes that could be added to this paper. One final quote will end this part of the paper: 

[W]hen ye are in the service of your fellow beings, ye are only in the service of your God. (NC Mosiah 1:8)

This was how Christ lived His life. He showed forth the glory of God by serving and elevating others. We, too, can serve God by giving comfort to our fellow men and women. There is no end to the opportunities to help others. This life is abundant in opportunity to reflect God’s grace, kindness and help by service to others. If you act that part, you are in God’s service. Think Sub-for-Santa and consider joining Sub-for-God. It will add 364 days of opportunity. 

The angel who visited Joseph in 1823 said his name would be had for good and evil among all people. A similar message was repeated 16 years later in March 1839 when the voice of the Lord spoke to Joseph in Liberty Jail. God said to Joseph, “The ends of the earth shall inquire after your name, and fools shall have you in derision, and Hell shall rage against you, while the pure in heart, and the wise, and the noble, and the virtuous shall seek counsel, and authority, and blessings constantly from under your hand. And your people shall never be turned against you by the testimony of traitors, and although their influence shall cast you into trouble, and into bars and walls, you shall be had in honor.” Although these two are similar, there is a profound difference between the angel’s statement in 1823 and the voice of God in 1839. The angel only said people would speak good and evil of Joseph. But God added a description of those who would speak evil, and those who would speak good of Joseph. 

That voice of God said, “fools shall have [Joseph] in derision.” Because I accept this statement as God’s, I am led to conclude all who have spoken derisively of Joseph have done so foolishly. We ought to stop our foolishness. We need to end the derision of Joseph. 

God also condemned the “testimony of traitors” against Joseph. While alive, Joseph identified some of his contemporary traitors and named them: George Hinkle, John Corrill, Reed Peck, David Whitmer, W.W. Phelps, Sampson Avard, William McLellin, John Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, Thomas Marsh, and Orson Hyde. These had been prominent leaders, trusted friends, and one-time believers in Mormonism. It was false testimony by those from within the flock that led to imprisonment of Joseph and other leaders. 

The traitors of 1838 were joined by yet more traitors between 1842-44. In Missouri, Joseph was accused of treason and inciting violence. In 1842-44 Joseph’s traitors accused him of adultery, polygamy and lying. John C. Bennett was a sexual predator who claimed amidst his secret seductions that Joseph Smith authorized him to engage in his promiscuity.  

When his misconduct came to light, Bennett admitted Joseph authorized no such wickedness. He swore under oath, “that he never was taught any thing in the least contrary to the strictest principles of the Gospel, or of virtue, or of the laws of God, or man, under any circumstances, or upon any occasion either directly or indirectly, in word or deed, by Joseph Smith: and that he never knew the said Smith to countenance any improper conduct whatever, either in pubic or private; and that he never did teach me in private that an illegal illicit intercourse with the females was, under any circumstances, justifiable; and that I never knew him so to teach others.”

William Law was also involved in secret adultery, and Joseph Smith refused to seal Law’s marriage. A conspiracy of traitors in 1844 included William Law, Charles Ivins, Francis Higbee, Chauncey Higbee, Robert Foster and Charles Foster who published the Nauvoo Expositor accusing Joseph Smith of the very evil Joseph had been hunting down and eradicating through high council proceedings since the Bennett affair had become public two years earlier.  

Joseph was unequivocal in his opposition to adultery and plural wife taking. About the time Bennett’s misconduct was beginning to come to light, Joseph Smith organized the Female Relief Society to encourage moral and chaste conduct in Nauvoo. In addition to the steps he took privately to discipline those involved directly, he made many public declarations against plural wives and in favor of chastity and moral purity. These included, among many others:

“Inasmuch as the public mind has been unjustly abused through the fallacy of Dr. Bennett’s letters, we make an extract on the subject of marriage, showing the rule of the church on this important matter. The extract is from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and is the only rule allowed by the Church. ‘Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy; we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.’” 

That was published in the Times and Seasons. 

And then a letter that was also published in the Times and Seasons:

“As we have lately been credibly informed, that an Elder of the Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter-day Saints, by the name of Hiram Brown, has been preaching Polygamy, and other false and corrupt doctrines, in the county of Lapeer, state of Michigan. This is to notify him and the Church in general, that he has been cut off from the church, for his iniquity; and he is further notified to appear at the Special Conference, on the 6th of April next, to make answer to these charges.”

And then in a talk that he [Joseph Smith] gave:

“What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers.”

He also encouraged the Relief Society to adopt a declaration titled A Voice of Innocence. It was read publicly by W.W. Phelps on March 7, 1844, then edited by Emma Smith, adopted by the Relief Society, and published in the Nauvoo Neighbor on March 20, 1844.

Because of the testimony of traitors, Joseph Smith has been held in derision from 1842 to the present. He is accused of being a sexual predator, liar, and adulterer. Fools have repeated the accusations originally made by the confessed adulterer John C. Bennett, though Bennett testified under oath that Joseph was not responsible and never behaved in any improper way toward women. 

In the derision of Joseph today we now have a chorus that includes the LDS Church, which claims him as their founder. It comes from Brian Hales, who claims to be an accurate biographer. It comes from anti-Mormons, and Christian ministers, and fundamentalists who have created a caricature they claim to be Joseph. There is little difference between these people and William Law, Charles Ivins, Francis Higbee, Chauncey Higbee, Robert Foster and Charles Foster who published the Nauvoo Expositor. There is an immense chorus of fools holding Joseph in derision, even among those who claim to be devout followers of the faith he restored.  

I think the voice Joseph heard in Liberty Jail was God’s. If I am right, then God’s advice to the pure in heart, wise, noble and virtuous is to seek counsel, authority and blessing from Joseph. God’s advice leads me to adopt a view of Joseph that is consistent with nobility and virtue. I do not believe you can regard Joseph as a sexual predator, liar and adulterer without holding him in derision. The chief and unavoidable result of thinking of Joseph in those terms has been a legacy of excusing institutional lying, and promoting adulterous thoughts, and inappropriately entertaining the concept of women as mere breeding stock for the use of men.

It is not possible to harbor lustful, deceitful and adulterous thoughts in your heart and claim to be pure in heart. I do not believe you can conspire to commit bigamy and adultery and claim to be virtuous. I do not believe you can decide to trust the words of traitors and villains who contradict Joseph’s account of his marital fidelity to Emma and to claim to seek counsel from Joseph. In short, those who claim to accept the restoration, but believe Joseph was a sexual predator, do not qualify as noble, wise, virtuous or pure in thought. 

All the restorationist groups that descend from the Brighamites are religious polygamists. Whether they think it right to practice that abomination at present, or only think it a true part of their religion, they are polygamists. Their faith descends from a great whore, and her daughters are likewise whores. It is time for those involved to awaken to their awful situation and admit their mother is a whore.  

Joseph said and wrote a great deal publicly to condemn plural marriage. He said nothing in public to defend or justify it. We have an enormous record of Joseph opposing and condemning. We have no public declaration from Joseph Smith advocating or defending it. Clearly, he did not want to be known as its advocate. He wanted to be understood as a staunch opponent of it.  

It is important to realize the restoration was hijacked by polygamy and has never regained the momentum Joseph envisioned. That abomination has darkened men’s hearts and broken women’s hearts. It is used to justify looking upon women with lust in men’s hearts, contrary to the Lord’s command in the Sermon on the Mount.

I hold Joseph in some considerable esteem. On the lightning-rod issue of plural wives, I’ve decided the historical record does not convict Joseph of polygamy, lying, deception, sexual improprieties, or exploitation of women. If I thought of Joseph Smith as a man capable of such things, I would join his traitors in deriding him. I prefer to think him virtuous and noble. I think it is only possible for any person whose heart is pure, and who prizes virtue, wisdom and nobility to respect Joseph Smith by regarding him as pure, wise, noble and virtuous. To me, adultery, promiscuity and deceit are none of those things.  

I reject adultery by any name or description. It is morally wrong if you call it plural wives, polygamy, “celestial marriage” or any other misnomer. Adultery is prohibited in the Ten Commandments and remains an important prohibition for any moral society. 

Mormonism should never have been saddled with Brigham Young’s program of making adultery a sacrament. But Mormonism should not have been saddled with many institutional accretions. Between June 27, 1844 and today, there have been too many incorrect subtractions, and far too many uninspired additions. Mormonism today requires both dramatic subtractions and necessary additions. No-one seems willing to do that with the precision required to “Strive to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that need not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”

Brigham Young was not the only one who betrayed Joseph and caused his memory to be held in derision. David Whitmer betrayed Joseph in 1838, testified against him, and helped cause his Missouri imprisonment. Many years later, Whitmer’s testimony as a traitor and accuser was published in An Address to All Believers in Christ. Though he had been excommunicated in 1838 and never lived in Nauvoo, he accepted and echoed the Nauvoo Expositor’s claims about Joseph and polygamy.

Bastille posed the question in a song, Pompeii: “Where do we begin? The rubble or our sins?” I think it begins with our sins. They first have to be set aside through Christ. But afterwards we have a Mormon landscape filled with rubble, out of joint, out of level, out of plumb, collapsed or collapsing. Mormonism’s founding texts tells us this is as it should be for the present. We were never supposed to see Zion before the witnessed gentile failure and apostasy. 

Christ declared to the Nephites a warning to the gentiles:  

“And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you, 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 those things and shall reject the fullness of my gospel, Behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fullness of my gospel from among them.”

This is not phrased as a possibility but as an inevitability. It was never a question of “if” the gentiles would reject the fullness. It has always been only a matter of “when” it would take place. The various institutions quarrel over whether it has happened. Some of them deny it can or will happen. The soothing mantra “we will never lead you astray” defies the message Christ was commanded by the Father to declare to us. 

Joseph Smith has been held in derision for too long. Even those who claim to follow the commandments from God that came through him, deride his memory. This has gone on unchecked for far too long. The saints fell under condemnation in 1831 for taking lightly the Book of Mormon and former commandments given through Joseph Smith. Then eight years later were warned it was foolish to hold Joseph in derision. Reclaiming the restoration requires repentance. First, recovering and accepting the text of the Book of Mormon, and restoring the former commandments to what God originally spoke. That has been done by a small group of remnant believers. But second, we need to end the derision of Joseph and acknowledge that he was pure of heart, noble and virtuous, and to act accordingly. It is foolish to magnify his errors to justify our own. It’s wicked to attribute uncommitted sins to him to give ourselves a license to sin. Generations have been cursed for this error. We have been led astray. All of us in every branch of Mormonism err.  

We stumble, and we have fallen down. We have discarded the expansive theology of Joseph Smith. The earliest dispensations had truth from heaven as their guide. Joseph began re-assembling what was lost but was slain before it was completed. We are the offspring of heaven and are capable of reuniting with heaven while mortal. We also have the opportunity, through eons of progression, to become as our Parents, the Gods. 

Now is time to awaken, arise, and shake off the dust.

Some will awaken, arise, shake off the dust and push forward to recover the restoration. God will set His hand a second time to accomplish His covenants. We are promised there will be a last-days’ Zion established on this, the American continent. We know that when it is here:

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

The restoration has indeed squandered many opportunities by those who went before. Most of those who accept Joseph Smith as a founder of their religion are still squandering the opportunity to see the work continue. But God’s purposes do not fail and we have the option to proceed now. Some generation, at some point, still has a glorious, promised completion to anticipate. As long as some, even a very few, are willing to walk in God’s path, they will see the completion of this glorious, final work. “This is the purpose that is purposed upon the whole earth, and this is the hand that is stretched out upon all the nations. For the Lord of hosts has purposed, and who shall disannul? And his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?” 

Why not now? Why not us? All that is required is to repent and return. The promise we have in exchange for our returning to the path is the stuff all the prophets and righteous from the days of Adam have eagerly anticipated. 

~The End~

Q&A:

Terry: I can see you are already lining up. When you step up here we have 20 minutes until 6:30 and we’re going to end on time, just as we began on time. Go ahead. 

Question 1: Hello, Denver. I’m a third generation polygamist. I have three wives. I have daughters and I would say shame on you for calling them whores. 

Denver: I didn’t call them, I called the churches whores. I would say its adultery. I wouldn’t say it’s necessarily…

Question 1: …That’s not how I took it. So you are saying that they came from a whoredom act, that’s what you’re saying. 

Denver: I’m saying that all the restoration churches in the present condition are all whores, all the restoration churches. 

Question 1: That’s a nice spin around that. Here’s my question: Joseph Smith himself in 3 Nephi Chapter 2, right? Excuse me, Joseph of Egypt, is saying that he’s going to have a choice seed come from him, who is going to be a revelator, a prophet, a seer, correct? 

Denver: Yes.

Question 1: Now, did Joseph, if this is true, if Joseph of Egypt is saying that Joseph Smith Jr. is coming through his seed, is not Joseph Smith Jr. the product of polygamy? 

Denver: Joseph Smith Sr. and Jr. and their descendants came as a result of a marriage that Jacob intended to contract for Rachel. It was not Jacob’s choice to engage in a scene that reminds us of modern-day Las Vegas, and in the morning behold, it was Leah. He had contracted for Rachel. Given the nature of the wedding ceremony, how it’s conducted, the veiling of the face, the drinking that goes on, and the wedding night festivities, he woke up in the morning with the woman he did not intend to marry. 

Question 1: So you had said that he was cursed rather than blessed. 

Denver: He complained, and what he learned was the tradition among those people was it’s not meet that the younger sister should be married before the older sister and therefore the older sister had been given to him. It was a breach of the agreement that had been made in order to obtain his wife, Rachel. Upon learning of the breach, and learning of the custom among the people, he agreed to honor their custom and he agreed to work another seven years in order to get the wife that he wanted. But he was already married to Leah, and he had two wives. The woman he wanted, the one he wanted to honor…

Question 1: …That was Rachel…

Denver: …The woman that he intended to sire his progeny with, Rachel, proved to be barren. 

Question 1: So then, was God himself in sin when he gave Jacob his vision in the valley where he laid his head down on a rock and had the vision of Jacob’s Ladder, and actually saw God Himself…

Denver: What you’re trying to do is to say that the different circumstances in a different culture, in which Jacob found himself entrapped by the chicanery of his father-in-law equals the voluntary knowing and promiscuous engagement and marriages with reckless abandon. 

Question 1: …No… That’s not what I’m saying.

Denver: You tell me. Look, the progeny of the inbreeding that has gone on in the plural marriages…

Question 1: …All plural marriages?

Denver: …Has resulted in genetic problems for people living today. There are more genetic issues in the progeny of the polygamists because the genetic code has been replicated too often. There are biological reasons to avoid plural marriages. You’re telling me that if God favors this, why would God then curse genetic issues on the progeny?

Question 1: God knows the beginning from the end, correct? Because he told Jacob that he was going to be with him. 

Denver: God’s foreknowledge is not the same thing as God’s will being implemented. 

Question 1: I don’t want to take up all of the time. This is becoming an argument. 

Terry: Let me suggest that we limit it to one question and one follow-up question. Thank you. 

Question 2: As someone who’s interested…

Denver: …And you’re a descendent of polygamists and you’re engaged in….?

Question 2: No, actually we come late in the game. As someone who’s interested in repenting as you suggest, what then do you envision to be the next step in the process of the restoration? 

Denver: There was a step that was able to be taken as a consequence of work to recover the scriptures, that occurred in a conference up in Boise where the scriptures got approved. As part of that, a covenant allowing gentiles to accept the status of covenanting, to accept the Book of Mormon, which had never been done from the time of Joseph Smith until the Boise conference – as a covenant between the believers and God – the terms of the covenant are contained in the new set, the new volume of scriptures. It’s the third volume. Repent, be baptized, enter into the covenant that accepts the Book of Mormon as the word of God and the direction given to us. The covenant requires some work to be done among the remnant of the Jews and some work to be done among the Native Americans. That is something that is being attended to but not everything that is going on is necessarily something that ought to be broadcast publicly for everyone and everywhere. We all have our obligations and we all have our responsibilities. Some people have very specific responsibilities that they’ve accepted and that they’re discharging to take care of things involved in the covenant. 

There’s always an obligation, when God has a people, to build a temple. When God first established the original religion at the time that He created Adam and Eve, He put them in what is a temple setting. It was a garden in which God, angels, and man mingled together. They were cast out of the garden but when He’s had people on the earth He has commanded that they construct sacred space. The purpose of the sacred space has always been to reunite heaven and earth. It’s not to endlessly repeat a ceremony that you can memorize if you go often enough. Its purpose is to reunite heaven and earth and to accomplish what was originally the status of mankind in the Garden of Eden, being reunified with heaven itself. We don’t have a commandment to do that but we have been told we are going to be commanded to do that. And so an effort has been made to begin to gather funds necessary. There’s a statement that nothing is to be done in haste. Haste brings pestilence. Pestilence is not just bugs and vermin, pestilence is also confusion and disorder and chaos. That process is underway and at some point will culminate in an identified place and a command to build a specific, conforming structure. 

Question 3: ….

Denver: And how many wives do you have? 

Question 3: I am actually the son of a convert. 

Denver: Oh, good. 

Question 3: …I [had a] convert father, whom I don’t even speak to anymore. But I’m very much a believer in Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. I resonate with a lot with what you said, and I have for years, about the deficiency of the Church, about the leadership of the Church, about the deficiencies of the religion that we hold to. We pretend to teach, and I can say pretend. As a Latter-day Saint I grew up in Rhode Island, a very miniscule portion, and will remain indefinitely miniscule because of what we teach. My big question to you, my brother, is how can you believe that there were no faithful disciples of Joseph Smith? I can’t go there, I really can’t. Why were there no faithful disciples of Joseph Smith? How can you take that position? 

Denver: He’s asking, how can I believe that there were no faithful disciples of Joseph. One of the problems that was had in that day is limited means of communication. Joseph would talk. There was an effort made to gather some of that material in order to disseminate it in the Times and Seasons and the Nauvoo Neighbor but access was limited and the Church historian that had control of the material boxed everything up in Nauvoo, moved it out to Utah. There was a member of the Church historian’s staff in Nauvoo who also worked in the historian staff in Salt Lake City, Charles Wandell. Charles Wandell reported in his journal that the papers that involved Joseph Smith, the diaries, the journals, were actively being changed in order to reflect the new order of things in Salt Lake City. So, when the announcement was made publicly in 1852 by Orson Pratt and then advocated by Brigham Young, the average person on the street did not have access to information to be able to challenge anything related to that. The people that had possession of it were saying, this is the way it was, and they altered the documents. 

This is too big a topic. I believe that many of the pioneers that sacrificed did so in truth, in valor, in honesty, so far as they knew. The problem was not whether they were good people. There were enormous numbers of devout, good, sacrificing people that laid everything on the altar and gave us a legacy that we ought to be grateful for. But the leadership had another agenda. I don’t know how you can look at Brigham Young, the first multi-millionaire west of the Mississippi, and conclude that this guy was in it solely for devout religious reasons and he was a pious, holy man. When I mentioned Brigham Young’s vulgarities, I kid you not, I think his favorite word for emphasis was “shit”. Brigham Young was not the guy you think he is. And if you have access to his complete set of journals you ought to read ‘em, and then you ought to ask yourself, can I sustain that man as prophet, seer, and revelator? Can I sustain him as God’s presiding High Priest? Because if so, you probably like Trump, too. 

Question 4: I was wondering when you came to the conclusion that Joseph was not a polygamist, and if that’s always been your position?

Denver: No, it’s not always been my position. It probably took more than 40 years of study. For the longest time I did not reach a conclusion. I simply didn’t think there was enough information there. And even today, there’s not enough information available to unequivocally resolve that question, even today. If someone says they know the story of Joseph Smith well enough to be able to affirm that he was indeed a polygamist in the fashion of Brigham Young they don’t have the proof. They’re leaping to that conclusion. Once property became an issue in the 1860s and litigation was underway there were a lot of people who they knew the practice was of god because it has been advocated from the pulpit from 1852 on, and they were perfectly willing to stand up and to testify to support the position of the Church. But there’s nothing in 1842, ‘43, ‘44, up until June 27 of 1844, out of Joseph Smith’s mouth, out of his pen, out of his teachings, that say it’s where his mind is. There is a great deal that says that’s not where his mind is and he’s unequivocally opposed to it and condemns it. 

Question 5: I’m taking from this a clarion call for all of the institutional forms of Mormonism to repent and stop holding Joseph in derision. I suspect institutional repentance is highly unlikely and that leaves personal repentance personally to stop holding Joseph in derision and to seek a blessing under his hand. Whether one happens to be a polygamist or not, evidently all of us in one way or another are in need of repentance and prizing what came from God through Joseph more fully. The question then: What advice would you give those who want to personally repent and no longer hold Joseph in derision? 

Denver: There’s a lovely book written by Carol Lynn Pearson, The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy. I think that’s the name of it. Hand out copies of that book to Relief Society sisters. Speak up. Look, the reason why it is conventional wisdom that the argument’s over, the issue is settled; everyone knows Joseph was a polygamist after the fashion of Brigham Young’s version of polygamy, the reason that’s over is because no one is saying, wait a minute! Brian Hales did three volumes titled, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy. In the entirety of the three volumes he admits there is only one document that exists that ties Joseph Smith to plural marriage. It is a copy in the handwriting of Joseph Kingbury. You will see it on the wall of the Church History Museum. Kingsbury says that he copied from what the actual secretary, William Clayton, [who] purportedly wrote it down. Then Kingsbury – not a clerk to Joseph Smith, Kingsbury worked in the store – Kingsbury says he copied it and he did so quite contemporaneously. The best version is that Joseph Smith gave Emma the right to burn the original of that document. But the original of that document was read by Hyrum Smith to the Nauvoo High Council. Many of the Nauvoo High Council to whom that was read did not go west. Some of them remained in the east. Those who had a record, those who had a memory, and those who commented on it, who heard what Hyrum Smith read to the High Council, said it had nothing to do with practicing plural wifery today. It was an answer that was given about antiquity and what happened in antiquity. It had nothing to do with authorizing the practice now. But when they break out in 1852 and they publish it, they publish what’s in the handwriting of Kingsbury, not a scribe of Joseph Smith. And Brian Hales says that is the single document, that’s it. That’s the whole body of evidence that we have that existed to tie Joseph Smith to the practice Brigham Young would institute. 

Question 6: One question is fine. You quoted before, talking about how the truth scratches your eyes out and how difficult a process it is. Can you comment personally, in your own journey, how both the Church, polygamy, and these other issues as you have come to understand them, the personal effect they’ve had? 

Denver: I’m going to answer that question in a really narrow personal example. One of my Mormon heroes, I loved the man, was Parley Pratt. The entirety of the American sense of humor recons from Benjamin Franklin and Mark Twain. That’s where Americans get our sense of humor from, Ben Franklin and Mark Twain. Parley Pratt learned the art of spinning a yarn, telling a history but spinning it in a yarn that just made you belly laugh, in his autobiography. I loved that book and I loved that man. One of the problems that I’ve run into as I’ve searched and searched; you sometimes learn a lot of things you don’t want to learn. The varnish has been stripped off Parley. He stole the man’s wife. He took the man’s kids. He got murdered by a jealous husband, and there wasn’t a jury in Arkansas at that time that would have convicted him if he sat on the witness stand and gave you in graphic detail what he did to murder Parley. After his death Brigham Young said that Parley deserved what he got and that Parley died an adulterer. Because in Brigham Young’s view, the only one that could authorize the taking of a woman was Brigham Young himself, and Parley took Eleanor without Brigham’s blessing. Therefore, that was adultery. You see how fine a line it is between you’re home safe and you’re out. It’s just that fine a line. When you read about the sad events that led up to the death of Parley Pratt and the practices that were going on, and the internal conflicts, and the disputes over who had authority to do what, and Brigham Young himself a practicing polygamist, regarding Parley Pratt’s murder as God’s vengeance and just outcome because he was an adulterer, it begins not only to take the varnish off of Parley, one of my former heroes, but it also begins to take the varnish off the rest of what was going on. 

History is filled with all of the foibles of mankind’s weakness. The amazing thing to me is that the closer I’ve looked at Joseph Smith the more he stands up to scrutiny. He had one enormous flaw. He tended to think, sort of like my wife – I don’t do this, she does – he tended to think that everyone has the same heart he has. Everyone was just as good and decent and penitent as he was. Joseph had liars lying to him and he accepted as though they were telling him the truth and he honored them as though they were telling the truth, but they weren’t, time and time again. There still isn’t a good history. But my notes in the Joseph Smith Papers make really good reading if you ever sit down and read the margin notes. 

Thank you all for being here and thank you, Terry.

The post Shattered Promises and Great Hope appeared first on Restoration Archives Blog.

These remarks were given at the Joseph Smith Restoration Conference held at Boise State University on June 23, 2018.

Transcript

People are tired and I have to tell you, I feel like someone spanked me sitting on these chairs all day. I’m fairly confident that whoever’s responsible for buying these intended to make people use this room for no more than twenty minutes at a time, and then to get out so the next group can come in and be equally punished. 

You know, Tausha mentioned that she was warned to stay away from some of you people when she was a kid growing up because she was raised in the LDS tradition. My mother was a baptist. My father, although Christian, was nondenominational. My mother warned me to stay away from all of you people. She was completely indiscriminate. In fact, I was so surprised when I ran into a Mormon in New Hampshire while I was in the military that I made the mistake of saying something that suggested I was interested, and since in New Hampshire no one is interested in Mormonism, they proceeded to proselytize and pamphleteer and treat me as a golden contact. I remember the first time I read verses out of the Book of Mormon to accommodate these eager young elders from Bountiful and Orem, and they wanted to know what I thought of the Book of Mormon. And literally this is what I said, “It’s got to be scripture. It’s every bit as boring as the Bible.” 

I became a convert to the LDS Church and to Mormonism. But like that other fellow who ran about – Mike – right?- Mike the mechanic. You know he has a band- “Mike & The Mechanics”-  and one of their big hits was, “All I Need is a Miracle”. See, I was a convert and I believed in the restoration. I believed in Joseph. I believed in Christ. But I really had not warmed up at all to the Book of Mormon. 

I became a gospel doctrine teacher. I suppose it was an inspired calling to put me in that position because I had to teach through a four year cycle the four standard works. And every time you got around to the year that you spent on the Book of Mormon I had to teach the Book of Mormon for a year. Well the first time I taught the Book of Mormon for a year, I used the manual and got what the manual gave me out of the Book of Mormon. The second time I taught the Book of Mormon for a year, which suggests that I couldn’t get out of the calling because God in his infinite wisdom knew I hadn’t learned anything yet, I decided I was not going to bore myself by re-teaching what I had taught the preceding year we had spent on the Book of Mormon, so I looked a little deeper into the book and found there was a little more to this than I thought there was. The third time I taught the Book of Mormon for a year as a gospel doctrine teacher – now mind you, I’ve moved from Pleasant Grove to Sandy to another location in Sandy, and I’m never escaping the gospel doctrine position because I had to teach gospel doctrine, apparently. The third time I taught the Book of Mormon for a year, I discovered that it had a whole lot more in it than I had in me. And the fourth time I taught the Book of Mormon for a year – because I was a gospel doctrine teacher for two-and-a-half decades, that’s all I did, was teach the Book of Mormon and the other standard works – the fourth time, I literally thought I could not teach enough of what this book has to offer us. Literally they would assign you up to eight chapters to cover in a single 50 minute opportunity in gospel doctrine. I didn’t welcome questions. I spent 50 minutes trying to get the people to understand and appreciate sometimes one or two or three verses out of the eight chapters and promising them, there’s a whole lot more in there if you’ll keep looking for it.

There was a fellow who was second in charge of the graduate program of the Institute at the University of Utah. At the time they had a failing Institute program because none of the law students were interested in hearing what they had to teach. Well, at the graduate level there is no curriculum in the LDS Institute program and so you can teach whatever you want. And he came and he asked me if I would be willing to go teach graduate level Institute class at the University of Utah Law School. And since I’m a practicing attorney and curious about whether there’s anyone in the class worth hiring; I decided I would go ahead and teach. I taught for two years and we had not, after two years of teaching at the graduate level, we had not gotten through first Nephi. But those kids understood the Book of Mormon better than they had through all of their previous years including the time some of them had spent on LDS missions. 

Joseph Smith did begin the restoration and he did get the foot in the door but there is so much that remains yet to be accomplished. 

There’s a banner up there that says what unites us is greater than what divides us. As I think about what unites us and focus on the word “unite” the only things that I know that are possible to unite us is if we are open. If I know- if I know the truth, I know the Church is true… Yeah, churches are true? – what does that mean? Correctly organized as a legal entity? How can a church be true? I mean, you are true in that I see you sitting there and you’re breathing and moving; you’re true. But what does that mean? Is truth capable of being embodied in an organization? We have to be open, not to organizational forms but to truth. But if we’re gonna be united, it’s not enough to just say, “I’m open.” We need to be willing to search, because whatever it is we have, it’s not enough. It doesn’t matter who we are, whatever we have is not enough. Blessed are they who hunger and search. I mean Christ didn’t say, blessed are they who are content and closed minded for they shall be stubborn. He wants us to hunger and search after righteousness so that we can be filled. Well, if you’re filled, wait a few hours. You oughta be hungry again, and therefore you should begin the search yet again. The hungering in mortality does not end until life itself comes to an end. If you’re alive you need to engage in the search. You don’t have enough; none of us do. And we have to be willing to accept. It doesn’t do you any good to sit at a banquet after you have hungered and thirst if you won’t take it in. You have to be willing to allow it to come into you. 

Christ said “we all need to repent and become as a little child.” Repenting at the fundamental level means to stop whatever it is you’re doing, in whatever direction you’re heading, and change directions to face God. That’s the first thing, repent. Come to face God. And secondly, become as a little child. There is no more relentlessly inquisitive a creature on earth than a little child. They hunger and they thirst. They not only don’t know things, they know they don’t know things. Why? What? When? Where? Relentlessly they want to be filled. They know they’re ignorant. The problem with us is we don’t appreciate the enormity of the ignorance that we walk about with. 

I have to ask, and today I’ve been delighted at being here and at listening to what you people have to say. I have to ask, what do you have to offer to me? And then the question becomes, what do I have to offer you? But perhaps most importantly of all, what do others have to offer us? Because if you take in the fullness of what Joseph Smith envisioned it’s all truth from whatever source it may be derived. If you have truth, come and bring it with you and give it to us. 

Christ was essentially an Eastern mystical teacher with whose deepest teachings the Buddhists and the Hindus resonate. Because the kind of allegories He spoke with, the kind of similes He used, the language that He used, it’s music in the ears of some of the Eastern cultures. And to us, we want to measure it, we want to define it, we want to put it on ourselves and we want to accomplish it. We’re task oriented. We have a scientific approach. We are coarse, Christ was not. Christ dealt in hues, He dealt in feelings, He dealt in sentiments, He dealt in the heart. And it’s very hard to take a faith that is grounded essentially in the heart of man and to make that something so outwardly visible that it is possible for you, as a wolf, to walk about in sheep’s clothing because that’s the kind of people we are. We need to be willing to accept truth from wherever it comes.

There’s an incident. Boy, I really have to tell you, we have new scriptures. And when I say we I mean those that have been about trying to recover the original restoration, and I brought them with me. If you think you look like a pharisee carrying about a quadruple combination in the LDS Church, these new scriptures are — well, they announce from at least two blocks away, “I’m devout. I’m religious. I don’t have sticks, I have logs. Get back.” 

See:

…there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias, and to him the Lord said in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul of Tarsus; for, behold, he prays, and has seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in and putting his hand on him that he might receive his sight. Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he has done to your saints at Jerusalem. And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on your name. But the Lord said unto him, Go your way, for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel; for I will show him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake. And Ananias went his way and entered into the house, and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, … Jesus, that appeared unto you in the way as you came, has sent me, that you might receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes [as it were] scales, [they left out – There is a missing part. Ananias, when they finished talking, ran for the door.] and [immediately] he received his sight, … and arose, and was baptized. And when he had received food, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples who were at Damascus (Acts 5:9 RE).

See, Ananias responded to the Lord’s invitation to go minister to this fellow with the kind of healthy skepticism that comes whenever you’re asked to go visit with people that are other, that are viewed as threatening. All of you probably come from congregations that suggest staying away and not cross pollinating is the best and most safe way in which to conduct a religious society. But Ananias went and did what the Lord told him that he needed to do, in any event. And when Saul was blessed, scales fell from his eyes. Now, I’ve always thought that the scales that fell from his eyes were like the scales that you see on a fish when you clean the scales off. But scales are also a balance that you use to wrongly apportion, wrongly measure, wrongly weigh the value of others. And I think the word scales is ambiguous precisely for that reason, to suggest to us that one of the impediments that Saul had was that he didn’t have the right way of weighing things. Saul was always committed to God and dead wrong, and then God fixed him and he remained committed to God. There was no difference in the enthusiasm with which Saul, who became Paul, advocated for the purposes of what he believed to be the truth. 

Then a little bit later, 

… when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join himself to the disciples, [This is at Jerusalem, see then with the disciples over at Damascus, but when he gets to Jerusalem, that’s another story. He arrives there and he attempts to fellowship there,] but they were all afraid of him and believed not that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem, and he spoke boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Greeks, but they went about to slay him, … [and] when the brethren knew this, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him forth to Tarsus (Act 5:11 RE).

They protected him. They were afraid of the man. Conversion has a way of doing that. 

Like so many of you, I’m an outcast. I was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for forty years. I was baptized on September 10, 1973. I was excommunicated on September 10, 2013. Forty years to the day. And so for a 40 year sojourn I was among the saints. 

You see, Paul’s objective was always to serve God. He changed sides and when he did that he changed friends and he changed enemies. It just flows that way. God loves both sides. He makes the sun to shine on the good and the evil and he makes the rain to fall on the good and the evil (see Matt. 3:26 RE).  We are all alike to God (see 2 Nephi 11:17 RE).

In a description of Christ when He appears standing among the seven candlesticks, symbol of the menorah, which is placed in the temple symbolically before the veil before you enter into the Holy of Holies, Christ, standing before the veil at the menorah in the vision that John has, speaks, and when He speaks out of His mouth comes a sharp two-sided sword (see Revelation 1:5 RE). See anciently the invention of the sword was a great thing but all it amounted to was a real long axe blade, and if you hit something you could then pound on the dull backside of what you hit with your hand, with your arm, with a club, and you could drive the sharp side into whatever it was you were hitting with the sword, and you could successfully amplify its cutting power, its killing power. But when you got a two-edged sword that required a whole new skill set and a whole new bunch of precautions. You could hurt yourself on the back swing with a one-sided sharp sword. You could bounce it off your shoulder and get momentum. With a two-edged sword you’re going to split yourself open. The rules of warfare changed. You could now hit with a front stroke and a backstroke. You could now enter the batter’s box either closer to first base or further from first base because it was a two-edged sword. Why is the word that proceeds forth out of the mouth of Christ sharper than a two-edged sword? Because it cuts both ways. And in handling the word of God every one of us had better take care not to injure ourselves least we be found to fight against the work of God. 

Well, James McKay commented today about how we have not seen the fulfillment of the promises, not the gathering of Israel nor the Holy City, and he posed the question: is that God’s fault or ours? Well it’s certainly not God’s fault so it really just leaves us and we’re on stage now. 

Patrick McKay talked about genetic diversity and inbreeding. Inbreeding produces idiocy, mad men, and European royalty but it doesn’t produce the gathering of all truth. (I mean look at Prince Charles, really.)

I wanted to comment about church organization because that’s come up. Having a central command and authoritarianism is an issue that deserves careful scrutiny if you’re looking at the restoration. The restoration through Joseph Smith was intended to shed light on a lot of things and he had only a short time with us. He died at 38-and-a-half. Some people today don’t even move out of their parents’ house at 38-and-a-half. And Joseph Smith’s life was coming to an end- ok. 

When the restoration began to roll out Joseph Smith aggregated a central position, central authority. He established an organizational hierarchy in which, when they finally got it organized in the land of Zion – that is in Missouri – and they had a presidency there with David Whitmer in charge. He departed after establishing the presidency in Missouri, headed back to Kirtland, and he said now, now if his life came to an end he had fully organized the Church, because there was a church with a presidency in Zion that could replace him in the event that his life were taken. That had been done. His life, his mission, his work had been fulfilled. This is in the 1833-34 time period. Joseph is talking in these terms. By 1838 members of the presidency in Zion had not only forsaken the Church, excommunicated, but many of them signed affidavits and participated in what eventually resulted in the Missouri…, the Mormon War, the imprisonment of Joseph Smith, and the scattering of the entire gathering in Missouri. An extermination order was issued and everyone had to flee. Joseph was taken prisoner, sitting in prison. You need to read all of the words of the letters that Joseph Smith wrote from Liberty Jail but you also need to look at the affidavits that were signed by the members of the Church that had turned on Joseph. You need to look at the transcripts of the trial that was held in front of Judge King. You need to look at how Joseph Smith could not be bound over for trial on the charge of treason if it were not for Mormons who came to testify against Joseph Smith. The very people in whom authority had been invested were the ones that had the credibility to keep Joseph Smith in prison on the false charge of treason. And so sitting within Liberty Jail and reflecting upon the lessons that he had learned, Joseph Smith in Liberty Jail is not talking about how joyful and wonderful it is to have a hierarchy with authority. He’s come to a different recognition and a different realization and he’s saying, “No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood” (T&C 139:6).  The only thing that ought to matter is persuasion and gentleness and pure knowledge that will greatly enlarge the soul.

The standard ought not be what office one holds. The standard ought to be what truth you bring with you. What is the content? Is it delicious? Does it bring me to Christ? Does it make me desire to be better than I am, to rise above the condition in which I presently find myself in this fallen world? Then when Joseph Smith gets to Nauvoo and he gives a talk to the Relief Society in Nauvoo, he tells the women of the Church that the saints are depending too much upon the prophet and that they are darkened in their own minds because they’re neglecting the responsibilities that are devolving upon themselves. 

Joseph Smith may have established a hierarchy but through the Missouri experience he came to realize the limitations of the value of having that, and the necessity of changing the format and looking instead to persuasion, truth, pure knowledge, love, gentleness, meekness; those are the things that matter, not hierarchy. And he came close to denouncing even his own position when he said your minds are darkened because you’re depending too much upon the prophet and you’re neglecting the duties that are devolving upon yourselves. 

I’m so glad to hear Patrick advocate the central purpose of the Book of Mormon. He talked about that. And then there was a reference to the Wentworth letter that was given by Adrian. And the Wentworth letter, he put it up on the board: 

[T]he 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 be accomplished and the Great Jehovah shall say, The work is done (T&C 146:20).

That’s not a reference to a church. That’s a reference to the Book of Mormon. That’s the truth that has been set out, the purpose of which is to warn the entire world. In answer to the question that Patrick posed today, yes, I have thought of Christ’s church consisting of us all, no matter where we are, no matter what we are. I’ve advocated that if a Catholic priest comes to us and wants to be baptized, we baptize them. And we don’t need to insist they give up their Catholicism. I’ve advocated baptizing anyone and everyone who will accept the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine of Christ that’s set out in the Book of Mormon. I don’t care about denominationalism. I’ve been kicked out of the only church I ever belonged to and I don’t have a church to offer anyone apart from the church that Adrian put a definition up on the board. If you will repent, believe in Christ and come to Him and be baptized, that’s all I want to be involved in, that simple a matter, as a church. Organizations do impede the real church. The real church consists of faith in Christ, repentance and baptism, and that brings about the gift of the Holy Ghost. 

In response to Michael Kelly’s comment today: No, God’s not a jerk but many who claim to follow Him really are. And if you’re trying to measure His countenance by those who claim to follow Him, very often you get the misapprehension that God is a jerk. I am doing my best not to be one, but between my own weaknesses and failing I don’t know how often I am a very good reflection on God, but to the extent that there is any light and truth that ever comes through me, I don’t claim responsibility or credit for that. That is a reflection of Him because the only things I’ve ever had to offer that are valuable have come solely and exclusively from Him. 

Terry Patience talked today about searching for God. My word, he has more institutional experience than the next ten guys. I mean the name Patience is an apt name for Terry. I can’t imagine carrying on that sort of quest through all of the various restorationist movements, but I do agree that God does want to reveal Himself. That is the constant theme of the Book of Mormon. That’s really what the Book of Mormon does, is give you account after account after account of those who have experienced God revealing Himself to a person. There’s a vocabulary that gets used consistently in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon uses the word “belief” to mean that you’ve got correct understanding of God’s teachings. It uses the word “unbelief” to mean that you don’t have a correct understanding of God’s teachings. You believe some things but they’re mistaken. Unbelief doesn’t mean that you’re a non-believer, it means that the beliefs that you possess are simply wrong. Then there is “faith”. And the use of the word, in the Book of Mormon, of faith, means that angels have ministered to you, because if angels have ceased ministering then there is no faith. And “knowledge” in the Book of Mormon means that one has come into contact with the Lord, and then this man had knowledge. He had faith no more for he had entered into the presence of the Lord and he knew Him.  

The Book of Mormon is an account of people who have come to know God. They went from unbelief, very often from horrifically false traditions, to a state of belief, to a state of faith, to a state of knowledge. 

The LDS Church has abandoned the idea of Zion even though they ask in their temple ceremony, for those who go through it, to consecrate your time, your talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you or may bless you to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the kingdom of God on earth and the establishment of Zion. (Those are the very words of the covenant. I know that because I went to the temple so often during that 40 years that I’ve got the ceremony memorized, so it didn’t do any good to kick me out anyway because I know all the secrets.) See, what they’ve done with that, they think that they’ve put themselves in a position to own exclusively the right to establish Zion because the word of consecration, the covenant of consecration as adapted by them, requires that they be the possessor or the bringer of Zion and no one else. But a clever lawyer could interpret the clause to say, no not so, it’s conditional because the consecration is conditioned upon the requirement that you build up the kingdom of God and you establish Zion, and if you fail to meet the requirements of the condition you have no right to the consecration. And I think the latter view is the better view, and they broke it so it’s their failure.

In my view, from my careful observation of everything that went on during Joseph Smith’s day and careful scrutiny of the course of events that followed his demise, a truer version of an organized hierarchical structure has no hope of bringing Zion. I know there are those who in this room have expressed a hope that it can be achieved otherwise. My personal view is that you cannot improve any chance of bringing Zion by a truer version of an organized hierarchical structure, it just will not, will not work because implicit within the hierarchy is the disadvantage of stratification. If the hierarchies look like a pyramid with someone at the top and all you have to do, all you have to do to corrupt that is to corrupt the top, if you break that you’ve broken the whole thing. That’s essentially what has happened. And over and over again people wishing that they would like to escape the corruption that they’ve found in the integrated structure, can be improved upon if they just get a better guy in that position, it’ll all work out somehow. I believe that the correct structure is completely flat, and that that completely flat structure with no one greater than anyone else. If there be someone who would choose to help the group they need to descend below. They need to kneel to wash the feet of others. They need to elevate. They need to put others above themselves. And they need to find the weakest spots and raise it as much as they can throughout and let them all move forward together with no one atop. 

Christ did not come to do anything other than to heal and to serve and to kneel and to wash the feet of others. How can I ever claim that I would have a right to stand above another person if my Lord’s example makes that an obscenity for me? Peter found the Lord’s humility unbecoming. “You’re not going to wash my feet, Lord. How dare you kneel.” “No, Peter. Peter, you don’t understand. It’s necessary” (see John 9:2 RE; and T&C Testimony of St. John 10:2).

When – I’ll call him Brother Wiggle – said there are about a hundred revelations we agree on, yes, that is true. And what has been said about what was set out in 1831 on the law of consecration is also true. However, once again the trajectory of Joseph’s life took some turns. After the experiences with the common-stock-established stores that had been put in place that Joseph and Sidney and others participated in, in Kirtland, after the experiences in Independence, after the failures at Far West, and in Nauvoo, in 1840, Joseph Smith got up in a conference and rescinded the law of consecration. He said it wasn’t to be lived any longer. That’s not in our scriptures but it’s in the minutes of the conference, where Joseph said it ought not be lived any longer. 

Because the law of consecration is almost in and of itself an oxymoron. How might I make your heart and my heart one by a law? Even if with a deed we all have all things in common, give me the law that will make your heart and my heart one. Give me the law that will make your mind and my mind one. Because against such there is no law. The only way I know to become united in a way in which I care for you and you care for me, in a way that we could successfully consecrate our lives together, is if both of us have for the other love unfeigned. It’s easy to feign love. It’s very difficult to have unfeigned love. Authentic, ‘I would lay my life down for you’ love, which doesn’t mean you always get along and agree. You can fight and yet love one another. You can disagree and yet love one another. If you love your children there are times you are going to correct them. There are some times you may reprove them with sharpness and then reluctantly show forth afterwards an increase of love. That’s just life. 

I was really surprised; I mean, I don’t know how I missed this. I do know that it got de-emphasized but when Jim Vun Cannon said in 1984 the RLDS Church abandoned the Book of Mormon as a canon, and that that resulted essentially in what he called a civil war and split families, I knew there had been a de-emphasis, but striking it from the canon. 

You know one of the things which Joseph Smith intended to do but did not get accomplished during his lifetime was he intended always to publish, in one volume, the New Testament and the Book of Mormon. It was always intended that that happen. That now has happened for the first time. It just happened a couple of years ago. And the name of the volume that has the Book of Mormon and the New Testament in it is called “New Covenants,” because that reflects the covenants that were established at Jerusalem, that were established in the New World at Bountiful, and that came forth through Joseph as the covenant at the beginning of the restoration — the Book of Mormon. So that’s The New Covenants. 

Joseph Smith labored over the course of his lifetime. And someone who was up here talking, talked about how the Joseph Smith translation was the Bible version that they used. It’s the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible that is in the scriptures. The Old Testament has been called The Old Covenants because that includes the covenants that got established with Adam, with Enoch, with Noah, with Abraham, [and] with Moses. Those covenants are in The Old Covenants. And then The New Covenants are as I described. The text for The Old Covenants and the New Testament and The New Covenants are the Joseph Smith translation. But when the Joseph Smith translation got published by the RLDS Church, they made…, the committee that published ‘em made a number of editorial changes of their own. And Joseph Smith made hundreds of punctuation changes that did not get incorporated into ‘em. And during talks that Joseph Smith gave in the Nauvoo era, there were several times when he said, the Bible reads this way but it ought to read that way. Or, this is what it says but a plainer meaning or plainer translation would be this. These scriptures encompass every change Joseph Smith made, whether it made it into the version published by the RLDS Church or not, and all of the punctuation changes, and they eliminate any of the changes that the committee that published them for the RLDS Church inserted into ‘em. In The Old Covenants and The New Covenants these are the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible insofar as we have any ability to gather and make it correctly reflect exactly what Joseph intended. That’s what’s in those books. And then instead of the Doctrine and Covenants there’s the Teachings and Commandments. Instead of the D&C it’s the T&C. That avoids any copyright claims, you see. 

But these include…, Joseph Smith put out not just the Joseph Smith History that you find in the triple combination of the LDS Church. When he was the editor in chief of the Times and Seasons he published his history, and his history is much longer there than the excerpts that got put into the D&C Joseph Smith History. All of what he put is in this and it’s much longer, it takes a lot more time to read. Also, instead of the haphazard way in which it’s organized, Joseph Smith’s revelations, corrected – that is, going back and eliminating all of the emendations, changes, alterations, that got put into ‘em after publication – the original version of the revelation has been put together, and it’s been put together chronologically. The only exception to that is the Joseph Smith History, which begins the account in the 1820 timeframe, actually with his birth in 1805, is the earliest chronological description of events and so his history is the first thing in here. Then everything else that follows is in chronological order. You can see where Joseph put the Lectures on Faith inthe 1835 timeframe by this layout. You can see when he published the Book of Abraham in the 1842 timeframe by this layout. In fact, it almost tells the story of the restoration and of Joseph’s ministry simply by the way in which the layout of this has been gathered together. 

Adrian mentioned that Joseph Smith, in retelling the story when the angel, correctly identified as Nephi by Joseph, incorrectly identified by everyone else as Moroni. And by the way, before the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon saw the plates shown them by the angel – and they never identify the name of that angel, they refer to him as an angel so the three witnesses never weigh in on the identity – David Whitmer’s mother encountered the angel and she identifies him with the same name that Joseph Smith identifies him with, Nephi. In any event as Adrian referred to, the purpose of the restoration is to return the hearts of the children to the Fathers because everything that is going to happen in the last days got established at the beginning by a covenant that was made three years previous to the death of Adam, when he gathered together his posterity in the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman and he prophesied whatsoever should befall them unto the latest generation. And the Lord appeared and administered comfort unto Adam, and the gathering there rose up and called him Michael the Prince (see T&C 154:19-20).

Right there, at that moment, at the beginning of the history of the family of Adam, he prophecies by the power of the Holy Ghost what should befall his descendants unto the latest generation in the presence – Adam-ondi-Ahman – Adam in the presence of Son Ahman. Adam-ondi-Ahman was an event. It’s like the Super Bowl. It doesn’t matter where you play it. Wherever it is it’s the Super Bowl. Adam-ondi-Ahman is an event. When Adam is there in the presence of Son Ahman, that is Adam-ondi-Ahman. Now you can say Springhill, Missouri is Adam-ondi-Ahman but it doesn’t matter where it happens. When it happens – and it will happen again, in fulfillment of that original prophecy that was made in the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, when Adam was before Son Ahman the first time – when it happens again it doesn’t matter if that’s in Mesa, Arizona or Springfield… I don’t know, where do the Simpsons live? Springfield USA, or Bogus Basin. Wherever it is that that occurs that is Adam-ondi-Ahman and it will certainly happen. 

The hearts of the children turning to the Fathers so that the earth is not smitten with a curse means that the purpose of the restoration ultimately is to return us back to something that was here in the beginning, the way in which it once was, the dispensation of Adam, the dispensation of Enoch, the dispensation of Noah, all of which were running simultaneously at the time of the flood. “As it was in the days of Noah so also shall it be at the time of the coming of the Son of Man” (Matthew 24:37). 

We’re gonna have three different kinds of remnants operating at the same time at the coming of the Lord, a dispensation that will reflect somewhat of the Christian era, a dispensation that will reflect somewhat of Joseph Smith’s era, and a dispensation that will reflect somewhat of the original, the one in which man stood in the presence of God. Of course, we’ve got a couple of those functioning after a fashion but we lack yet in what necessarily will involve the presence of Son Ahman to achieve, is something that He must bring about. When He said, I will bring again Zion, He literally means that because you can’t have it without His presence. 

That dispensation, that’s the one that needs to occur. Joseph gave a talk where he referred to the spirit of Elias and the spirit of Elijah and the spirit of Messiah, because there are really three great spirits that are involved, with three great stages. Abraham is the father of the righteous because at the time that Abraham lived, the connection back to the government of God that began with Adam, to whom dominion was given over the earth, had been broken. It had been broken for generations. It had existed at one time for ten generations, continuously and uninterrupted from the days of Adam to the days of Shem, but when Abraham lived it had been broken for generations. 

Now Shem – who had lived on the other side of the flood and who could have fled with Enoch’s people into Zion, because people were taken up into Zion continuously, right up until the flood – and Shem did not need to remain on the earth but he remained on the earth to perpetuate what was there in the beginning. And so Shem, who would be called Melchizedek, Melek, Zadok, king, priest, the prince of peace, the king of Salem, the king of peace, the teacher of righteousness, he remained through the flood but he held onto the covenant that would allow him to lay hold upon that. And he waited through generations of apostasy. 

And Abraham represents every man because Abraham came into the world in a state of apostasy, disconnected from the Fathers, incapable of laying hold upon the promises that go back through Adam, and Seth, and Enos, and Jared, and Mahalaleel and the other descendants, right down until the days of Shem. Abraham was disconnected from that. And he went and he looked and he searched because the records belonging to the Fathers had come down into his possession and he knew there was something to that. He knew there was something more to be obtained, and he longed for his appointment unto that, that which was in the beginning. He obtained a connection for himself into that. That’s why he had to connect up with Melchizedek because the bond had to be formed, the covenant had to be established, the connection had to be made. And when it was made, the same right that belonged to Adam in the beginning, that right that belonged to Adam as the one to whom dominion over all the earth had been given, had been passed to Abraham. And Abraham became the rightful heir, the holder of that right belonging to the Fathers, even the first Father, or Adam, that came down from the beginning. That’s what Joseph Smith sought to have be restored. That’s something that cannot be done apart from the direct personal involvement of God. That’s something that when it’s restored returns us back to a state in which Eden is again possible. 

The right of dominion given to Adam gets distorted in the minds of gentiles as something that allows you to thump your chest and rule and reign over others. You want to know what the exercise of dominion looks like in the hands of a righteous person? You will find Christ girded about with a towel, kneeling to wash the feet, because He’s the one, He’s the one to whom the right belonged. He viewed Himself as a gardener, as someone tending the creation, as someone laboring to bring about its greatest, its highest, its most perfect form, to cause it to flourish, to cause it to dwell in harmony and in love with one another. 

Christ tried to explain what it was that would make us right in the Sermon on the Mount. He says, Here is the commandment: thou shalt not commit adultery but I say to you, you can walk around all day not committing adultery and still be a lustful, wretched, perverse, undesirable, unlovely, unbecoming, depraved soul. So, don’t lust in your heart. You have read and it’s been told you ‘thou shalt not kill’. You can do a lot of damage to another human being without killing them. Words can be weapons. You can do a lot of damage with the words you speak, and never inflict a single bruise on another person’s body but you can break their heart. And Christ says love your enemies. Do good to those that hate you and despitefully abuse you. Don’t be angry with your brother. Don’t call them names. Return good for evil.

Christ was saying the problem isn’t your conduct, the problem is your heart. Christ is telling us, I want to take that heart that you’ve got and I want to break it. I want you to have a broken heart and I want you to have a contrite spirit because the only way you’re going to let me come in is if what you are doing to surround yourself is broken down enough to permit me to come in. 

(Well, I don’t like going over and I saw on the schedule that there’s a closing prayer at 5:15 and we’re nearly there.)

Let me end by explaining that as an active faithful devoted Latter-day Saint I wrote the book, The Second Comforter, in order to bear testimony that all of that stuff in the LDS temple that was designed to prepare you in all things for further light and knowledge by conversing with the Lord at the veil, was not just a symbolic trip to dress up funny and go down and do a show. It was designed to convey a message in which you literally expect to converse with the Lord through the veil, preliminary to entering His presence. The purpose of that was to open your mind to the possibility, as the Book of Mormon says, that you can enter into the presence of the Lord. When I wrote the book, it was good LDS doctrine. I’ve been asked why I don’t revise the book now that I’ve been booted from the organization and I’ve said, it’s going to stand as a landmark. It was good doctrine once in the LDS Church; that’s what the Church believed at that time. Dallin Oaks came up here to Boise to denounce that doctrine as one of the tricks of the devil. [Actually he didn’t talk like that- ” it’s one of the tricks of the devil.”]

Look, it’s not a trick of the devil. God does want to reveal Himself and that is the constant theme of the Book of Mormon. And knowledge of God is the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. There is nothing greater than Christ, the originator and the finisher of our faith. Everyone always mutilates the account. Get your LDS version — see they’ll edit it. Now if I say this and they find out they’ll just edit it and fix it. In General Conference, when they talk about it in the heading, they felt the nails in His hands and feet and sides, hands feet and side. That’s not the way the Book of Mormon account begins. It begins with an embrace. The first wound that is felt when they come to the Lord at Bountiful is an embrace. It is the wound on His side. The first place He brings you is to Himself, standing in His presence, beside Him, in an embrace, in plain humility, as if any of us were good enough to stand in His presence. That’s where it begins. Then His hands, and then as it fully dawns upon you the enormity of the gulf between you and Him, where you end up kneeling at His feet. It’s the wounds on the feet you see last. 

The Book of Mormon is trying to tell you something, and it is deep and profound and real. It is intended to tell you that Christ didn’t just have sheep in Jerusalem. He has sheep all over this world. It’s precisely omitted from the account that there are still other sheep that you don’t know about so that you never become arrogant, assuming that there aren’t yet still other sheep. If He identified ‘em, well, you’ld say they’re in the club too and so they’re okay. He doesn’t want you to know that just yet. So that you entertain the possibility that anywhere in the world there may yet be those who know something more than you, that you ought to welcome, that you ought to listen to, that you ought to invite to come to join, and to bring with them some new truth that you’ve not yet heard that may be of value to you. 

Well, I don’t want to delay a closing prayer because I see that that happens at 5:15 and I’d hate to be standing up here talking while someone’s praying. Let me end by thanking all of you that have spoken today for the contributions you’ve made. I’ve learned things today. I’ve had my horizon broadened. And I appreciate all the contributions that got made today, so much so I’ve made notes and I intend to listen to this again. As I understand it this is gonna be put online, is that correct? Yah, I intend to listen. Thank you all very much.

The post “Joseph Smith Restoration Conference” 2018 appeared first on Restoration Archives Blog.

This talk was given at a conference held in Gilbert, Arizona, on March 25th, 2018.

Transcript

Paper

I was up at four o’clock this morning praying about this talk and praying about you. And I think some topics are of such immense importance that no single person ought to be given the responsibility of trying to say something true and valid and holy, given the inadequacy of all of us and, in particular, the inadequacy of myself. I really don’t feel that I can do the topic justice or that this is something about which I feel perfectly comfortable talking. So, pardon my inadequacy and hang with this. 

I prepared this in advance, and there’s about 170 footnotes that go along with this text; and I won’t read any of the footnotes. But I’ll get this up as a paper, probably tomorrow when I get back home. And it may help you if you look at the paper, including the footnotes, because some of this is going to go by quite quickly, and without elaboration the footnotes will help elaborate. 

I want to thank those who have organized the conference, for those that have participated, for all of the work that has gone on. We don’t have any fund to draw from. People that do these things volunteer; and all of the labor that’s been done, all of the work in getting this out—broadcast over the internet, all of the recording—all of that is done by volunteers who are not compensated, although if someone wants to help in the process, it’s always appreciated. 

We are not like those who organize into hierarchical structures. Every one of us is considered equal. I’m an invited guest here. The people that organized this asked me to come, and I did the work to prepare to come at their invitation. I don’t have any right other than the same right as all of you—to preach and teach and expound; and, if what I say persuades or brings light, then you’re welcome, as a gift, to receive it. But no one holds authority over me, or over you, or over any of us. We associate freely because we like focusing upon the restoration of the gospel that came through the prophet Joseph Smith and recognize that work was never completed. We also recognize the ease with which having a hierarchy can be compromised. You see, as soon as you create a seat of power and authority, all that’s required to overthrow the entirety of the organization is to gain control of that seat of authority.  But among a group of equals, so long as anyone remains true and steadfast to the gospel, no one can tell them that they must do something other than retain that steadfast conviction and belief and practice of the gospel in its fullness.  

Zion won’t be composed of people who are presided over by anyone other than Christ Himself.  As between one another, they’re brothers, and they’re sisters, and they’re equals, having one heart, having one mind, and having all things in common because there is no one who can exert control or authority over one another. That’s what we seek; that’s what we’re working for. However clumsy, however awkward, however difficult it may be for siblings to get along as they grow up through their childhood and adolescence, that’s exactly how the people that will form Zion are going to begin. You can’t stand back and say, “Oh, I prize the orderly thing I see in the uniformity of lessons, uniformity of dress, uniformity of conduct that I can see in structured and organized congregations; and what I see among these people is clamoring disorder.” That’s because we’re alive. That’s because we’re equal. That’s because we respect one another, and we want to hear the differences; we want to see the differences. We want to consider an idea that isn’t correlated out into the darkness and excluded from our attention. We want to know what others have to say because we might miss something if we don’t allow them the equality of standing and saying to us something about which we may disagree. That’s what we call healthy. That’s what we call normal. That’s how humans relate to one another. In a hierarchy, it’s possible to suppress all of that, but we’re not interested in forming a Kremlin; we’re interested in forming Zion.

This discussion today of our Divine Parents fits very comfortably inside the Father’s Great Plan of Happiness. Unfortunately, we have so little understanding of that Plan that the subject is left to assumptions and innuendos rather than forthright declarations. Today I will make forthright declarations.

If discussing this subject confuses you, set it aside for now and spend some time studying the scriptures. Increase your understanding of the Father’s Great Plan of Happiness, including the Lectures on Faith. Those who welcome more truth eventually understand God’s plan more fully and, in turn, comprehend more of the Gods’ vast work. Please do not offend God by rejecting any truth coming from Him.

I want to declare that the only reason I have the audacity to address this topic candidly is because Those of whom I speak in this talk have permitted me to do so. Without Their approval, I would not presume to address this topic publicly.

This topic may seem foreign to Christians. Despite that, some true things God has shown to witnesses are called unspeakable by the Apostle Paul (2 Corinthians 1:41 RE). They are true but remain mysteries for those who are not shown them by God. One servant of God may know but be forbidden from revealing a matter while another is commanded to reveal it. Therefore, because you have a Bible, you should not assume it contains all of God’s words or that He has not revealed more or will not reveal more. An infinite and eternal God has spoken many things and will yet reveal more things.

Some truths are already in scripture but hidden from view by God’s decree. Christian scriptures declare, It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter (Proverbs 25:2; see also Proverbs 4:1 RE). So, we search out matters God has concealed to see more of His glory.

Our scriptures speak carefully about the existence and importance of a Heavenly Mother, a Divine Female whose greatest attribute is to bestow wisdom upon the whole of this creation. It is possible to miss Her presence. That cultural and theological blindness is not because of Her absence from the scriptures. It’s not hard to detect Her if you look. We just don’t look.

The Old Testament (now retitled The Old Covenants) was preserved and transmitted in the Hebrew language for generations. Some characteristics of that language are important to understand as part of this discussion. First, Hebrew has no neuter, only masculine and feminine. Furthermore, when there are multiple persons involved, even if only one member of the group is male, Hebrew uses only the masculine to refer to that group. Women and men collectively are referred to using a masculine noun or pronoun.

When a masculine noun or pronoun from the Hebrew language is translated into English, English language readers assume it means man or men and excludes women. In English we can use neuter pronouns like they or them to refer to a group of both men and women. Hebrew would use men or he if the group included even a single male in the group.

We all know that the Hebrew word Elohim is used to refer to God and that it is plural. In English it should be translated as Gods; but because we allow theology to control translating the text, the word Elohim in Hebrew is, therefore, rendered in English as a singular God. It should be plural and, if plural, rendered masculine in English. But that is Hebrew to English and does not mean, as we shall see, there is no female among the Elohim. 

The story of creation starts by identifying Heavenly Parents, a couple clearly described as the true and living God. In the King James Version, the creation of mankind is told in these words: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them (Genesis 1:27; see also Genesis 2:8 RE).

The context of the words, created he [God] him [man], is immediately clarified to refer to both the male and female and not just the male: created he him; male and female created he them. The English translation follows the masculine pronoun implied in Hebrew. Therefore, looking at it in the Hebrew language, there were two persons described, and only one of them was male. It could be translated: created they [the Gods] them [the man and woman], male and female. 

The words, So God created man in his own image, affirms two points:

First, the plurality of God.

Second, that plurality is a couple that includes both a male and a female. Man is created in God’s image, and that image is a couple—a man and a woman. This is not figurative language. It is literally describing mankind having two sexes, and that is Godlike, or what God’s image is.

I was recently listening to a podcast with my wife. Philip McLemore was being interviewed by Dan Wotherspoon. They were discussing attributes of the Divine male and female. In their discussion, the dual nature of God was incorrectly regarded as figurative, not literal. It was suggested that this dual nature was intended to be part of every individual, with all men and women having both masculine and feminine attributes. Dan Wotherspoon thought we would develop through successive stages of growth. This idea may bring comfort to some, but the scriptural account is not ambiguous. It refers to a literal male and a literal female created by the Elohim. The male is named Adam, and the female is named Eve. They are made in the image of the Elohim, or the Gods of creation whose image is a male and a female.

There is even more meaning added to the scriptures describing the creation of man in the Joseph Smith Translation. The JST renders the account in Genesis this way: And I, God, created man in [mine] own image, in the image of [mine] Only Begotten created I him. Male and female created I them (Genesis 2:8 RE).  Here, not only is the Father male and female, but so is the image of the Only Begotten, who is also two separate beings, male and female. Joseph’s clarification helps us understand who the Son was and is. The Son has a female counterpart or, like His Father, a spouse. 

There are instances in which Hebrew uses the feminine directly to describe God. For example, the spirit of God (Ruach Elohim) is a feminine noun. Likewise, when referring to the presence of God, Hebrew uses the feminine. God’s presence includes the feminine.

If you begin with these truths, then throughout the scriptures, you can find both the Father and Mother even when English translations speak only of a male God. Keep this in mind as you read either English or Hebrew language scriptures.

Another Hebrew language characteristic involves verb tenses. Although Elohim is plural when speaking of the God of Israel, it is almost always combined with a singular verb. In English we say they are and not they is. But when it comes to Hebrew and the plural Gods, the verbs are almost always singular. Even though Israel’s God is plural, the singular form of the verb has been used to support theological arguments for monotheism, or a single being for God.

Hebrew combines the plural Elohim, or Gods, with a singular verb, as in this example from Genesis: Thou mayest inherit the land wherein thou art a stranger, which God [Elohim] gave [singular verb] unto Abraham (Genesis 28:4; see also Genesis 9:18 RE).

The Old Testament and Christ proclaimed that the God of Israel is one. But then Christ explained that one is not singular in person but in harmony of heart. Accordingly, using a singular verb was meant to convey that all action undertaken by the Gods is done with a singular, harmonious purpose. They act as one. They are one.

When the Gods speak to Moses on the Mount, English recounts the story in these words: And God [Elohim, plural] spake[singular] unto Moses and said unto him, I am the Lord [in that instance, YHWH or Jehovah] (Exodus 6:2; see also Exodus 1:3 RE). In Hebrew this account is very helpful. It reiterates the clarification Joseph Smith made to the Genesis account of the creation of man: The Elohim are plural, and the voice is identified as Jehovah’s. Given the plurality of this God, and His name is Jehovah [or YHWH], it means that Jehovah, like His Father, is plural and has a female companion or wife. The Gods are never singular. This is why man was made male and female in the image of the Gods. If the Egyptians’ quest to imitate the order that came down from the beginning failed, they nevertheless preserved the idea of a male father and female mother in their pantheon of the gods. Taking the language of this passage literally, Jehovah spoke with Moses as a duo, a dyad, or a couple, necessarily comprised of both a male and a female—for that is God’s image.

Another example is provided by Elijah: And call ye on the name of your gods [Elohim], and I will call on the name of the Lord [YHWH or Jehovah]: and the God [Elohim, plural] that answereth by fire, let him be [Elohim] God. And all the people answered and said, It is well spoken (1Kings 18:24; see also 1 Kings 4:14 RE). Here again, Jehovah is identified as a plural.

To reflect the image of God, there are two sexes, male and female. Man was organized in this way to help us to understand who and what the Gods are. The importance of this is illustrated in a passage from Lectures on Faith:

Let us here observe, that three things are necessary in order that any rational and intelligent being may exercise faith in God unto life and salvation. First, the idea that he actually exists. Secondly, a correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes. Thirdly, an actual knowledge that the course of life which he is pursuing is according to his will.  (Lectures on Faith 3:2-5 RE)

Eventually, every man—and I use that word in the Hebrew sense, meaning every male and female—will be brought to stand before the Throne of God. Then all questions about the image of the Gods will be answered by what is apparent to anyone standing in Their presence.

These truths are in the scriptures accepted by every Christian denomination. They are in the scriptures believed by the Jews. Yet, the Heavenly Mother’s existence is not acknowledged.

While a great deal more could be said to demonstrate that God the Father necessarily includes God the Mother, we want to know more than, merely, She exists. We want to understand her character, perfections, and attributes also.

The Father and the Son are masculine and, therefore, personified by the word knowledge. The Mother as well as the Son’s companion are feminine and personified by the word wisdom. These personifications reflect an eternal truth about these two parts of the one true God. 

Knowledge (masculine) initiates; Wisdom (feminine) receives, guides, and tempers. Knowledge can be dangerous unless it is informed by wisdom. Wisdom provides guidance and counsel to channel what comes from knowledge. These are eternal attributes, part of what it means to be a male or a female. Creation begins with the active initiative of knowledge, but order and harmony for the creation requires wisdom. Balance between them is required for an orderly creation to exist.

A great deal can be learned about Heavenly Mother by searching for the word wisdom in scripture. Very often, the reference to wisdom is to Her distinctly and not merely an abstract attribute. If we are blind to Her existence, we cannot see the reference to Her in those passages. Although many scriptures have the Divine Mother’s words, Her presence is veiled by our ignorance and refusal to acknowledge Her. There is one extensive passage in scripture in Her voice that we will look at today. It teaches us a great deal about Her.

This was once a temple text and has become somewhat corrupted. I’ll not make any corrections or clarifications. This is from Proverbs 8 in the King James Version. The version we have has additional passages about the foolish woman at the beginning and again at the end. I’m gonna discard those words attributed so that the words that are attributed to the Heavenly Mother alone can be isolated and looked at to be considered. She states:

Hear; for I will speak of excellent things; and the opening of my lips shall be right things. For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips. All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them. (Proverbs 8:6-8; see also Proverbs 1:35 RE)

She proclaims Herself as the reliable source of truth, righteousness, and plain (meaning clear) understanding. She is opposed to wickedness, frowardness (meaning stubbornness or contrariness), and perversity. 

If we are froward, we are stubborn or contrary with one another. We dispute. We find it difficult to agree. How much debate and anger are produced by frowardness!

Jacob (called James in the King James Bible) mentioned wisdom in his letter. In contemplating Her, Jacob suggested we should be easy to be entreated.

Who is a wise man, and endowed with knowledge among you? Let him show out of good conduct his works with meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not and lie not against the truth. This wisdom descends not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish; for where envying and strife are, there [is] confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace, of them that make peace. (Epistle of Jacob 1:14 RE, emphasis added)

Wisdom from above can endow us with the kindly demeanor of brothers and sisters who seek what is good for one another. How often are the words of our mouths froward and perverse? The Divine Mother refuses to speak wickedness and abominations, and Her influence brings others to depart from such failures.

Continuing:

They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge. Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold. For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it. (Proverbs 8:9-11; see also Proverbs 1:35 RE)

Proclaiming wisdom is better than rubies, She asks us to receive Her instruction rather than seek silver and gold. Nothing else is to be compared with Her wisdom. She instructs in virtues that would make any person better. But Her instruction will also make living in peace with others possible. Nothing in this world is more desirable than acquiring wisdom—understanding and putting knowledge to wise use. Zion will require the wisdom to use pure knowledge in meekness, humility, and charity. Zion will require Her influence.

Continuing:

I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.  The fear of the Lord is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate. (Proverbs 8:12-13; see also Proverbs 1:36 RE)

Wisdom and prudence go together as companions. Prudence means good judgment or common sense. It is the quality of assessing things correctly and making a sound decision in light of the circumstances and persons involved. Prudent judgment is not hasty or unfair. Arrogance is destroyed and pride overtaken by fear of the Lord—meaning that we do not want to disappoint our Lord by our low, vulgar, and mean conduct.

She mentions a second time Her opposition to the froward. This time She declares She hates the froward mouth. We repel Her by being argumentative and contrary with one another.

Continuing:

Counsel is mine, and sound wisdom: I am understanding; I have strength. (Proverbs 8:14; see also Proverbs 1:36 RE)  

The Mother must possess great strength because She hates the froward—the contentious. She does not welcome that spirit in Herself or any of Her offspring. But yet, She loves us. 

Christ taught this idea to the Nephites, which seems to be clearly taken from the Mother’s wisdom:

And there shall be no disputations among you, as there hath hitherto been, neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there hath hitherto been. For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the Devil, who is the father of contention; and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger [against one] another, but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away. (3 Nephi 5:8 RE)

It requires strength to refrain from contention and disputes with froward and arrogant people. When we feel strongly that we are right or are firmly convinced someone else is wrong, it’s difficult to bridle our tongue and meekly persuade without contention. But the Heavenly Mother possesses the strength required to look with compassion on our failings. She deals with Her offspring using good judgment and common sense. She is opposed to arrogance, and when we are arrogant, we offend Her.

How many religious arguments, even religious wars, have been caused because mankind is too weak to patiently reason together? The history of this world is a bold testimony of what weak and deceived men do when they reject wisdom.

Mankind cannot have Zion without wisdom to guide us. Zion must be a community. Developing wisdom requires us to patiently interact with one another. This counsel from the Heavenly Mother is a gift to help us understand what we lack.

Continuing with Her words:

By me kings reign, and princes decree justice. By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth. (Proverbs 8:15-16; see also Proverbs 1:36 RE)

Never doubt this claim by the Heavenly Mother. She knows best the strengths and weaknesses of Her sons. She decides who will be made kings. The earliest generations knew this about Her. In the beginning, it was the mothers who decided between sons. Consider a few examples from early history and how the mothers acted on this matriarchal right.

In the case of Mother Eve, it was her and not Adam who weighed and decided that Cain would be Adam’s first successor to the Holy Order. She did not do this in haste but after many years of observing how Cain was unlike his many rebellious, older siblings. He hearkened to his parents and had interest in knowing and following God. She decided that this son was indeed from the Lord and would not be yet another one to reject His words:

And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord, wherefore he may not reject his words. But behold, also Cain hearkened not, saying, Who is the Lord that I should know him? And she…conceived [again], and bare his brother Abel. And Abel [hearkened] unto the voice of the Lord. (Genesis 3:6 RE)

To the sorrow of both Adam and Eve, Cain changed. After his initial faithfulness, he no longer continued to follow the Lord’s words.

When he fell, his right to stand second only to Adam in the Holy Order was threatened; he resorted to murder to keep that position. That right cannot be handled with any degree of unrighteousness. Therefore, his ambition undid his mother’s choosing, and he fell from grace. But note in the account that it was Eve who chose Cain. That was her right. That right came down from the Mother in Heaven as one of the roles occupied by all mothers over their offspring.

While Rebekah was pregnant with twins, unborn sons struggled within her. She prayed to know the cause of her difficulties and learned that the younger would rule over the elder. This answer stayed with her, and when the time came, she acted consistent with God’s voice to her. Even though it required her to supplant Isaac’s intention to set Esau ahead of Jacob, it was Rebekah’s right as the mother. Rebekah preferred Jacob because of revelation. Her preference for him is mentioned before Esau sold his birthright. We do not know if Esau sold his birthright because Rebekah put that idea in Jacob’s mind beforehand or if Jacob wanted the birthright separate from his mother’s influence. But Rebekah’s decision is mentioned before Jacob obtained it. Her involvement directly resulted in her unwary husband conferring the blessing on Jacob:

And the boys grew. And Esau was a [skilled] hunter, a man of the field, and Jacob was a plain man, dwelling in tents. And Isaac loved Esau because he did eat of his venison, but Rebekah loved Jacob. And Jacob cooked stew, and Esau came from the field and he was faint. And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray you, with that same red stew for I am faint (therefore was his name called Edom). And Jacob said, Sell me this day your birthright. And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point of dying and what shall this birthright profit me? And Jacob said, Swear to me this day. And he swore unto him, and he sold his birthright unto Jacob. Then Jacob gave Esau bread and stew of lentils. And he did eat and drink, and rose up and went his way; thus Esau despised his birthright. (Genesis 9:3 RE)

Rebekah’s choice was honored by this turn of events. Jacob obtained the legal right to hold the birthright under the Holy Order because Esau abandoned it—conveyed it to Jacob. Sometime later, the time arrived to appoint Isaac’s successor and heir.

Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim so that he could not see, he called Esau his eldest son, and said [to] him, My son. And he said unto him, Behold, here am I. And he said, Behold, now I am old, I know not the day of my death. Now therefore take, I pray you, your weapons, your quiver and your bow, and go…to the field, and take me some venison. And make me savory food, such as I love,  and bring it to me that I may eat, that my soul may bless you before I die. And Rebekah heard when Isaac spoke to Esau his son. And Esau went to the field to hunt for venison and to bring it. And Rebekah spoke [to] Jacob her son, saying, Behold, I heard your father speak [to] Esau your brother, saying, Bring me venison and make me savory food, that I may eat and bless you before the Lord before my death. Now, therefore, my son, obey my voice according to that which I command you. Go now to the flock and fetch me from there two good kids of [your] goats, and I will make them savory food for your father such as he loves. And you shall bring it to your father that he may eat…that he may bless you before his death. (Genesis 9:12-13 RE)

While Isaac intended to bless his older son Esau, Rebekah, as the mother, knew the younger brother Jacob was the chosen one. Rebekah proceeded with the confidence of knowing that decision was hers to make. She took appropriate steps, as was her right, to appoint the heir. She managed her ailing husband wisely and subtly. At that time Isaac’s eyes were dim, a symbolic description of his condition, and he was unable to see the correct choice.

Jacob realized his mother’s plan involved risks. He raised his concerns with his mother:

I shall bring a curse upon me and not a blessing. And his mother said unto him, Upon me be your curse my son, only obey my voice and go fetch me them. …And his mother made savory food, such as his father loved. And Rebekah took handsome raiment of her eldest son, Esau, which was with her in the house, and put them upon Jacob, her younger son. And she put the skins of the kids of the goats upon his hands and upon the smooth of his neck. (Genesis 9:13-14 RE)

When Jacob worried about being cursed for deceiving his father, his mother reassured him and, if there was to be one, offered to take the curse. Jacob did not want to deceive his father, but his mother said it was she, not her son, who would be responsible.

Mother Rebekah then prepared the meal for Isaac. Rebekah also clothed her son with the handsome raiment of her eldest son, a description filled with symbolism. Then she used the skins of slain lambs to cover the hands and neck of Jacob, another description filled with symbolism and foreshadowing. Thus outfitted in the eldest son’s raiment and a slain lamb covering his skin, Jacob was presented as the heir.

If you interpret this account as a type of Christ, it helps us to appreciate the unacknowledged role of Christ’s Mother in preparing Him as an acceptable Son and heir to His Father.

Following his mother’s guidance Jacob proceeded:

And she gave the savory food and the bread, which she had prepared, into the hand of her son Jacob. And he came unto his father and said, My father. And he said, Here am I. Who are you my son? And Jacob said [to] his father, I am Esau your firstborn; I have done according as you [bade] me. Arise, I pray you, sit and eat of my venison, that your soul may bless me. And Isaac said unto his son, How is it that you have found it so quickly, my son? And he said, Because the Lord your God brought it to me. And Isaac said unto Jacob, Come near, I pray you, that I may feel you, my son, whether you be my very son Esau or not. And Jacob went near unto Isaac his father. And he felt him and said, The voice is Jacob’s voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau. And he discerned him not, because his hands were hairy as his brother Esau’s hands; so he blessed him. (Genesis 9:14-15 RE)

On choosing the lawful heir, Isaac was blind to the correct choice, but Rebekah was not; and, it was her right to choose. To accomplish the foreordained result, Isaac’s eyes were dimmed. Rebekah used that to prevent him from making the wrong choice. And so the heir chosen by Rebekah was given the blessing.

And he said, Are you my very son Esau? And he said, I am. (Genesis 9:15 RE)

This answer from Jacob is not wrong, as some have claimed. Jacob purchased the birthright, and, therefore, on the issue Isaac raised (if he was the rightful heir), Jacob had Esau’s right and could answer truthfully as to the blessing that he waslawfully standing in Esau’s place.

And he said, Bring it near to me and I will eat of my son’s venison that my soul may bless you. And he brought it near to him and he did eat. And he brought him wine and he drank. And his father Isaac said unto him, Come…now and kiss me my son. And he came near and kissed him. And he smelled the smell of his raiment and blessed him, and said, See, the smell of my son is as the smell of a field which the Lord has blessed. Therefore, God give you of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of grain and wine. Let people serve you and nations bow down to you. Be lord over your brethren and let your mother’s sons bow down to you. Cursed be everyone that curses you and blessed be he that blesses you. (Genesis 9:15 RE)

As a result of his mother’s guidance, counsel, and labors, Jacob inherited the birthright belonging to the Holy Order. Whatever else this may reflect on the relationship between these family members, it was through appropriate guidance and direction of his mother that Jacob was blessed to become the appointed heir, the prince, and patriarch through whom the promised Messiah would descend. This pattern of the mother choosing the heir is not just an allegory or an event in the family history. It is an eternal right belonging to the mothers. It can also be seen in the New Testament.

The mother of James and John approached Christ to request a princely position for her sons. The incident makes more sense when you realize the mother’s request was consistent with her role. Her sons’ position in the future kingdom was within the lawful concerns for her. She had the right to seek that on their behalf:

Then [to him came] the mother of Zebedee’s children, with her sons, worshipping Jesus and desiring a certain thing of him. And he said unto her, What do you [will] that I should do? And she said unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on your right hand,…the other on your left [hand], in your kingdom. But Jesus answered and said, you know not what you ask. Are you able to drink…the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism…I am baptized with? They said unto him, We are able. And he said unto them, You shall drink indeed of my cup and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with. But to sit on my right hand, and…my left [hand], is for whom it is prepared of my Father, but not mine to give. (Matthew 10:2 RE)

It was altogether appropriate for this request to come from their mother. It was squarely within the traditional role and right of the righteous matriarch. Christ’s answer to the disciples’ mother mentions His Father which necessarily included His Mother.

In the Answer to Prayer for Covenant, it is explained that establishing any Throne is done through a covenant requiring a mother-companion and female counterpart to elevate a father to a Throne. It’s also clear that once elevated, these two sit together upon a Throne. Every Throne and every Kingdom in eternity requires these two separate parties, the man and the woman, to be one.

And again, I say [unto] you, Abraham and Sarah sit upon a Throne, for he could not be there if not for Sarah’s covenant with him. Isaac and Rebecca sit upon a Throne, and Isaac likewise could not be there if not for Rebecca’s covenant with him; and Jacob and Rachel sit upon a Throne, and Jacob could not be there if not for Rachel’s covenant with him; and all these have ascended above Dominions and Principalities and Powers, to abide in my Kingdom. Therefore the marriage covenant is needed for all those who would likewise seek to obtain from me the right to continue their seed into eternity, for only through marriage can Thrones and Kingdoms be established. (T&C 157:42-43)

Given this, any mention of the Heavenly Father is also mention of both Divine Parents, for there is neither man nor woman alone in the Divine state. When first created, man and woman were joined together by God. This union happened before death entered into the world. Therefore, their companionship was eternal when first established and, when rescued from death, would return. As Christ put it: 

Have you not read that he who made man at the beginning made him male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave [unto] to his wife, and they two shall be oneflesh? Wherefore, they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder. (Matthew 9:19 RE, emphasis added)

This union of Adam and Eve and this plan of God for all who would thereafter be married was to make the man and the woman one flesh. What God has joined together and made into one, no one should put asunder by rejecting the eternal nature of marriage. It was always intended to last through the resurrection.

Continuing with the Heavenly Mother’s declarations in Proverbs 8:

I love them that love me, and those that seek me early shall find me. Riches and honor are with me—yea, durable riches and righteousness. My fruit is better than gold, yea, than fine gold, and my revenue than choice silver. (Proverbs 1:36 RE)

Of all our Mother’s fruit, the most valuable to fallen man is, without doubt, the Redeemer, Jesus Christ. The account of how Jesus Christ came into the world begins with a virgin and an angel. There is more to this than Christians have noticed. The prophecy relied on to identify the birthplace of Christ in Bethlehem continues with a description of His Mother. It was prophesied that only when she which travaileth hath brought forth: then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel (Micah 5:3; see also Micah 1:11 RE). Because of the labor and travail of His Mother, the prophecy of Israel returning to God was fulfilled. She made His entry into this world possible. The redemption of the remnant is as much the consequence of Her as of Her Son.

What was Mary’s role? Who was She? Is it possible She was the Mother of God before She came into mortality? These are important questions that ought to be asked. If we can learn the answers, they would indeed be glorious.

The Greek title Mother of God (Θεοτοκοσ) has been used in Eastern Christianity since the third—perhaps as early as the second—century. The title was exclusively associated with Mary. By the fifth century the title became controversial, and a replacement term Mother of Christ (Κριστοτοκοσ) was substituted.  

Since the pre-earth existence of man is not universally accepted in Christianity, most Christians have never considered even the possibility of a pre-earth identity for Mary. Despite this, She, like all mankind, existed before this world.

If God the Father obeys the same commandments He imposes upon His children, then for Him to father a child with any woman other than His Wife would violate His decrees about adultery and chastity. Marian theology is largely absent from Mormonism other than to suggest that because the Father impregnated Her, She is destined to be added to His eternal harem as an additional spouse. Traditional Mormon teachings have been crudely fixated on the mechanics of Mary’s conception. There is almost no interest in whether She has any pre-earth role with the Father or whether She was the Mother in Heaven, the Divine Spouse of the Father who condescended to come to earth to bear Their Only Begotten in the flesh. If She were to be acknowledged in that role, it would require a complete re-envisioning of Her. It would raise the issues of why or how She, an immortal and exalted God, could return from that exalted state back to mortality to bring our Redeemer and Savior into this world. It would draw a contrast between the Father’s involvement with this creation and the Mother’s.

The Father can, and does, acknowledge others as His. But, unlike the Son who has repeatedly visited this earth, walked upon it, been handled by people,…eaten here, the Father does not come into contact with this earth in its fallen state. The only time the Father had contact with this earth was before the Fall, in the Paradisiacal setting of Eden—which was a Temple at the time. Whenever there has been contact with the Father thereafter, He has been at a distance from this earth.

There is a formality with the Father that does not exist with the Son. For example, the Son has eaten with mortal man while He was immortal, both before His ministry in the flesh and after. As our Redeemer, He is directly responsible for us and has contact with us to perform His redemptive service. The Father, on the other hand, is different in status, responsibility, glory and dominion. The Son can appear to mortal man without showing His glory or requiring any alteration of the mortal who beholds Him. To behold the Father, to endure His presence, one must be transfigured. Mortal man cannot behold the Father’s works while mortal, for if you comprehend them you cannot afterward remain mortal in the flesh.

That’s taken from pages 383-387 in Removing the Condemnation (see also pp. 395-396, first edition, 2010), and there are a lot of footnotes to that which will be in the paper I put up. Like this description of the Son, the same description should apply to His Mother.

The Father is the source of glory and likened to the sun. The Mother reflects and shares this glory and is likened to the moon. She reflects God’s glory, endures within it, and is empowered by it. She can participate with Him in all that is done wielding that glory. Knowledge is the initiator or force, and wisdom is the regulator, guide, apportioner, and weaver of that power. If not tempered and guided by wisdom, knowledge can be destructive. Wisdom makes the prudent adaptation required for order. The Father and Mother are one. But the Mother bridges the gulf between the Throne of the Father and fallen man. She made it possible for the Son of God to enter this fallen world for the salvation of everything in it.

A great deal of reflection and study is needed to understand all this implies. This is an introduction of some basic information about the Mother of God, or the Mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh (1 Nephi 3:8 RE). More will be given in a temple where mankind’s understanding of things kept hidden from the world will be greatly increased—when God directs one be built to His name.

There was a time when Christians recognized that the stars of heaven bore witness of the significance of Mary, Christ’s earthly mother. Few Christians now look at the constellations as signs set in the firmament of God as His testimony. The light that was meant to shine on the earth was to illuminate both the eyes and mind of man. Man in the first generations understood this, and a knowledge of the beginning of the creation, and also of the planets and of the stars, as they were made known unto the Fathers… (Abraham 2:4 RE) was written by Abraham, who received that same understanding.

At the time of Christ’s birth, there were those who understood the testimony written in the lights of the firmament. They reported they [saw] his star in the east and have come to worship him (Matthew 1:6 RE). These wise men watched and waited for the heavenly alignment to testify of the birth of a promised king. The Matthew text makes such casual mention of this that we give it little notice. Today, Christians and Mormons alike have little understanding of the lights in the firmament and so, give little heed to the signs set by God in the heavens above. Our ignorance does not mean these signs are meaningless. It only means we are poorly informed of God’s full message.

John’s Revelation mentions two of the heavenly signs that testify of Mary. One of these is on the ecliptic and, since earliest times, has been identified as a virgin woman, called by us the constellation Virgo. The circle of heaven is divided into the north and the south at the ecliptic. On the ecliptic from the north to the south poles, there are twelve constellations that can be seen everywhere on earth. Some constellations cannot be seen from one of the hemispheres, but those twelve on the ecliptic are ever-present overhead. These move in the same plane as the sun, moon, and wandering planets. Most of those who discuss these twelve constellations allocate 360 degrees of the heavenly circle into twelve equal, 30-degree segments, allocating for each constellation on the ecliptic the same distance. Today, these twelve constellations are called the Zodiac.

Unlike the equal division between the twelve constellations of the Zodiac, the star fields of these twelve constellations are unequal in size. The two largest star fields belong to Virgo and Aquarius. These two largest of the Zodiac constellations are heavenly witnesses testifying of Christ’s mother Mary and the returning Christ. For Christ’s First Coming, the heavenly testimony focuses the greatest part of the starfield on His Mother. We should reflect on what that may mean. We ought to contemplate why Christ’s First Coming was symbolized on the heavenly ecliptic by the Virgin Mother. Why was She the focus?

Christ’s Second Coming is the largest starfield on the ecliptic. He will return to pour out judgment, blessing those who follow Him and destroying those who rebel. The destruction of the wicked is what Christ identified as the end of the world (Matthew 11:2 RE). Aquarius has two outflows from the “Waterbearer’s urn.” One represents water (giving life), and the other represents fire (or purging).

Traditionally, we interpret the constellation Virgo as a woman holding a sheaf of wheat in her left hand. The sheaf represents her seed. The brightest star in the constellation, a magnitude 1 star, is Spica, the seed of the woman. That star is placed on the ecliptic. Most other stars in Virgo are located above the ecliptic. The seed of the woman represents Christ. His star on the ecliptic represents that everything in the firmament is divided in relation to Him. All of heaven is either above or below the ecliptic. The position of His star, like His role as judge, divides the heavens. 

Traditionally, Virgo is drawn looking down at the earth, facing us. This view places the seed of the woman in her left hand. The left hand is usually a symbol of cursing. The right hand symbolizes blessing. If the seed of the woman is meant to be in her right hand, then she would be drawn looking up, heavenward, and her back would be facing us. Reorienting Virgo to face upward—with the seed of the woman in her right hand—is more fitting.

John described Virgo and the movement of other lights on the ecliptic as follows: And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars… (Revelation 12:1; see also Revelation 4:1 RE). The sun and the moon move on the ecliptic through the constellation Virgo and at times clothe her and at other times appear under her feet. This wonder John described is overhead in the starry firmament of heaven as one of the signs put there to testify of heavenly things.

Christ’s Mother Mary is a figure of such preeminence that testimony of Her is emblazoned upon the ecliptic in an enduring, towering figure outlined in the stars. This is not happenstance. It is God’s witness to us. We should accept it as meaningful and ponder on the meaning.

Another of the constellations John mentions is a woman who brought forth a son, who is then caught up to the throne of God. This is also depicted in another constellation. One of the constellations immediately associated with Virgo, located next to her in the northern sky, is a constellation anciently depicted as a mother seated on a throne holding a son in her hands. This image of a woman seated on a throne with her son is located just to the north above Virgo. It suggests both the mother and her son descended from a throne they once occupied in heaven and is destined to return again there. If you can accept the witness written of them in the stars of the firmament, then She came to earth with Her Son, and She will return again to a Throne in the north. Contemplate what this witness of Mary could mean. Taken at full value, Mary, like Her Son, condescended to come here.

The Book of Mormon gives an extended description of Mary, the Mother of God. In the original translation text, the words mother of God were used, but that was changed by Joseph Smith in 1837 to mother of the Son of God. Here is how it reads following that change:

And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the great city of Jerusalem, and also other cities. And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white. And it came to pass that I saw the heavens open; and an angel came down and stood before me; and he said unto me: Nephi, what beholdest thou? And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins. And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God? And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things. And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of…flesh. And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for [a] space of…time the angel [said] unto me…Look! And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms. And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw? And I answered him, saying: Yea, it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men; wherefore, it is the most desirable above all things. And he spake unto me, saying: Yea, and the most joyous to the soul. (1 Nephi 11:13-23; see also 1 Nephi 3:8-9 RE)

Most who read this passage interpret the condescension reference solely as Christ’s. They view it as Christ alone who descended by being borne of Mary here in mortality. However, when leading up to the angel’s question, Knowest thou the condescension of God? the text focuses exclusively on Mary. When the angel clarified the condescension, he again focused primarily on Mary and secondarily on Her Son. The angel explained: 

Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh. And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look! And I looked and beheld the virginagain, bearing a child in her arms. And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God. (1 Nephi 11:18-21; see also 1 Nephi 3:8-9 RE, emphasis added) 

Who would you reasonably expect to be the woman chosen before the world was organized to become the mortal Mother of the Lord? Who would you expect Heavenly Father would want to bear His child if not His Spouse? Together, God the Father and Mary can be acknowledged as the Parents of Christ. The scriptures shift the focus of the condescension from Christ to His Mother and then back to Her Son, the seed of the woman.

Lectures on Faith describe Christ as the prototype of the saved man. Lecture 7 focuses attention on Christ as the Savior and Redeemer. But the lecture extends the requirement met by Jesus Christ to also apply for every saved man. In other words, for any man to be saved, they must attain to the resurrection—like Christ. Shifting attention for a moment from Jesus Christ as our Redeemer and Savior to His Mother, we could acknowledge Her as the prototype of the saved woman.In other words, we could consider what She did a Divine pattern to be followed by women.

Attaining to the resurrection does not mean merely being resurrected from the grave. We must conquer death:

But even when we rise from the grave, we will still not have “attained [in] the resurrection of the dead” nor hold the keys of the resurrection. No one will until they, like Christ, have gone from exaltation to exaltation, until they can obtain the power to resurrect all that depends upon them. For us “to attain to the resurrection of the dead” requires us to have the power to resurrect not only ourselves, but also those who are dependent on us. This is what the prototype of the saved man did. This is Who we worship. This is who and what we must precisely and exactly become.

Remember Christ said, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what [he sees] the Father do: for [whatever] things…he [does], these also [does] the Son likewise (John 5:19; see also John 5:4 RE). The Father went before, and the Son follows after. To be like Him, sit on His throne, and [to] attain to the same status, we must do precisely what the Gods have done.

For us to understand Christ, we must understand the challenging path Joseph Smith explained in his final church conference in April 1844. All must progress, “Until you attain to the resurrection of the dead and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.”

Even that which we envision as the highest heaven requires those who sit enthroned in everlasting burnings to condescend to be there. D&C 130:26 reveals that a white stone is given to heirs of the celestial kingdom to reveal to them things pertaining to ‘a higher order of kingdoms.’ We must go from “exaltation to exaltation” because there is a great deal not yet revealed to man about the eternities. There are places where, in everlasting glory, the personages are embodied in ‘spirit, glory, and power” like The Father. (40 Years in Mormonism, Talk 7, “Christ: The Prototype of the Saved Man,” pp. 18-19) 

Did Mary also attain to the resurrection? Protestants dismiss the Catholic veneration of Mary; but it may just be that the Catholics have preserved something of value about her that ought not be ignored.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “The Most Blessed Virgin Mary, when the course of her earthly life was completed, was taken up body and soul into the glory of heaven, where she already shares in the glory of her Son’s Resurrection, anticipating the resurrection of all members of His Body.”

Karl Keating of Catholic Answers explains:

We know that after the crucifixion Mary was cared for by the apostle John (John 19:26-27). Early Christian writings say John went to live at Ephesus and that Mary accompanied him. There is some dispute about where she ended her life, perhaps there, perhaps back at Jerusalem. Neither of these cities nor any others claimed her remains, although there are claims about possessing her (temporary) tomb. Why did no city claim the bones of Mary? Apparently because there were no bones to claim, and people knew it.

Remember, in the early Christian centuries, relics of saints were jealously guarded and highly prized. The bones of those martyred in the Colosseum, for instance, were quickly gathered up and preserved; there are many accounts of this in the biographies of those who gave up their lives for the Faith [for example, the bones of St. Peter and St. Paul were widely known to be preserved in Rome, and the sepulcher of David and the tomb of St. John the Baptist are both mentioned in Scripture]. Yet here was Mary, certainly the most privileged of all the saints…but we have no record of her bodily remains being venerated anywhere.

A fifth-century letter from the Patriarch of Jerusalem responding to the Byzantine Empress Pulcheria’s request for the relics of the Holy Virgin states there was a centuries-old tradition that Mary was taken into heaven when She died, and, therefore, there were no relics. He expressed surprise that the Empress was not acquainted with this well-known tradition. This was, apparently, common knowledge among the early Christians.

According to the tradition, the apostles assembled to bury her, but burial was unnecessary because She had already been assumed into heaven, body and spirit. This teaching was an extension of another Catholic belief regarding Mary called Immaculate Conception. The teaching was propounded by Pope Pius the Ninth and declared that Mary was free from all the weaknesses of the Fall of Adam and born without the sinful nature of fallen man. Although an estimated 1.2 billion Catholics accept these teachings about Mary today, Protestants and Mormons have not. The angel’s words in First Nephi seem more akin to Catholic veneration of Mary than the crude, incidental, and dismissive way Mormon traditions have discussed the Virgin Mary.

The Heavenly Mother was there in the Garden when man was first introduced. She was with the Father when He said, Letus make man (Genesis 2:8 RE, emphasis added)—for no man ever fathered a child without a mother to bear his seed. She was with the Father when man fell and was cast out of the Garden and made vulnerable to death. These Heavenly Parents were committed to saving Their offspring from death and hell.

If the condescension of God included the Mother of God as well as Her Son, then She was also a critical participant for providing the sacrificial lamb required for our redemption. Since the Fall of Adam, everyone who enters mortality must die to exit mortality. But unlike Adam and the rest of his posterity, Christ lived so as to be able to defy death. The wages of sin are death, but Christ did not earn those wages. Therefore, Christ could return from death because He attained to the resurrection.

If Christ attained to the resurrection through His progression from one small capacity to a great one, going from grace to grace and from exaltation to exaltation, did His Mother do anything less? Was Her coming into this world any less of a condescension? Reflect on the Mother of God and consider this passage of Lecture 7 which describes Christ:

And if we should continue our interrogation, and ask how [is it] that he is saved, the answer would be, because he is a just and holy being. And if he were anything different from what he is he would not be saved, for his salvation depends on his being precisely what he is and nothing else. For if it were possible for Him to change in the least degree, so sure [would he] fail of salvation and lose all his dominion, power, authority and glory, which constitutes salvation. For salvation consists in the glory, authority, majesty, power, and dominion which Jehovah possesses, and in nothing else, and no being can possess it but himself or one like him. (Lectures on Faith 7:9 RE) 

It requires as much to save a woman as a man. No person, male or female, can dwell where God dwells without possessing the same attributes as all those who have gone before. The pattern is unchangeable. We cannot claim to be like Them without possessing the same holiness these holy beings possess.

We have more quotes of Mary in the New Covenants book of Luke. When She was visited by the angel Gabriel and told of Her ministry to bear the Messiah, She responded: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to your word (Luke 1:6 RE). The term handmaid includes the possible meanings: wife, female partner, or consort. Mary was all of these to God the Father.

The account continues with Mary going to visit her cousin Elizabeth who was at that time six months pregnant with John the Baptist. When Mary arrived, Elizabeth addressed her with this inspired utterance: Elisabeth was filled with the holy ghost, and she spake out with a loud voice, [saying], Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is it that this blessing is upon me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? (Luke 1:7 RE). Consider what it may mean to be blessed among women. Elizabeth addressed Her as the mother of my Lord—which should not be interpreted narrowly or construed merely to mean a biological vessel to accomplish a pregnancy. When read in combination with the Book of Mormon description, it can mean so much more.

Mary responded with a psalm, giving us a glimpse into Her heart. What we find there is wondrous.

And Mary said, My soul does magnify the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. For behold, from henceforth, all generations shall call me blessed, for he who is mighty has done to me great things, and I will magnify his holy name for his mercy [is] on [them] [that] fear him from generation to generation. He has shown strength with his arm. He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. He has put down the mighty from their high seats, and exalted them of low degree. He has filled the hungry with good things, but the rich he has sent away empty. He has helped his servant Israel in remembrance of mercy, as he spoke to our fathers— to Abraham and…his seed for ever. (Luke 1:8 RE)

These words are worthy of a Mother of God. She clearly magnifies, or increases, Her Lord. Christ did the same thing, glorifying the Father.

When Mary said the words, he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden, the condescension of God seems to apply particularly to Her. She laid aside glory to be here, and the Father still held regard for His handmaiden in this low estate.What a great work our Heavenly Parents have undertaken for Their children!

Mary declared, from henceforth all generations shall call me Blessed. All generations include the living, the unborn, and the dead. Eventually every soul who has come to this world will recognize Her as Blessed—not only for what She is, but for what She did to magnify the work of our Father in Heaven.

Her description of the Heavenly Father includes these words of admiration and praise:

[H]is mercy on them that fear him from generation to generation. He has shown strength with his arm. He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. He has put down the mighty from their high seats, and exalted them of low degree. He has filled the hungry with good things, but the rich he has sent away empty. (ibid, vs. 8)

Clearly both the Father and Mary despise the proud whose overestimation of themselves is informed by the imagination of their hearts and not God’s regard. Both the Father and Mary want those who are mighty to be dispossessed from their high seats of power. The Parents of Christ prefer them of low degree whose humility and selflessness make them suitable to be exalted. The hungry are fed, and the rich are sent away empty—which may not be fully realized until after this world. But the Parents of Christ will be the final judges of all people and will judge mankind based exactly upon the criteria that They have revealed.

Based on several verses in Matthew, Protestants claim that Joseph fathered other children with Mary. Catholic theology venerates Mary and teaches Her perpetual virginity.

Catholics believe the brothers mentioned in the scriptures are sons of Joseph from a prior marriage and not other children born to Mary. The Catholic view on this point is strengthened by Christ assigning John to be Mary’s son as one of His dying acts. If Mary had other sons to care for Her, that assignment of John would not have been necessary. The Catholics are much closer to the truth about Mary, but they still have an incomplete theology.

Returning to the words of the Divine Mother in Proverbs 8:

I lead in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of judgment: That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance; and I will fill their treasures. (Proverbs 8:20-21; see also Proverbs 1:36 RE)

These treasures are not earthly but durable and incapable of depreciation. What the Mother offers cannot be harmed by moth or rust nor lost to thieves. They are in heaven. But obtaining them requires us to walk as She guides in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of judgment (ibid, vs. 20; see also vs. 36 RE). The great white throne is not occupied by the Father alone. Nor will that great judgment be made without the Mother’s involvement, for She lives in the paths of judgment and wisely counsels Her children to obtain durable riches and honor.

The Mother explains how She was present from the beginning as part of the God we call Father or, in Hebrew, the Elohim:

The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men. (Proverbs 8:22-31; see also Proverbs 1:37 RE)

Before this creation, the Mother in Heaven was with the Father. She was beside Him when His work began. She was there when the plan was laid, the boundaries established, and the compass applied to establish order for the creation. All the Father knows, the Mother knows. All the Father established and ordered, the Mother established and ordered. They are one. She is the Father’s delight, and the potential of Her sons to be like Her Husband brings Her delight.

To be like Their Father, Her sons must become one with Her daughters, for it is not good for man to be alone. The Father and Mother are one, and Her sons and daughters must likewise become one. Only when the man and woman were together was the creation good. When men rebel, disobey, act cruelly, or mistreat Her daughters, we are anything but a delight to the Heavenly Mother. When we offend Her, we also offend Her Husband.

Before any of us will plan, measure, set a compass, and apportion the foundations of another earth, we must grow together and become like Them. Their work is glorious. They possess love—the power that creates and organizes. Love is the power behind all that They do. We cannot be like them without a loving relationship that mirrors Theirs.

Her words continue:

Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children, for blessed are they that keep my ways. Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not. Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors. For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the Lord. But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: [and] all they that hate me love death. (Proverbs 8:32-36; see also Proverbs 1:38 RE)

These interesting words do not mean just discovering the abstract presence of wisdom as a characteristic attributable to the Mother in Heaven. Instead, they require us to discover Her existence and to acknowledge Her—otherwise, we’ve not found Her. When She declares, whoso findeth me findeth life and shall obtain favor of the Lord, it should be taken literally. This does not mean we now pray to Her, for we are commanded to pray to the Father. But it does mean when we use the word Father to describe God, we finally regard God to be both male and female—the original image of God.

There are seven stages of development through which God’s children must pass. It is not all to be done in this life. Christ is the prototype of the saved man, and He qualified by passing through these stages of development. We should not be surprised that the Heavenly Mother was responsible for planning and creating these developmental opportunities for Her children.

Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars: She hath killed her beasts; she hath mingled her wine; she hath also furnished her table. (Proverbs 9:1-2; see also Proverbs 1:39 RE)

When any of us arrive at the end of the journey through the seven rungs of Jacob’s ladder, we will discover that the Mother was present throughout that journey. She declared: I lead in the way of righteousness, in the midst of the paths of judgment (Proverbs 8:20; see also Proverbs 1:36 RE). She is present all along the way through the seven pillars. This recognition of the Heavenly Mother requires wisdom.

When a female deity has been worshipped in past cultures, more often than not, the result is a gradual degeneration into fertility cults and sexual excesses. Ritual prostitution was often practiced by ancients who believed in a divine mother. Even Israel fell into sexual deviancy as part of their worship of a female god.

At a pivotal time for ancient Israel, Jeremiah condemned worship of the queen of heaven. Because some scholars want a divine female to be authentic, Jeremiah’s condemnation is considered problematic. His words can be interpreted to denounce altogether a female god. In part because of this, in current scholarship Jeremiah has become a controversial figure. Even his existence is now questioned. Margaret Barker recently wrote the following:

This assumes that a person of that name existed, since scholars cannot begin to agree if Jeremiah even existed, nor on the process by which the present texts of Jeremiah were formed. Many have resorted to other ways of dealing with the text. A recent volume on the latest trends in Jeremiah studies was introduced thus: “Jeremiah is an intractable riddle.” “Taken together, the essays in this volume press for an end to ‘innocent’ readings of Jeremiah… And the turn to Jeremiah as a social semiotic discourse presses for an end to ‘innocent’ biblical theology readings that have [championed] historical-critical orthodoxy in one fashion or another.” No help there in our quest for reconstructing what happened in the time of Josiah! (Margaret Barker, The Mother of the Lord: Volume 1: The Lady in the Temple, p. 54)

But we know Jeremiah was real and that he was a prophet because Nephi mentions him in his description of what had been preserved in the brass plates of Laban. The description includes the following:

And also a record of the Jews from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah. And also the prophecies of the holy prophets, from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah; and also many prophecies which have been spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah. (1 Nephi 5:12-13; see also 1 Nephi 1:22 RE)

The Book of Mormon confirms Jeremiah’s existence and status as a prophet. We can accept him today even if scholars doubt. Revelation remains more reliable than mere scholarship and opinion.

Jeremiah denounced the form of veneration taken by ancient Israel. He rebuked those in his day, preaching, among other things, this:

Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah…in the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle…fire, and the women knead their dough, [and] make cakes to the queen of heaven,…to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger. Do they provoke me to anger? saith the Lord: do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces? (Jeremiah 7:17-19; see also Jeremiah 4:2 RE)

These words have been incorrectly used to denounce and deny the very existence of a Heavenly Mother. However, Jeremiah was not denying or denouncing Her existence, only the improper form of worshipping Her to the exclusion of Heavenly Father.

It requires wisdom to deal with the Mother. Rejection of Her has resulted in religious and social errors. Ignoring Her has produced celibacy, religious eunuchs, and a collapsing birth rate. On one end, fixation on Her has produced fertility cults, sacred prostitution, and religious orgies. At the other end, the Shakers—Shakers, officially, are United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second Appearing—Shakers were celibate, and procreation was prohibited. This resulted in the gradual death of their community and, as of 2017, only two surviving members. Either end of the religious-sexual spectrum that misapprehends the Divine Feminine has been plagued with degrading or calamitous imbalances.

The sun and the moon are symbols of the Father and Mother planted overhead as a testimony from Them to Their children. From the surface of the earth, they occupy equal space in the firmament. Although the circumference of the sun is approximately 400 times larger than the moon, the moon is approximately 400 times closer to the earth. As a result,they are visibly equal in size and occupy the same path on the ecliptic. This is why the moon is able to eclipse the sun. 

The Father, represented by the sun, is stable, unchangeable, reliable, and predictable. The sun rises every day on the horizon in the east and sets every evening on the horizon in the west. He is unvarying in His course from day to day and year to year. The Mother, represented by the moon, changes each day. She waxes and wanes. She does not just move from east to west, but the moonrise also constantly moves in the opposite direction from west to east. Every day she reappears further to the east before beginning her movement to the west. She moves approximately 50 minutes eastward each day.

Her complex movements overhead were part of the reason she was known anciently as “The Great Dancer.” Her movements display constantly changing motions, contrasting with her companion sun. This contrast between the movements of the sun and the moon reminds me of the quip by cartoonist Bob Thaves about Ginger Rogers, the dancing partner of acclaimed Fred Astaire: “Sure he was great, but don’t forget that Ginger Rogers did everything he did…backwards and in high heels.”

We are often told that life on earth depends on the sun. But life here is equally dependent on the moon. Without the moon slowing the earth’s rotation, we would have only six- to ten-hour days. The shorter days would result in the earth being much colder, as the sun would have less time to warm the earth’s surface. This would cause a dramatic decrease in plant and animal life. Tides would be eliminated; weather would be more violent. The stable rotation of the earth would change, and we would no longer rotate on a constant axis. The poles and equator would no longer exist or would be constantly changing. The earth’s tectonic plates, continents, and mountain ranges are all formed by the effect of the moon on the earth. Without the moon, there would be less variety in the earth’s habitats. Many life forms could not exist. Richard Lathe, a molecular biologist at Pieta Research in Edinburgh, United Kingdom, advanced a theory in 2003 explaining that life on earth could not have happened without the moon. A number of astronomers believe that life on any planet throughout the universe requires a nearby moon, and without this nighttime companion for the sun, life cannot exist.

While acknowledging a Divine Mother is appropriate, singling Her out for worship is not. The words of the Divine Mother’s proverb and Mary’s psalm both venerate and praise the Father. The role of God the Father is critical to acknowledge and understand for our salvation. Jesus Christ is the essential Savior and Redeemer whose atoning sacrifice is the means ordained by God to now rescue us from sin and death. Our salvation depends on knowing, confessing, and worshipping Christ. Anything that distracts us from that can become an impediment to salvation.

For us, the Mother’s greatest accomplishment has been to take the seed of God the Father and magnify it. She controls and weaves His seed into Their organized spirit offspring. From Their glory, or intelligence, She produces organized intelligences, or spirits. One of the titles for the Heavenly Mother is The Great Weaver because She formed unorganized intelligence into organized intelligences or spirits, becoming the Mother of all living. All of us are intimately connected to Her, for we came from Her.

Mortal women have inherited a similar power from Her. This inheritance empowers them to become mothers here. The capacity to fashion matter into another human being belongs only to Her daughters. All human life begins inside the womb of the woman where the work of The Great Weaver is replicated for each one of us who has ever lived in this world.

There is a natural and inevitable affection children hold for their mothers. That affection is close to the hearts of all dying men. There are many battlefield accounts of how dying men call out in their last breath for their mother. Roland Bartetzko, former German Army soldier, when under fire in his first combat experience, uttered, “Mother,” when fire first struck others beside him. As he reflected on why he spoke that out loud, he concluded, “Our lives begin with our mothers giving birth to us and on the day when I thought my life was over, my mind circled back to where it all began.”

There is something primal, unavoidable, and universal in the connection between children and mothers. Life begins in her arms and at her breast. Approaching death always brings the beginning of life (and therefore, motherhood) back into focus. This primal connection is one reason why acknowledging the Heavenly Mother has proven overwhelming—even a burden—for some societies. As soon as they are aware of Her, they focus veneration and worship on Her alone.

The presence of the female counterpart to God the Father does not include a scriptural command or permission to single Her out and worship Her apart from the Father. Indeed, the psalm of Mary in the book of Luke and the words of the Mother in Proverbs direct our attention to the Father. She may be part of a Divine Couple, but it is clear She wants honor and worship to be on Her Husband and Her Son.

Mary’s psalm focuses on God the Father and His Son. Look carefully at Her adoration of God:

My soul doth magnify the Lord, …my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. …holy is his name. And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation. He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree. He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent [away empty]. He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy; As he spake to [the] fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever. (Luke 1:46-47, 49-55; see also Luke 1:8 RE, emphasis added)

She pointed us to the Father. Remember also that the brightest star in Her constellation is in Her hand—the seed of the woman. The stars testify of Her but point to Her seed as the greatest light for us here and now.

The moon reflects the light of her sun just as Mary did in Her psalm. This physical example testifies to the glory of the Father and the faithful reflection of the Mother. It is the sun that provides the light, heat, and gravity governing the planets of this creation under its influence. It is the moon that stabilizes and makes life possible.

As mentioned already, Jeremiah witnessed some of the corrupt practices of ancient Israel when they singled out the queen of heaven for uninvited, uninspired primacy in their worship. God prompted him to condemn what he saw. His condemnation has been wrongly interpreted as an outright rejection of Her existence. But Jeremiah has preserved for us the fact that ancient Israel once burned incense to the queen of heaven. This happened in their temple. Israel incorrectly attributed prosperity to their worship and appeasement of the queen of heaven. They turned the queen of heaven into a magic talisman to be placated by incense, drink offerings, and cakes. It was idolatry, incapable of changing the inner man. Acknowledgment of Her devolved to degrading appeasement of a female sky god who could be manipulated into blessing worshippers by the offering of presents. But to put this into perspective, that condemnation by Jeremiah was comparable to Jesus Christ’s denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees. Christ did not reject God the Father. He vindicated Him. But Christ denounced their foolish, superficial idolatry associated with God the Father. Jeremiah was condemning worship of the queen of heaven that had strayed outside the bounds authorized by God.

History has proven that it is less problematic to ignore Heavenly Mother than to acknowledge Her. Historically speaking, mankind has shown there is less of a downside to ignoring Heavenly Mother than the downside of acknowledging Her. Faith in God is not dependent on fully realizing the things disclosed in this talk.

Lecture Third in Lectures on Faith clarifies what is essential to enable us to have saving faith in God:

Let us here observe that three things are necessary in order that any rational and intelligent being may exercise faith in God unto life and salvation.

• First, the idea that he…exists.
• Secondly, a correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes.
• Thirdly, an actual knowledge that the course of life which he is pursuing is according to His will. (Lectures on Faith 3:2-5, emphasis added)

The idea that a Heavenly Mother exists is implicit in the scriptures. But because it is not explicit, a person can have faith that God exists without understanding the duality of the Heavenly Parents. Likewise, the character, perfections, and attributes do not require anybody to understand what is explained in this talk.

Their character, perfections, and attributes are: mercy, righteousness, love, compassion, and truthfulness. They are without partiality, no respecter of persons, regarding all alike. They make the sun to shine and the rain to fall on both the righteous and the wicked. They regard wickedness as an abomination. They prize truth, meekness, and peacemakers. They abhor the froward, prideful, evil, and arrogant. They are full of grace and truth and are more intelligent than us all. They are the Creators and will be the final judges of this cycle of existence, and no one will be permitted to progress further without Their permission. There is nothing vile or perverse about Them. They are repelled by contention and seek for us all to associate with one another equally, as brothers and sisters. They are perfect in the sense of having completed the journey to the end of the path and entered into eternal lives and exaltation. They now seek to guide Their children along the same path. 

If you understand and accept these things about God, that is enough. You may imagine Them as a male and a female, or a Great Spirit, a bearded old man, or an incorporeal-but- difficult-to-envision being of pure glory. Whatever young Joseph Smith imagined God to be when he asked God for wisdom was unimportant because he believed God to be just, pure, holy, and no respecter of persons. The answer he received cleared up a great many mysteries for Joseph, but those clarifications went beyond God’s character, perfection, and attributes.

The keystone of our religion gives examples of how faith in God does not require any comprehension of the corporeal existence or physical dimensions of God. The understanding of the Brother of Jared before he saw God was decidedly limited. Despite this, he was redeemed from the fall by returning to God’s presence where he gained greater knowledge of God. Beforehand, he did not understand Christ had a finger, nor did he understand he would one day take upon Himself a mortal body:

And the veil was taken from off the eyes of the brother of Jared, and he saw the finger of the Lord; and it was…the finger of a man, like unto flesh and blood. And the brother of Jared fell down before the Lord, for he was struck with fear. And the Lord saw that the brother of Jared had fallen to the earth, and the Lord said unto him, Arise. Why hast thou fallen? [It’s hard to talk to people when they’re laying on their face. It’s annoying.] And he [said to] the Lord, I saw the finger of the Lord, and I feared lest he should smite me, for I knew not that the Lord had flesh and blood. [See, if I see someone who is big and powerful, and I get a look at his hand, the usual thing that the Big Man does is slap me with that same damn hand because that’s what big chiefs do.] …I feared lest he should smite me, for I knew not…the Lord had flesh and blood. (Ether 1:12 RE)

I knew not. I knew not. This is the guy that has faith sufficient to get through the veil to be in the presence of Christ. I knew not this. But he understood the character, attributes, and perfections. He could have faith. 

And the Lord said unto him, Because of thy faith, thou hast seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood (ibid, vs. 12).

When Ammon was teaching King Lamoni, the instruction began by only acknowledging that God was a Great Spirit.

Believest thou that there is a God? And he answered unto him, I do not know what that meaneth.…then Ammon said, Believest thou…there is a Great Spirit? And he said, Yea. And Ammon said, This is God. And Ammon said unto him again, Believest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things which are in Heaven and in…earth? And he said, Yea, I believe…he created all things which are in the earth, but I do not know the Heavens. And Ammon said unto him, The Heavens are a place where God dwells and all his holy angels. (Alma 12:15 RE)

This man would have the veil taken, and he would be caught up into a heavenly vision with that foundation because that was enough of the character, attributes, and perfections of God to allow him to pass through the veil. 

When Aaron taught King Lamoni’s father, he likewise described God vaguely as that Great Spirit:

Behold, assuredly as thou livest, O king, there is a God. And the king said, Is God that great Spirit that brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem? And Aaron said unto him, Yea, he is that great Spirit,… he created all things both in Heaven and in…earth. Believest thou this? And he said, Yea, I believe that…Great Spirit created all things, and I desire that ye should tell me concerning all these things, and I will believe thy words. (Alma 13:8 RE)

That’s it. 

These examples demonstrate that understanding there is both a Father and a Mother who jointly comprise a single Heavenly Father is not essential for mankind to be able to have saving faith in God. Knowing the character, perfections, and attributes does not extend to these particulars. To be like Them is to be patient, faithful, obedient, loving, charitable, and pure. These are the important characters, perfections, and attributes of godliness. Their appearance—even that They are two separate beings, male and female, and yet They are one—is not required for faith.

First and foremost, for fallen man in this creation, salvation is dependent upon Jesus Christ. We have a revealed account that explains who we worship and how to worship:

And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at…first, but received grace for grace; And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness; And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not…the fulness at the first. And I, John, bear record, and lo, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove, and sat upon him, and there came a voice out of heaven saying: This is my beloved Son. And I, John, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory of the Father; And he received all power, both in heaven and on earth. (D&C 93:12-17; see also T&C 93:4-6)

The account continues: 

Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth; And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come; And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning. (D&C 93:23-25; see also T&C 93:8)

Like Christ, we are to grow from grace to grace. Those words are in a revelation that begins with this promise: Verily, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my face and know that I am; (D&C 93:1; see also T&C 93:1). This is how we are to grow from grace to grace. This is how we can receive of His fullness. There is no mention of redirecting our obedience to another. Nor is there any name provided to us to call upon other than Christ’s. Nor is there any voice we are to hearken unto other than Christ’s.

We are in a fallen state and need to be saved. Like Mary acknowledged to Elizabeth when they met, we need to be rescued by a Savior. That Savior is Jesus Christ. She pointed us to Him, and if we will heed Her wise counsel, we will rely on the merits of Christ, who is mighty to save.

There are other revelations that clarify how our attention and adoration must center in Christ. It is Jesus Christ who we are to acknowledge as the great Creator and Redeemer of creation:

God, the holiest of all, through Jesus Christ his Son—He that [ascendeth] up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth; Which truth shineth. This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made. As also he is in the moon, and…the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made; As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made; And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand. And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings; Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things. (D&C 88:5-13; see also T&C 86:1)

There are Heavenly Parents, to be sure. They are two separate beings: a Father and a Mother. She exists, and Her role is acknowledged in scripture. We are supposed to find Her. And in the last-days temple (should it be finally built by a humble and obedient people), Her open presence will be there.

In the temple ceremonies, women veil their faces. Among other things, this symbolizes the hidden Heavenly Mother. Her presence is veiled because She is sacred and not to be regarded as accessible apart from Heavenly Father. That which is most holy is veiled from the vulgar and profane. Women should be regarded as daughters of the Divine Mother. Like Her, they carry the power to produce new life. Mothers are the physical veil between pre-earth spirits and physical bodies inhabited in mortality. They clothe children in the veil of flesh. This power is honored in the temple veiling of women. This power to give life has been regarded in almost all societies as something sacred and holy. In our coarse and vulgar society, we have rejected, as a matter of law, the idea that women engage in a sacred and holy labor when bearing children.

The Great Weaver organizes intelligence into life itself through motherhood. It is in the womb that disorganized intelligence is organized into spirits resembling the Heavenly Parents in eternity. Mothers in this creation do likewise. That power, endowed by the Divine pattern, is present in this creation to testify of She who wove our spirits before this world. She is ever providing wisdom to guide the energy of Her Divine counterpart, so balance and order are maintained.

For the present, it is enough to know She is there and that She urges us to be faithful and obedient to Her Son, our Redeemer and Savior. We need to be rescued from our fallen state, and Jesus Christ is our rescuer.

Finally, there is one last clarification about the Heavenly Mother that needs to be made. Brigham Young taught a confusing doctrine that’s been labeled Adam-God. Although he gave some illuminating and true sermons during Joseph Smith’s lifetime, following Joseph’s death, Brigham Young seemed to be doctrinally adrift. He made no claims to revelation. But his guesses about what happened in the Garden of Eden have marred all of the largest branches of Mormonism. To be fair, he said he guessed and reckoned about the subject. But he also called it a revealment to him, which led others to regard his incorrect ideas as reliable. Brigham Young’s false ideas have produced a library of material defending or disputing his teaching. There are today both fervent defenders and convicted detractors. Because of this strong partisan divide, it might be more prudent to leave what happened in Eden unexplained. 

…But fools rush in. 

Our Heavenly Mother, the companion of Heavenly Father, was in the garden when man was created. But so were others. In addition to the man Adam and the woman Eve, the plural Elohim who were in Eden included two Divine couples who were the Parents of Adam and the Parents of Eve. One Divine couple were the Parents of Adam. The other were the Parents of Eve.

The account of the creation from Moses in Genesis is a parable. The account veils identities of the role players unless the parable is explained. Christ did this when He taught publicly. The parable written by Moses relates:

And I, God, said unto my Only Begotten, who was with me from the beginning, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And it was so. And I, God, said, Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,… over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the Earth. And I, God, created man in [mine] own image, in the image of my Only Begottencreated I him.  Male and female created I them. And I, God, blessed them. (Genesis 2:8 RE, emphasis added)

The creation of the man Adam was secondarily in the image of God the Father but was primarily and specifically in the image of [mine] Only Begotten—meaning Jesus Christ. The reason Adam was born in the image of God the Father’s Only Begotten was because the Only Begotten was the One who begat Adam. God the Father was the Father of Jesus Christ in the spirit, and God the Father was the biological Father of Jesus Christ in the flesh. God the Father was also the Father of the spirit of the man Adam. But the biological Father of Adam in the garden was in the image of the Only Begotten, or Jesus Christ. Christ and His companion were the physical Parents of the man Adam.

Jesus Christ was among the souls who were noble and great before this cycle of creation. The word soul, as used in the 1842 publication of the Book of Abraham, had been defined in a revelation received in 1832: 

Now, verily I say unto you, that through the redemption which is made for you is brought to pass the resurrection from the dead. And the spirit and the body [is] the soul of man. And the resurrection from the dead is the redemption of the soul. And the redemption of the soul is through him [who] quickeneth all things, in whose bosom it is decreed that the poor and the meek of the earth shall inherit it. (D&C 88:14-17; see also T&C 86:2)

Christ is identified in the scripture as a soul before this world was created. Therefore, before this world was created, Christ had both a spirit and a body—having gone through the necessary progression required for all who ascend to be like unto God. Christ had the physical capacity to be the biological father of offspring, and he did this with Adam.

The account continues and describes the creation of the woman. Here the parable distinguishes between the process of creating the man Adam and creating his spouse, the woman Eve:

And I, the Lord God, said unto mine Only Begotten that it was not good that the man should be alone; wherefore, I will make [an] help meet for him. (Genesis 2:13 RE)

God the Father said to the Only Begotten that He, God the Father, will be the one to make Adam’s help meet. It was not good for Adam to be alone because he was not complete without a suitable companion to help him progress and develop. The creation parable continues:

And I, the Lord God, caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept. And I took one of his ribs…closed up the flesh in the stead thereof. And the rib, which I, the Lord God, had taken from man, [I made] a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This I know now is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman because she was taken out of man. (Genesis 2:14 RE)

The parable of the creation of the woman, therefore, differs from the creation of the man. She was not formed from the dust of the ground. She was formed from a rib, from an already existing part of the man. She was born from something equal to him and able to stand beside him in all things.

But the parable about the woman Eve means a great deal more. She was at Adam’s side before the creation of this world. They were united as one in a prior estate when They progressed to become living souls with both bodies and spirits. They were sealed before this world by the Holy Spirit of Promise and proved to be true and faithful. They once sat upon a throne in God the Father’s Kingdom. In that state They were equal and eternally joined together. She sat beside him and was a necessary part of his enthronement. Her introduction into this world to join her companion was needed to complete Adam. It was not good for him to be alone. They were one and, therefore, Adam without Eve was not complete—or, in the words of the parable, not good to be alone.

Like the man Adam, the woman Eve was the spirit offspring of a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. But unlike the man Adam, who was the physical offspring of Christ, the woman Eve needed to be the physical offspring of God the Father and God the Mother. Eve was Adam’s sister in spirit. She was also his biological aunt. She had to be the direct descendant of the Heavenly Mother in order to endow her with her Mother’s creative abilities. That power belongs to the Mother. The fertility of Eve—and thereafter of all the daughters of Eve—came because of the power given from direct descent from the Heavenly Mother.

Men descend from Christ. Christ founded the family of men and is accountable for them. He was placed in that position to enable Him to atone for any failure on their part. Through Adam sin entered the world (Romans 1:23 RE), and death was imposed upon all mankind. Jesus Christ, One greater than Adam, made Himself responsible for all mankind’s failures and transgressions. Through obedience of Jesus Christ, all mankind were justified and made righteous (Romans 1:24 RE). The Father made mankind Christ’s posterity. This was necessary to qualify Christ as the last Adam (1 Corinthians 1:66 RE). Christ was the rightful heir of all things (Hebrews 1:1 RE) because He always stood at the head. When all things were made by Him (John 1:1 RE), it included the man Adam. Death came upon all mankind through Adam. Before Adam there was One greater who has made it possible for mankind to inherit life through Him. Christ has the standing to answer for man’s disobedience. He could and did take upon Him the sins of His posterity.

Women descend from mother Eve, who was born the biological daughter of Heavenly Mother. Women descend from Heavenly Mother to endow them with Her creative power of fertility to bear the souls of men. Eve was not beneath Adam, nor subject to his rule when first created. Eve was put beside him to complete him and to be his helpmeet.

There was another condition required to enable Christ to lawfully redeem the daughters of Eve as well as the sons of Adam. The parable of the creation includes this step to put Eve under Adam’s responsibility. The account explains that Eve (and by extension, her daughters) was put under Adam’s rule. Adam was handed responsibility and accountability for Eve. These are the words in the parable:

[Thy] desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee (Genesis 3:16; see also Genesis 2:18 RE, emphasis added).

Adam was made accountable to rule in a fallen world.  All the mistakes, mismanagements, failings, wars, and difficulties of mortality are the responsibility of the appointed ruler. Adam would not have been accountable for Eve unless she was made subject to his rule. Once under Adam’s rule, the redemption of Adam also became the redemption of Eve. Therefore, Adam (and the sons of Adam) and Eve (and the daughters of Eve) were all rescued through Christ’s atonement for mankind.

The parable continues with another allusion to Heavenly Mother:

And Adam called his wife’s name Eve because she was the mother of all living, for thus have I, the Lord God, called the first of all women, which are many (Genesis 2:18 RE, emphasis added).

One of the names of Heavenly Mother is Eve. She was the mother of all living because She was the One who mothered the spirits of Adam and Eve and was, therefore, Parent to them both and to all of their subsequent offspring. Out of respect for Her, Adam called his companion by the same name as the Heavenly Mother.

Redemption of all mankind, male and female, required Adam to descend from Jesus Christ. It also required Adam to rule or to be responsible to teach all those in his dominion. That role assigned to Adam was in order to extend the legal effect of Christ’s redemption to Adam, Eve, and their posterity.

However, for women to bear the souls of men, Eve had to be a direct descendant of Heavenly Mother. Although veiled for present, women’s direct descent from the Heavenly Mother is also required for men to be placed on a throne in the hereafter. The Answer to Prayer for Covenant states:

And again I say [unto] you, Abraham and Sarah sit upon a Throne, for he could not be there if not for Sarah’s covenant with him; Isaac and Rebecca sit upon a Throne, and Isaac likewise could not be there if not for Rebecca’s covenant with him; and Jacob and Rachel sit upon a Throne, and Jacob could not be there if not for Rachel’s covenant with him; and all these have ascended above Dominions and Principalities and Powers, to abide in my Kingdom. Therefore the marriage covenant is needed for all those who would likewise seek to obtain from me the right to continue their seed into eternity, for only through marriage can Thrones and Kingdoms be established. (T&C 157:42-43, emphasis added)

The creation of woman was designed to fulfill the work and the covenants of the Father in this world and will be critical in eternity. Families come through the union of the man and woman. Women bear the souls of mankind and bring all of us into this world through childbirth. That power was inherited from the Heavenly Mother. But there are other rights belonging to women that will only be apparent in the afterlife. They have been endowed with an everlasting authority required for any man to occupy a throne in the Father’s Kingdom.

A fuller explanation of women’s role will require worthy people willing to be taught and to build an acceptable house for the Elohim to return.

Let me briefly mention the Word of Wisdom. This was a revelation inspired by a woman, Emma Smith, and given to her husband. It declares it is a greeting, [and] not [a] commandment or constraint, [But it is a] revelation and the word of Wisdom [given to show] forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days [the revelation is charged with kindly, motherly advice]…Wine or strong drink…[is] not good… [apart from the sacrament. For the sacrament it should be] pure wine of the grape of the vine [that we make. We are warned that]…strong drinks  are  not  for the belly (D&C 89:2, 5-7; see also T&C 89:1-3) because many avoidable, foolish, physical and emotional errors are made when under the influence of strong drink; wine and strong drink tempt us into errors. The Mother urges us to find wisdom, prudence, counsel, understanding, truth, excellent things, and nothing that is froward or perverse. Wine is a mocker, strong drink is a raging and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise (Proverbs 2:299 RE).

Any kindly advice from a caring Mother ought to be followed, particularly when we are promised that by following it, we [will] receive health in [the] navel and marrow to their bones; and shall find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures; And shall run and not be weary, and shall walk and not faint (D&C 89:18-20; see also T&C 89:6).  

If this talk offends you or confuses your picture of God’s Great Plan of Happiness, then I’d recommend you leave this topic alone for the present. Do not reject truth only because you find it challenging. Just leave it alone.

If you welcome this discussion, then take care that you do not, as ancient Israel did, burn incense, pour out drink offerings, and bake cakes to a Being who has never invited you to do so. She has invited you to worship God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. If you would like to honor Her, then accept Her testimony and look to Jesus Christ alone for redemption and salvation.

Well, let me add one final thing, and that is: Those concluding references to the Word of Wisdom were themselves given as a reminder, by revelation, as something to be repeated here in the context of this talk to honor Her. A great deal of foolishness and distress and a lot of arguments have resulted from ignoring the Word of Wisdom; and wise counsel always tells us to be prudent and to be careful. 

You know, I have been forbidden to participate in discussions that have gone on, as I understand it, yesterday. I have a studied ignorance about what has gone on because I’m deliberately avoiding any of the details.

What’s contained in this talk and, in particular, the focus upon avoiding frowardness… Frowardness is a really old English word, so old that Microsoft Word incessantly corrects it to forwardness because forwardness, we use. Frowardness is old, and we don’t have a good word for it, but it means exactly what’s defined in the talk—being contrary, being stubborn, being difficult to get along with. Froward people are continuously nagging other people because they either think the other person is wrong, or they think themselves right; and therefore, they agitate rather than become meek and submissive and humble and patient and kindly.

I suspect that that part of the talk had something to do with the activities that have gone on, although I haven’t looked to see. I’ve heard from a couple of people that there was some head-butting. Head-butting is not a bad thing as long as it’s not done in a way so as to break hearts, create divisions, and make people hold ill will toward one another.

People are very different one from another. Not only are men and women different from one another, women are different from each other, and men are different from each other, and personalities are always going to be ill-fitted. Getting people to mesh together—that’s not going to result in, somehow, this universal similarity of personality. It’s important that people preserve their differences. It’s important that people have the gifts that have been given to them by God preserved intact and not suppressed because someone doesn’t like the way that their gift gets expressed.

I’ve mentioned it before—I just find the artwork that Monet does, with his version of impressionism, the highest and greatest use of the paintbrush. But I think Van Gogh’s impressionism is crude and elementary; and quite frankly, I mean, his suicide stopped the outpouring of that stuff. And in some ways, you know, maybe the art world is benefited by that. When he was a realist in the early stages, some of what Van Gogh did was rather lovely, but his impressionism— I say that, and when my wife substitutes in fourth grade and she brings presents home from her kids— But there are people who love Van Gogh. “Sunflowers” sold for 44 million last time it sold. There are some who really love Van Gogh! I assume that in the resurrection, they’ll figure out that they were duped; but for here and now, in this fallen world with its perverse set of priorities, that’s all good and well; and if they’ve got the money, and they want to use it that way, that’s fine.

Zion is going to have people whose artistic outpouring is going to be fabulously different from one another. You look at the totem pole artistry of the Alouettes; and you look at the carved artistry of the Hawaiian Islands; and you look at the sculpture of Michelangelo—and these are radically, radically different one from the other, so much so that you’re bridging these enormous cultural divides to look at these different kinds of sculpture. Why would we ever want to have a studied school of artistic discipline that produces nothing more than some uniform product when beauty and artistry can find so many unique forms of expression. Why would we ever want that?

Why would you want to go to a fellowship meeting in Uganda, a fellowship meeting in the Philippines, and a fellowship meeting in Spain and hear the same lesson on the same Sunday everywhere throughout the world? That is managerial overkill designed to destroy the unique spirits of the sons and daughters of God.

Facial recognition technology works because no one wears your face but you. Fingerprints distinguish every one of us from one another, so much so that if you leave a print, and everyone else leaves a print, we can distinguish yours from everyone else. Every single snowflake crystal is unique. Every leaf of every tree is unique. Nature cries out that God treasures the differences that exist from one soul to the next. And when describing the gifts that are given, the gifts are very different, but how the gifts manifest themselves, even if someone possesses exactly the same gift— Read the description of the seership of Enoch and the description of the seer Joseph, and the way in which they manifest themselves were decidedly different. Even the gifts do not come out the same when put through one person and then put through another. Every one of you are unique, and when we deal with one another, the objective is not to compel you to be me. The objective is not to compel any one of us to be the same as another one of us. The objective is to rejoice and to respect and to hallow the work that God has done in making us so unique from one another. Even twins are dissimilar.

My father was a twin. There’s a picture of him and his twin brother in their high school class. I think there were 12 kids in their class. The way in which my father was dressed and the way in which his twin brother was dressed in the picture foreshadowed the course that these two men’s lives would take.

My father left that area in rural Appalachia, and he went into the military. He fought in World War II. He landed on Omaha Beach on the morning of D-Day. He settled in the West.

He worked his life to support his children in encouraging my sister and I to go to college to receive an education that he did not receive because by the time he had an opportunity to do that, life and family and work prevented it. (My sister holds two Bachelor’s degrees, a Master’s degree, and I’ve got an Associates, Bachelor’s, and Juris Doctorate degree.) Because of the priorities that my father had, he was willing to work for the long game, the long vision—to sacrifice.

His twin brother looks rather dandy. He out dressed his twin. He was somewhat showy. He wanted to get there and get there now and quickly.  And so, when he finished school, he immediately went to the best-paying job he could find; and he went to work in the coal mine where the United Mine Workers Union wages paid him a great living. He never left Appalachia, developed black lung as a coal miner—which they often did. But he had gratification early on that my father did not have; but my father had satisfaction that his twin brother never had for himself. Twins are dissimilar. They were identical twins; they were not fraternal.

We’re unique, and we’re meant to be so. We dishonor God when we disrespect that and when we insist on uniformity. However different we may be from one another; however, we can still be kindly. We can still be patient. We can still try to uplift, to edify, and to honor the differences that exist between us.

I pray that we will take everything that has been said today, many of which, I suspect, were comments designed for a subject about which I have studied ignorance and no responsibility but, instead, a commandment not to participate. But if the words of a kindly and caring God can hold any sway in the hearts of men, then let it do so.

Let me end by bearing testimony again that the only reason I had the audacity to say any of the things that were said here today is because they were authorized, and they were approved; indeed, they were required to be said.  And I don’t know why some things get said at one point in history that are not said at other points. I just know that as we move along the path towards what is inevitable at this point (that is, the coming of the Lord and the establishment of a place of peace, a city of Zion, and a New Jerusalem) that more information needs to be in the possession of those that will find themselves there.

In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

The post Our Divine Parents appeared first on Restoration Archives Blog.

This talk was given in Clinton, Utah on January 14, 2018.

Transcript

The right pathway is always filled with peril. King Benjamin said, and this is from the traditional account: (Mosiah 4:29-30 “I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them. But this much I can tell you, that if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not.” 

That list is pretty all inclusive. We have to watch ourselves, we have to watch our thoughts, we have to watch our words, and we have to watch our deeds, and beyond that observe the commandments. King Benjamin could not tell us all of the ways we could fail to do those things. There really is no list that can be compiled that says, don’t do this and don’t do that, and don’t do this and don’t do that, and have an exhaustive list of all the don’ts. It can’t be done. In fact, about the only way to avoid all the don’ts is to have a handful of the do’s, the things that you ought to do in order to honor God. Christ summarized those basically in two brief statements: “Love God with all your heart”, and “love your fellowman as yourself”. It’s practically impossible for us to avoid errors by putting together a list of what to avoid, so I wouldn’t attempt it. 

Then there is the weakness of mind and spirit of mankind. Moroni discussed the ministering of angels and he described in these words: “neither have angels ceased to minister unto the children of men. For behold, they are subject unto him, to minister according to the word of his command, showing themselves unto them of strong faith and a firm mind in every form of godliness. And the office of their ministry is to call men unto repentance, and to fulfil and to do the work of the covenants of the Father, which he hath made unto the children of men, to prepare the way among the children of men, by declaring the word of Christ unto the chosen vessels of the Lord, that they may bear testimony of him” (Moroni 7:29-31). If you go through those verses and you look at what he’s saying it requires a firm mind in every form of godliness. 

A firm mind can be descriptive of a variety of things including someone that’s just stubborn. But it’s not stubbornness, it’s a firm grasp on the things that lead to godliness, not excesses, not foolishness, and we’ll get more into that in a bit. Their purpose in ministering is to equip the person who has an audience and those who hear the message to be called to repentance; not a lot of flowery, fancy things but repentance, because essentially without repentance, that is turning to face God in all you do, none of us are going to make it. He goes on to say that the purpose of calling people to repentance is to “fulfil and do the works of the covenants” (Moroni 7:31). 

There is sort of a pattern here in what is happening. Angelic ministerence comes to people of a firm mind and every form of godliness, calls repentance in order to fulfil and in order to do the work of the covenants. “To fulfil and to do the work of the covenants of the Father”, that requires that people bear testimony of Him. These are the essential things that are needed. It doesn’t require a fanciful or a flowery imagination. It does not require that we bear testimony of ourselves. It doesn’t require us to do something other than to fulfil and do the work of the covenants. Therefore, I would suggest this is a pretty good guide to consider when you’re evaluating all of the competing claims that are now being made by people, to having inspiration or revelation or the word of God to them. 

We are vulnerable to being mislead even as we claim to be inspired. I’m going to read from a recent study from the National Academy of Science. I read from it because it’s a really interesting study result: 

“Religion appears to serve as a moral compass for the vast majority of people around the world. It informs whether same-sex marriage is love or sin, whether war is an act of security or of terror, [and] whether abortion rights represent personal liberty or permission to murder. Many religions are centered on a god (or gods) that has beliefs and intentions, with adherents encouraged to follow “God’s will” on everything from martyrdom to career planning to voting. Within these religious systems, how do people know what their god wills?

“When people try to infer other people’s attitudes and beliefs, they often do so egocentrically by using their own beliefs as an inductive guide. This research examines the extent to which people might also reason egocentrically about God’s beliefs. We predicted that people would be consistently more egocentric when reasoning about God’s beliefs than when reasoning about other people’s beliefs. Intuiting God’s beliefs on important issues may not produce an independent guide but may instead serve as an echo chamber that reverberates one’s own beliefs.

“The Jewish and Christian traditions state explicitly that God created man in his own image, but believers and nonbelievers alike have long argued that people seem to create God in their own image as well.”

That’s a problem that you find everywhere. God wills this to be so – well, because God agrees with me that it ought to be so, and therefore I’m comfortably in tune with God. 

The greatest help given to us to solve the contradiction between praying to God and the answer being exactly what we wanted, exactly what we expected, and exactly what makes us right and everyone else wrong; the greatest guide is the scriptures. They provide us a lifeline for measuring any inspiration we think we obtain from God. But that’s not enough if it’s not coupled together with prayerful, ponderous thought, and time and experience. I want to compare these statements from Joseph Smith about this topic: 

“A person may profit by noticing the first intimation of the spirit of revelation; for instance, when you feel pure intelligence flowing into you, it may give you sudden strokes of ideas, so that by noticing it, you may find it fulfilled the same day or soon; (i.e.) those things that were presented unto your minds by the Spirit of God, will come to pass; and thus by learning the Spirit of God and understanding it, you may grow into the principle of revelation, until you become perfect in Christ Jesus.” (DHC 3:381, June 1839). 

That seems to suggest that answers can come suddenly, quickly, perhaps even easily. But Joseph also said this: 

“A fanciful and flowery and heated imagination beware of; because the things of God are of deep import; and time, and experience, and careful and ponderous and solemn thoughts can only find them out. Thy mind, O man! if thou wilt lead a soul unto salvation, must stretch as high as the utmost heavens, and search into and contemplate the darkest abyss, and the broad expanse of eternity—thou must commune with God.” (TPJS, p. 137, March 1839).

That second quote is taken from a letter that Joseph Smith composed while he was in Liberty Jail in which he had plenty of time to fashion the language. The first quote, sadly, is taken from a source which may not be reliable or accurate. The source for that first quote is Willard Richard’s Pocket Companion in which he quoted something which, if Joseph Smith said it, Joseph said it while Willard Richards was in England on a mission and he could not possibly have heard it. He doesn’t even attribute it to Joseph Smith. But when the documentary history was being compiled they used the Willard Richards Companion to take that language and attribute it to a talk given by Joseph in 1839 because most of the stuff in the Pocket Companion can be tracked to Joseph, and therefore they conclude this one likewise fit that same category. The second one is clearly, unambiguously from Joseph Smith and describes the process. Now, while Joseph was in the Liberty Jail on occasion he would have a friendly face show up, or he would have a letter arrive. On one of the occasions he got letters from other people and his wife, Emma. Joseph, who had been brooding at the time and longing for the companionship of some friends, describes what his mind was going through at the time of the letter and his response to it. He says his mind was frenzied, and any man’s mind can be when contemplating the many difficult issues we are called upon to confront.

Just like Joseph, we have perpetual conundrums and contradictions. We all face them. Some are of our own making but others are just inherent in living in this existence. When we thoughtfully consider the challenges, just like Joseph it seizes the mind, and like Joseph in Liberty Jail, makes us reflect upon so many things with the “avidity of lightning”. That was Joseph’s word. The mind is in this frenzied state, and with the avidity of lightning he’s jumping from subject to subject, a fence to a fence, from things that console to things that outrage you. From things you know to be true to things that offend you. Back and forth, and back and forth until, as Joseph puts it, “…finally all enmity, malice and hatred, and past differences, misunderstandings and mismanagements are slain victorious at the feet of hope; and when the heart is sufficiently contrite, then the voice of inspiration steals along and whispers[.]” It’s almost poetry, the way Joseph describes what he went through there. But it is poetry describing the actual bona fides of Joseph receiving answers from God. 

God’s most important inspiration for the most challenging subjects is often not hasty, quick and without effort at our end. Consider the advice to Oliver Cowdery that he must “study it out in his own mind first” before asking God to tell him the answer. Many people want a quick, perfunctory response from God with no forethought. What they receive in turn is a quick, perfunctory answer. 

God is almost always, for the most difficult challenges, not a “short order cook” although there are certainly false spirits who are willing to be just that.

I asked God in October what the term “mutual agreement” as used in the Answer meant. Before I asked I hesitated and pondered the issue for two months. I discussed it with my wife and several others, and then discussed again the views of others with my wife. I read emails from people involved in an active discussion about the meaning of the term.

It requires humility to approach God and ask Him for His answer and yet more humility to know it is from Him and not my own ego, presumptions, hopes, desires, wants and conceit. It is for me, as it was for Joseph, only “when the heart is sufficiently contrite, then the voice of inspiration steals along and whispers” the truth. That comes from a purer source, higher than myself and more filled with light than any man. Certainly, greater light than I have.

When the definition was given, it was accompanied by the realization the Lord could have disputed every day of His life with someone. He deliberately chose to not contend. He was not an argumentative personality.

The more we contend with others the more we are taken captive by the spirit of contention. We become subject to the spirit we submit to follow. Those who are prone to contention become more contentious as they listen to that spirit. Eventually they are overcome by that spirit and it is a great work involving great effort to subdue and dismiss that spirit from the heart and mind of the victim.

Let me give you a description of the Prayer for the Covenant: It took months of pondering, testing, questioning beforehand, before I even dared to ask.  The idea that presented itself to my mind was that Joseph’s prayer at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple was a pattern to be followed when some great event involving God was to take place. The House of the Lord was one such event in Kirtland but having a new volume of scripture was at least equally important to that. Therefore, a prayer to God asking for His acceptance was an idea that continued to press upon my mind. 

But it concerned me that the idea of my offering that prayer may be based on my own will, and not heaven’s.  Before proceeding I questioned my motive, my desire, and why I would even ask. I was haunted by the continuing impression that it needed to be done and was required of me. Finally, when the idea could not be shaken from my mind, I determined it was not my own thought but God’s beckoning voice telling me this was an obligation I needed to act upon and not suppress. I want you to think of Joseph’s description that says: “Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of [my] heart. I reflected on it again and again[.]”

Joseph did not act hastily when the impression came to him. He couldn’t shake it. It persisted. He reflected upon it again and again. I don’t know whether that’s days, weeks, or months, but I can tell you before the Prayer for the Covenant was offered, for me it was months because if it isn’t of God, I have no right to step forward and do something. I ought not be volunteering for things of that nature. At length I determined that I should act on the impulse and therefore I ought to offer a prayer for the acceptance of the scripture. When I began to compose the prayer, the content was provided by inspiration from Heaven and not my own words. It took me nearly 200,000 words to write a history of the Restoration from the time of Joseph to the present, in a book that’s fairly lengthy. The Prayer for the Covenant, coming by inspiration, only took a few pages and stated in more concise terms, more correctly the history of the Restoration from the beginning until now. The Prayer for the Covenant, the Prayer for the Scriptures, is not me being clever and insightful and succinct. The words were given, and the words are God’s view of what has happened. 

There are those who have claimed inspiration on very important matters who make decisions quickly. Almost as soon as they finish a prayer asking for something they assume the first thing that pops into their mind is God’s infallible answer. I do not doubt that may happen. It has happened to me, but for the most important things I have found that careful, ponderous, and solemn thought and meditation over time produces God’s will and word with clarity that does not happen in haste. 

Plural marriage history is a very convoluted and difficult topic. It’s easy to reach a decision without the labor of careful, solemn, ponderous, and searching thought to determine the truth. When the policy was announced publicly in 1852 the focus of the announcement that was made by Orson Pratt was on the Constitution of the United States. In fact, when he got up to deliver the announcement, one of the things that’s stressed in the talk – and you can read it, it’s in the Journal of Discourses; the talk is preserved. One of the things he stressed was that the Constitution protected religious practices and that if it is a bona fide part of your religion then it is protected. In fact, there is more emphasis in that talk placed on the Constitutionality of the practice than there is on scriptural support or divine pattern of the practice. This is the first public announcement. 

So one of the questions that presents to my mind, and should present to your mind is why, if this is an eternal principle, why when the first public explanation of it is given, was the focus upon the Constitutionality of the practice. It seems incongruent. The Constitution of the United States at that time was less than 75 years old, but this is a practice that often goes back depending upon whether you accept what Brigham Young says or not, all the way to the Creation, but certainly by those who advocated it, back to the early patriarchal fathers. So why the focus on the Constitutionality of the practice? It was one of the dilemmas and one of the questions that occurred to me when I first encountered the subject. If it begins with Adam bringing “one of his wives” why isn’t that much more important to relate? The practice, if it is of Divine origin, should have a great body of scripture and truth to back it, why focus on something as comparatively trivial as the then 75-year-old U.S. Constitution? It took me several decades of searching before I felt qualified to reach a conclusion on the topic. 27 years of preparation and pursuit was involved before I found God, which then brings this point: 

If a group of prayerful people spend months focused on a challenge, and then many hours together and individually discussing, searching, praying and looking to heaven for guidance, and then reach a conclusion they can all individually and collectively testify came from heaven, how can I adequately test their outcome without giving it careful, solemn, ponderous thought and take the time to test and retest the answer we get? People who can make truly inspired snap decisions are far better at obtaining God’s voice than am I. For gravely important matters it takes me a great deal of wrestling with heaven before I can trust that I am humble enough before God to accept what He has to offer and to exclude all of what I want, all of what I hope, and all of what I expect. Those who have a “short order cook” for their God can do what I cannot. 

There are many who dispute the inspiration others have received. I have two concerns with the decision a good person makes to dispute with others: First, the Lord’s example is to refrain from disputing, as He did. When confronted He would respond, but He did not go about picking a fight with others. He responded. The only exception was when He went up to Jerusalem to be slain. Then He went into the seat of Jewish power and authority to throw it down and provoke their decision to finally judge, reject and crucify Him. He, and not they, controlled that timing. His provocation at that time was a deliberate act on His part because His “time had come” and His sacrifice needed to be made.

Second, there are the Lord’s teachings. We have time and time again focused on the Doctrine of Christ. We have the doctrine of Christ on numerous websites, enshrined in numerous talks, and as a theme that has been adopted for conferences. Just before the doctrine of Christ He tells you what His doctrine is NOT. This is what Christ says immediately preceding His doctrine: “neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been. For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.” (3 Ne. 11: 28-30). And then He proceeds to declare His doctrine of Christ. 

The more we contend and dispute with one another the better we become at contention. We polish the rhetorical skills to oppose others. That spirit of contention can take possession of us and when it does, we are hard-pressed to be a peacemaker with others. Christ said: “Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” (Matt. 5:7-9).

But peace should not be made at the cost of truth. Truth must be the only goal. Truth, however, belongs to God. Our desires, appetites and passions are prone to make us stray well beyond the bounds set by God.

• Therefore, when our pride is gratified, we should question if what we are advancing is truth.
• When our ambition is served, we should question if we are in the Lord’s employ or our own.
• When we insist upon control, we should question if we are like our Lord or instead like His adversary.
• When we use any means for compelling others, we should wonder if we are mocking the God who makes the sun to shine and rain to fall on all His fallen children without compulsion.
• When we display unrighteous dominion, we should question whether we are worthy of any dominion at all.

Our tools must be limited to persuasion, gentleness, meekness, love unfeigned, pure knowledge, all of them mustered “without compulsory means” to persuade others to accept the truth. And if we fail to make the persuasive case then the problem is not others, the problem is that we’ve yet to figure out how to be sufficiently knowledgeable so as to bring them aboard. 

I believe every person we encounter down here, no matter who they are, wants to follow Christ. That’s why we’re here. The only reason they got here was because they want to follow Christ. Therefore, since they are predisposed to following Christ the reason they are not doing so at present is because no one has taken the time, no one has taken the trouble of giving sufficient cause to them to change, to turn, to repent, and to follow Christ. And by the way, at this point, none of us know enough in order to be able to truly follow Christ, because we are all riddled with half truths, part understanding, and the need for constant repentance, all of us. But if you’re further along and you accept Christ, and you understand His will better than your brother or sister, then you have the obligation to present persuasively to them the same reasons that touched their heart before they ever entered this world when they elected to follow Christ into this dark abyss in the first place. They’re here trying to find Him. If you can point to it and give them reason to believe, my view is that every single individual on earth has a native free disposition to turn and face Christ. We just have to figure out how to present that sufficiently persuasively so that it touches their heart and it resonates with that truth, that light that they came down here in the first instance possessing. 

The light of Christ illuminates every single being that is in this world. Therefore, Christ is in them already. You just have to animate that so that they realize the truth that you express, the testimony that you bear, the one whom you worship is God indeed, and worthy of their worship, worthy of their acceptance as well. 

There is so much left to be done. I know that we can’t jump hastily from point to point along the way and that we have to carefully proceed with every step. But it’s astonishing to me the steps that people decide to get hung up on and to spend a great deal of time, when time could better be spent moving further along on the path. I don’t know what it will take to get people to enthusiastically welcome and to move along with alacrity on the pathway that the prophecies foretell someone is going to achieve in the last days. Because it seems like all that murmuring that we read about in the Book of Exodus going on in the camp of Israel, when we scratch our heads and say, why are they complaining about missing the fleshpots of Egypt when God is leading them with a pillar of smoke by day and a pillar of fire by night? One would think that you’d be happy eating manna in the wilderness if you knew God was with you. 

I also think that in our current state of technological development it’s possible for the discontent to magnify the voice electronically over the Internet and to make any level of discontent seem to be much greater than it really is. But if one person is discontent and 500 people are arguing with the one who is discontent it appears that the argument includes at least half a thousand, maybe more. As between one another, that is every one of us, because every one of us is involved in a relationship with one another; you choose. Mind you, Christ could have disputed, he could have corrected, he could have challenged every one of the ongoing religious and social conventions of his day. You are doing that wrong. Oh, you should stop doing that. Would you quit it! And by the way, you’re so dark in your mind that I don’t know where it begins, except for him, he’s worse, and then her. Oh! [cross talk and audience laughter]

How much of the gospel of Christ would not have been possible for Him to preach if He’d gone about contending? He chose not to. In that respect, perhaps His most godly example was the patience with which He dealt with those around him; kindly, patiently, correcting them when they largely came to Him with questions trying to trap Him, but affirmatively stating in the Sermon on the Mount how you could take any group of people and turn them into Zion itself, if we would live the Sermon on the Mount. 

I figure that I’m not that good a teacher because it appears to me that there are a lot of mistakes being made that are perfectly avoidable. I don’t take King Benjamin’s statement that the number of errors that people can make, the number of sins that people can commit are endless, there is no way to possibly number them, as I don’t take that as consoling words. I take that as a challenge to say, Okay, but your people did find peace among one another. And even Enoch’s people found peace among one another. Melchizedek was called the Prince of Peace because he preached but what he preached was repentance. The office of the ministering of angels is to spread the message of repentance. So then all of us have an obligation there, to join in the same thing, repenting, turning to face God. The more we face Him, the more light we take in, the more differently we behave, individually and in connection with each other. 

I am certain we will see Zion because it’s been promised and it’s been prophesied from the beginning of time. When father Adam prophesied, being overcome by the Spirit in the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman and foretold what would happen to his posterity down to the latest generations, Zion was pointed to. Therefore, from the days of Adam on, all the holy prophets have looked forward to that as the essential moment in the history of the world, because Christ will come and will redeem the world. It will be the end of the wicked; it will be the beginning of something far better. That’s been the hope, that’s been the promise, that’s been what they’ve looked forward to. I wonder how many of us share that same longing, that same hope, that same desire that originated in the beginning, because if we don’t subdue our desires, appetites, and passions enough to try and deal peaceably one with another, choosing deliberately to not contend, even when we know people are wrong. When Christ was confronted and he corrected the error he corrected only that error, he didn’t go on with a list of other weaknesses, failings and challenges, He only addressed the one that was put to him. 

We have an opportunity. We have a bona fide, actual offer from God to allow us to be that generation in which the promises get fulfilled. But we have the freedom of choice that allows us to elect to be severed, to be contentious, to be agents of disruption, and to discourage and break the hearts of those who would willingly accept the challenge to repent and follow God. 

Now it’s also possible, in fact it’s probable, that at some point what the Lord will do is gather out a remnant of the remnant, gather out a few, and how many are essential in order for the promises to be fulfilled? I’m certain there is a minimum and I’m fairly confident that the minimum can be counted on your two hands, but there is no maximum. We’re not going to just have eight people on the ark; there can be more, there can be many more. The upper number is practically limitless. There is a minimum but heavens, why would anyone want that? 

In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen. 

The post That We Might Become One appeared first on Restoration Archives Blog.

This talk was given at a fireside on January 7, 2018.

Transcript

We are going to divide this into two parts. I am going to give a talk, don’t know how long it will be, but following the talk there will be questions and answers. The talk I’ve already written, and if you’re interested in seeing it in writing it will go up on my website tonight. The Q&A will be some time after it gets transcribed, but a recording will be put somewhere by Reed.

For Joseph Smith, 1838 was a terrible year. Rumors of immorality, begun that year by Oliver Cowdery, were given credibility because Oliver was the scribe who recorded most of the Book of Mormon, and he was a member of the presidency of the Church.  Those rumors are still believed by most Mormon sects, including the LDS church. Cowdery’s insinuations resulted in him being brought before a Church court on April 12, 1838 by the Far West High Council. A total of nine charges were brought against Cowdery.

At that time, Cowdery was the Assistant President to the Church and respected as the “second elder.” Cowdery had been one of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon and was responsible for selecting and ordaining the first Twelve Apostles. Cowdery’s Church trial was perhaps the most significant to be held in the history of the Church.

The nine charges against Cowdery included this one: “For seeking to destroy the character of President Joseph Smith Junior by falsely insinuating that he was guilty of adultery etc.” After taking evidence, the High Council ultimately ex-communicated Oliver Cowdery and cleared Joseph of the charge. The minutes of the High Council said they dealt with “the girl business,” meaning Oliver’s allegations against Joseph. Joseph was exonerated. (See Donald Q. Cannon and Lyndon W. Cook, eds., Far West Record: Minutes of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1830-1844 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1983), 162-163.)

The un-substantiated charge that Joseph was an adulterer has remained with Mormonism, moving from rumor, to widespread accusation, and finally into accepted LDS history. Today, essentially every Mormon sect either reluctantly admits, or vigorously advocates that carnal relations with plural wives originated with Joseph Smith, and therefore Oliver Cowdery was justified in accusing Joseph Smith of adultery. The closer the historical record is examined, however, the less evidence there appears to support Joseph as the instigator of sexual relations with multiple women. That same historical record has more evidence to implicate Brigham Young and consider that he changed what Joseph Smith believed. Joseph denounced adultery, and fathered children with Emma Smith alone. Brigham Young vigorously advocated carnal sexuality in the here-and-now with multiple women as a religious sacrament.

Unlike Joseph Smith, Brigham Young not only publicly advocated the practice but also fathered children with many women. Joseph denounced it publicly and excommunicated those he found engaged in it, and fathered children only with Emma Smith, his lawful wife. Despite this clear difference, the LDS Church claims that Brigham Young only practiced publicly what Joseph Smith did privately.

Even if you believe the LDS account of history (which I do not), the differences between the public statements and open conduct of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young could not be more dissimilar. The way the LDS institution has reconciled the great disparity between them is to assert Joseph was a liar, and Brigham Young was not! They cannot be reconciled, and one of them will be damned, (if you believe D&C 76:103-106).

Oliver Cowdery was not alone in forsaking Mormonism and Joseph Smith in 1838. Many of the most prominent members and leaders of the Church likewise abandoned Joseph that year. David Whitmer, another of the Three Witnesses, resigned his membership in 1838, but he was not formally excommunicated. His brother John Whitmer, the Church historian, was excommunicated and took the history with him, refusing to return it to Joseph. Prominent and respected Mormons, Hiram Page (one of the Eight Witnesses) and W.W. Phelps (a member of the high council), also left the church in 1838. So did three members of the twelve, and other Church leaders and members.

On July 4, 1838 Sidney Rigdon delivered the infamous “Salt Sermon,” warning that dissenters were worthy of being “trodden, like salt that lost its savor” under the feet of the saints. Because of the talk, former close friends and Church leaders Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, John Whitmer, W.W. Phelps and Lyman E. Johnson were warned to leave Far West or face “a fatal calamity.” They became enemies of Joseph. Mormons were in turmoil. In response to the threats against these men, all but Phelps fled Far West.

Rigdon’s Salt Sermon did not just threaten disaffected Mormons. He also threatened (and these are his words:) a “war of extermination” against the non-Mormons of Missouri if they did not stop annoying the Mormons. The threats ignited anti-Mormon opposition. Many of the disaffected Mormons changed sides and joined the Missouri mobs attacking Mormon settlements. These former leaders used their credibility as insiders to incite greater anger and hostility toward the Church. The animosities soon turned into armed conflict and arson.

Missourians believed Mormons threatened them. Mormons thought they were acting in defense and justified their own violence as “defending” themselves. Civil order broke down completely. Historians have named the resulting conflict “The Mormon War.” Angry Mormons fought against angry Missourians. Both sides blamed the other for causing the violence.

In October 1838, responding to the outbreak of hostility between Mormons and Missourians, Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs issued an “Exterminating Order” directing that Mormons be slain or driven from the State of Missouri. The Order gave violence against Mormons legitimacy and made Mormon responses an act of war against the state.

Many of these former Mormon leaders signed affidavits accusing Joseph Smith and his Church organization of criminal and moral wrongdoing. Thomas Marsh, president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, signed an affidavit on October 24, 1838 condemning and blaming Joseph for causing all of the violence. The Marsh allegations were endorsed by a second affidavit from fellow apostle Orson Hyde. The Marsh affidavit was signed the same day open warfare commenced and stated in part that, “Joseph Smith, the Prophet, had preached [at Far West]…that all the Mormons who refused to take up arms, if necessary, in difficulties with the citizens, should be shot, or otherwise put to death[.]” The affidavits identified Joseph Smith as the one responsible for Mormon violence directed at Missouri citizens. After recounting circumstantial evidence of thefts by Mormons that he claimed were supervised by Joseph, the Marsh affidavit stated:

“They have among them a company consisting of all that are considered true Mormons, called the Danites, who have taken an oath to support the heads of the church in all things that they say or do, whether right or wrong. … On Saturday last, I am informed by the Mormons, that they had a meeting at Far West at which they appointed a company of twelve, by the name of the destruction company, for the purpose of burning and destroying; … they passed a decree that no Mormon dissenter should leave Caldwell County alive; & that such as attempted to do it should be shot down & sent to tell their tale in eternity. In a conversation between Doct. Avard & other Mormons, said Avard proposed to start a pestilence among the gentiles, as he called them, by poisoning their corn, fruit &c and saying it was the work of the Lord. And said Avard advocated lying for the support of their religion, and said it was no harm to lie for the Lord.

[Now, I’m interrupting this affidavit for a moment because the concept of “lying for the Lord” got exported into Utah Mormonism as an acknowledged and legitimate part of what was expected of a good Mormon. You lie for the Lord, the originator being Sampson Avard.]

“The plan of said Smith, the Prophet, is to take this State; and he professes to his people to intend taking the United States, and ultimately the whole world. This is the belief of the Church, and my own opinion of the Prophet’s plans and intentions. It is my opinion that neither said Joseph Smith, the Prophet, nor any one of the principal men who is firm in the faith could be indicted for any offense in the county of Caldwell. (Caldwell is where the Mormons settled and they ran all of the judicial proceedings there.) The Prophet inculcates the notion, & it is believed by every true Mormon, that Smith’s prophecies are superior to the law of the land. I have heard the prophet say that he should yet tread down his enemies & walk over their dead bodies; that if he was not let alone he would be a second Mahamet [Mohammad] to the generations, & that he would make it one gore of blood from the Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic ocean. That like Mahamet, whose motto in treating for peace was Alcoran [Al Koran] or the sword, so should it be eventually with us – Jo Smith or the sword.

“These last statements were made during the last summer. …”

In calmer days, both Marsh and Hyde would recant their sworn affidavits. But in 1838 their statements were thought to be entirely truthful, and provided justification for the Missouri political leaders, militia and general population to see Joseph Smith and Mormons as a clear and present danger to them and to their property.

The first skirmishes between Mormons and Missourians began in August 1838 at a polling station when Mormons tried to vote. A band of Mormons led by Sampson Avard confronted election judge Adam Black about the failure to protect Mormon voting rights. Joseph Smith was among these Mormons. Judge Black attributed threats of violence to Avard and said Joseph did not approve and instead possessed no such heart for violence.

In the aftermath of the fight at the polling station, Avard’s authority to direct the Mormon militia was removed by Joseph Smith and Avard was reassigned as a surgeon. The re-assignment was because Joseph did not want violence to be used to resolve conflicts and Avard thought otherwise. Avard testified in November [1838], “I once had a command as an officer, but Joseph Smith, jr., removed me from it, and I asked him the reason, and he assigned that he had another office for me. Afterwards Mr. Rigdon told me I was to fill the office of surgeon, to attend to the sick and wounded.” (Testimony before Judge Austin A. King, 5th District Court of Missouri, November 12, 1838.)

Avard continued to support violence against perceived enemies and formed a group that came to be known as the “Danites.” Joseph denied that he approved or supported Avard’s group or violent actions. Historians have debated the question of Joseph’s involvement with the Danite organization and activities. Joseph’s denials have been questioned largely because of the testimony against Joseph given by Avard in late 1838 before Judge King.

While Avard was acting in the role of a surgeon, the battle of Crooked River was fought on October 24, 1838. The Extermination Order was issued immediately after, on October 27, 1838. Three days later, October 30, 1838 at Haun’s Mill, the Missouri Militia, led by Colonel William Jennings, Sheriff of Livingston County, massacred a group of Mormons, some even after they surrendered. None of the Missouri Militia were killed. The Mormon dead totaled at least 17, including a 78-year-old Revolutionary War veteran, whose body was decapitated.

Joseph Smith was tricked by George Hinkle into surrendering at the city of Far West while it was under siege. He thought he was going to meet with Missouri Militia leaders to negotiate peace. Hinkle lied to Joseph and brought him and other leaders to the militia, to be immediately arrested for treason.

On November 1st Joseph was sentenced to death “at 9 o’clock tomorrow morning in a public square at Far West.” Militia leader Doniphan refused to carry out the order, and Joseph’s life was spared. In the lead up to his arrest, and then during imprisonment, disaffected Mormons were far more dangerous and threatening to Joseph than the non-Mormons. It was Mormon lies about him that caused the peril.

Joseph’s original arrest at Far West was arranged by an agreement George Hinkle made with the commander of the Missouri Militia. The church leaders were inside Far West, which at the time was fortified and would be difficult for the militia to take without serious loss of life. Hinkle was sent to negotiate with the militia poised outside Far West as the representative for the community.

Hinkle agreed with militia commander Colonel Lucas to surrender church leaders to the militia but lied to Joseph and the others. He did not disclose they would be arrested but led them to believe they were going to meet with Colonel Lucas to negotiate an end to the conflict. Joseph was surprised when Hinkle led him into the camp as a prisoner. George Hinkle was a traitor.

Joseph Smith wrote several documents while imprisoned in Missouri. Specific dissidents are named, and their treachery explained in those documents. The individuals and their wrongdoing are set out in what I am about to read:

From jail Joseph Smith petitioned for habeas corpus. In the petition he mentioned George Hinkle. This is an excerpt from that habeas corpus petition:

“Joseph Smith Jr is now unlawfully confined and restrained of his liberty in Liberty jail Clay County (Mo) that he has been restrained of his liberty near five months your petitioners clame that the whole transaction which has been the cause of his confinement was (is) unlawfull from the first to the Last he was taken from his home by a fraude being practised upon him by a man by the name of George M Hinkle…” (JSP, Documents Vol. 6, p. 344; as in original.)

Hinkle is mentioned in another letter, along with John Corrill, Reed Peck, David Whitmer and W.W. Phelps. This is Joseph’s letter:

“Look at Mr [George M.] Hinkle. A wolf in sheep’s clothing. Look at his brother John Corrill Look at the beloved brother Reed Peck who aided him in leading us, as the savior was led, into the camp as a lamb prepared for the slaughter and a sheep dumb before his shearer so we opened not our mouth But these men like Balaam being greedy for a reward sold us into the hands of those who loved them, for the world loves his own. I would remember W[illiam] W. Phelps who comes up before us as one of Job’s comforters. God suffered such kind of beings to afflict Job, but it never entered into their hearts that Job would get out of it all. This poor man who professes to be much of a prophet has no other dumb ass to ride but David Whitmer to forbid his madness when he goes up to curse Israel, and this ass not being of the same kind of Balaams therefore the angel notwithstanding appeared unto him yet he could not penetrate his understanding sufficiently so but what he brays out cursings instead of blessings.” (JSP, Documents Vol. 6, p. 300-301; as in original.) [That is an allusion to an incident in the Old Testament.]

Sampson Avard led the Danites, a secret Mormon, quasi-military organization that terrorized Missourians and exacted a revenge against them. They burned houses and engaged in assaults to retaliate against the local non-Mormons. Avard was responsible for Joseph, Hyrum and others being held on the charge of treason. Without Avard’s testimony it was unlikely for enough evidence to be shown for probable cause to hold them on the charge of treason. Joseph wrote from jail about Avard the following:

“We have learned also since we have been in prison that many false and pernicious things, which were calculated to lead the saints far astray and to do great harm (have been taught by Dr. [Sampson] Avard) as coming from the Presidency and we have reason to fear (that) many (other) designing and corrupt characters like unto himself (have been teaching many things) which the Presidency never knew of being taught in the Church by anybody until after they were made prisoners, which if they had known of, they would have spurned them and their authors from them as they would the gates of hell. Thus we find that there has been frauds and secret abominations and evil works of darkness going on leading the minds of the weak and unwary into confusion and distraction, and palming it all off all the time upon the presidency while mean time the Presidency were ignorant as well as innocent of these things, which were practicing in the Church in their name[.]” (JSP, Documents Vol. 6, p. 306)

Joseph wrote about the three witnesses to the Book of Mormon (David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris) along with William McLellin, John Whitmer, Thomas Marsh and Orson Hyde. All these were identified in the following condemnation written by Joseph Smith in Liberty Jail:

“Such characters as [William E.] McLellin, John Whitmer, O[liver] Cowdery, Martin Harris, who are too mean to mention and we had liked to have forgotten them. [Thomas B.] Marsh & [Orson] Hyde whose hearts are full of corruption, whose cloak of hypocrisy was not sufficient to shield them or to hold them up in the hour of trouble, who after having escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of God and become again entangled and overcome the latter end is worse than the first. But it has happened unto them according to the words of the savior, the dog has returned to his vomit, and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire. Again if we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin, but a certain fearful looking (for) of judgement and fiery indignation to come which shall devour these adversaries. For he who despiseth Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses of how much more severe punishment suppose ye shall he be thought worthy who hath sold his brother and denied the new and everlasting covenant[.]” (JSP Documents Vol. 6, pp. 307-308.)

W.W. Phelps was another Mormon dissenter who was removed from leadership and then excommunicated in June 1838. He was one of the witnesses who testified against Joseph Smith in the Missouri treason hearings and accused him of being responsible for violence and treason. Phelps may have been motivated to testify against Joseph Smith to protect himself from criminal charges. He had been seen by Patrick Lynch, the clerk in Stolling’s grocery store, as one of the Mormon mob that robbed the store and then burned it. (JSP Documents Vol. 6, pp. 417-419.)

Joseph was not fooled by these men. He recognized they were traitors and liars. But he revealed to his wife his own spirit of forgiveness about them. Writing from jail to his wife, after 5 months and 5 days of imprisonment, Joseph counseled Emma “neither harber [sic] a spirit of revenge.” (JSP, Documents Vol. 6, p. 405.) Joseph’s advice to his wife contrasts sharply with the revealed word from the Lord to Joseph.

Early in 1839, after nearly a half-year of imprisonment, Joseph Smith wrote a letter from Liberty Jail to the saints. The letter included several revelations. One revelation declared these words:

“[C]ursed are all those that shall lift up the heal against mine anointed saith the Lord and cry they have sin[n]ed when they have not sined before me saith the Lord but have done that which was meat in mine eyes and which I commanded them but those who cry transgresion do it becaus they are the servants of sin and are the children of disobediance themselvs and those who swear false against my servants that they might bring them unto bondage and death. Wo unto them because they have offended my little ones they shall be severed from the ordinances of mine house their basket shall not be full their houses and their barnes shall famish and they themselvs shall be dispised by those that flattered them they shall not have right to the priesthood nor their posterity after them from generation to generation it had been better for them that a millstone had been hanged about their necks and they having drownd in the depth of the see…” (JSP, Documents Vol. 6, p. 366; all as in original.)

It was the Lord who said those men who bore false witness against Joseph “shall not have right to the priesthood nor their posterity after them from generation to generation[.]”  Even as late as the 1830s it was possible for men to so offend God that He will curse both them and their posterity from any right to the priesthood.

Such a heavy cursing raises two questions: First, upon whom was this curse imposed? Second, what did they do to merit such a heavy burden?

The probable candidates who earned this cursing are those Joseph identified in his letters describing the lies and false testimony against him. They were: George Hinkle, John Corrill, Reed Peck, Sampson Avard, William McLellin, John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, Thomas Marsh, Orson Hyde and W. W. Phelps. Each of these men and their wrongdoings are mentioned by Joseph Smith in his correspondence from jail in Missouri.

The three witnesses to the Book of Mormon are in almost every priesthood line of authority throughout Mormonism. Think of the irony of that for a moment. They were cursed and “shall not have right to the priesthood nor their posterity after them from generation to generation” yet Mormons point to them as the source through which the priesthood authority has descended until today.

This loss was because God sent a messenger, Joseph Smith, to say what God gave him to speak as God’s message to that generation. But these men rejected the messenger and fought against him. They accused Joseph of wrongdoing and sin when there was none.

What are the implications today for those historians and institutions who, like Oliver Cowdery, say Joseph Smith was an adulterer and a liar? Are they any different from those who testified against him in 1838 and 1839? It calls to mind another revelation God declared while Joseph remained in Liberty Jail:

“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.)

Are fools who hold Joseph Smith in derision today any less accountable?

I DO NOT believe Joseph Smith was an adulterer. He was not a liar, nor a hypocrite. But almost every Mormon institution, and certainly the largest ones, either proclaim or admit Joseph was all these things. I do not. I think he was pure in heart, noble, and virtuous. Must a person themselves be pure in heart, wise, noble, and virtuous before they qualify to seek worthy counsel, authority and blessings through Joseph Smith’s legacy?

One of the most ghastly legacies still happening as a result of Brigham Young’s openly adulterous version of Mormonism is best understood in a recent article in a December 28th Salt Lake Tribune edition. This is the title of the article: After polygamist leaders used underage girls for sex, lawsuit says, one teen was forced to be a scribe for the rituals. The article describes the allegations in a newly filed lawsuit against FLDS leaders. Among other things it relates the following:

“Starting when she was 8 years old, the woman [victim] says, she would be taken from her home, wearing a bag over her head, to an unknown location — typically an FLDS temple in the Colorado City, Ariz., area or other church- or trust-owned properties — where she would be assigned a number for a religious ritual, according to the lawsuit.

There, she was reportedly sexually assaulted by the Jeffses, Nielsen or other church members and leaders. When the men weren’t assaulting her, she says, they watched.”

While these are unproven allegations at present, the lawsuit will be based on these and other horrific allegations. These contemptible deviant sexual practices are an outgrowth of the legacy bequeathed to the LDS by Brigham Young. Carol Lynn Pearson’s recent book, The Ghost of Eternal Polygamy, recounts how plural wivery continues to invade and haunt the thinking of LDS Mormon women. Though the LDS church finally abandoned the practice in 1904, this cancer originated with it. I do not believe the deviant sexual legacy is Joseph’s, who denounced adultery, but is Brigham’s, who celebrated sexual access to multiple women as a religious sacrament.

How many descendants of George Hinkle, John Corrill, Reed Peck, Sampson Avard, William McLellin, John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, Thomas Marsh, Orson Hyde and W. W. Phelps today think they hold priesthood, when God said they were cursed as part of these men’s posterity? It would be interesting to know how many men today are cursed and have forfeited any right to priesthood because they, like those who were responsible for Joseph’s imprisonment, foolishly hold Joseph in derision.

As for myself, I believe Joseph when a sermon of his on May 26, 1844 is quoted in DHC 6:411: “What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can find only one.” He made this comment in response to the false accusations contained in the Nauvoo Expositor.

I believe Joseph when he, referring to the 1835 D&C Section 101, affirmed it was his belief that: “Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy; we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.” I believe Joseph Smith was truthful when he, as editor of the Times and Seasons, disavowed polygamy and stated the foregoing verse was “the only rule allowed by the church.” (Times and Seasons, vol. 3, p. 909 (1842).) He repeated that same position again at Times and Seasons, vol. 3, p. 939 (1842).

In 1844 Joseph and Hyrum Smith announced the excommunication of Hiram Brown for (and this was the charge): “preaching Polygamy, and other false and corrupt doctrines, in the county of Lapeer, state of Michigan.” (Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 423 (1844).)

Hyrum Smith, with Joseph’s approval, published a statement denying plural wives or polygamy, explaining all such teaching is false doctrine: “… some of your elders say, that a man having a certain priesthood, may have as many wives as he pleases, and that doctrine is taught here: I say unto you that that man teaches false doctrine, [for] there is no such doctrine taught here; neither is there any such thing practiced here.” (Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 474 (That was in March of 1844).)

God identified those who deride Joseph and Hyrum Smith as “fools.” Writing histories and teaching as doctrine that Joseph and Hyrum were liars is, to any reasonable mind, “derision” of them. Like those condemned in 1839, should all who deride Joseph as a liar today question their claim to hold priesthood authority? Has God continued to curse both them and their posterity from any right to the priesthood?

As explained in the talk on Priesthood given in Orem, Utah on November 2, 2013, priesthood is a fellowship. Joseph Smith was clearly in fellowship with God and angels, and therefore one whose priesthood included the ministering of angels, the Son of God, and God the Father. He held the priesthood. Why would anyone want to have fellowship with someone they regard as a liar, and an adulterer, and a hypocrite? Why would they want that fellowship?

That is the prepared comments. I did a quick check and none of those guys are in my line of authority and none of them are in my genealogy. Now you are all going to go check to see if you’re descended from any of the names. Does anyone have any questions?

That is the prepared comments. I did a quick check and none of those guys are in my line of authority and none of them are in my genealogy. Now you are all going to go check to see if you’re descended from any of the names. Does anyone have any questions?

Question #1: On that line, whether you’re a direct descendant or trace your line of authority, you mentioned in Talk 10 at least, maybe other talks or places, that we ought to keep track of our line of authority from the LDS Church. When you couple that with Heber J. Grant’s double decade of not conferring priesthood, why is it important for us to continue to trace it there when we seem to have had, in my belief, a renewal of that authority and sort of a restart. In other words, has the line of authority begun again anew today in our day, and why do we have to keep tracing it, if so?

Denver: There are actually two reasons for accomplishing it in that fashion. It’s probable that because he put down, he suppressed the righteous priests who were older, more experienced people in his kingdom when wicked King Noah reconstituted the priesthood and called younger, more ambitious people that were more amenable to the corrupt ambitions of King Noah, that Alma’s participation in the court of King Noah was reckoned from an ordination that came from the wicked King. When Alma heard the message of Abinadi he went out and he sought to repent. Then, when he performed the first baptism of Helam, before doing so, he did what you did before blessing the sacrament, and that was to ask God for authority to proceed, and then he proceeded to baptize both Helam and himself and started it anew. The Book of Mormon mentions that people ordain according to the gifts and power that is in them, given by God. 

In order for us to accomplish what presently needs to be done we need to have the ability to spontaneously move this work forward globally. A young man who is a returned LDS missionary who had been ordained an Elder in the LDS Church became disaffected, kept his testimony of Joseph, the Book of Mormon, the Restoration, but what he saw in the Church convinced him that the Church itself had little if anything to offer him any longer. As a result of his prayerful searching and studying he became convinced that there was something afoot that God was doing right now among us. He contacted people through Request Baptism and the fellowship locator and began a series of correspondence. Because of a whole lot of complications no one was able to go to Africa where this fellow is located in order to minister there. But he had a line of authority from the Church, and so he was walked through the process of going to God and praying that God ratify what he’d been given so that he could perform baptisms. On December 29th, I don’t know how many days ago that was, a week or so ago, 22 people were baptized in Uganda using authority from heaven; that once God said to him, “You may proceed,” is exactly the same as Alma being told to go forward with Helam and thereafter with others. We do not need to send people all over the world. We have the ability, because of what has been put in place, to spontaneously have this arise globally and we just had an example of that occurring. 

I’ve mentioned this before. Largely the purpose of Aaronic priesthood is to curse people, and the purpose of the Melchizedek priesthood is to bless people. Aaronic priesthood is a fairly durable kind of priesthood. It was what was involved in all kinds of rites and performances under the Law of Moses which were pretty easy to run afoul of and wind up in a state of uncleanliness or ceremonial condemnation, and you had to renew – heavens, the High Priest had to renew. He was the top of the pyramid. You had to go through the Day of Atonement ceremonies, you had to purge from top to bottom, and then everyone was expected to purge with some regularity. Even a woman’s regular monthly cycle resulted in ceremonial uncleanliness requiring renewal. Childbirth was considered something that required a sacrifice and a ceremonial cleansing. Every time you turned around under the Law of Moses you became unclean, and every time you turned around under the Law of Moses you had to fetch another animal, run up to the temple, offer sacrifice, and undo the ceremonial uncleanliness. The purpose of the Aaronic priesthood ministry was to bring you under condemnation regularly. Well, it’s pretty durable precisely because of its functionality. 

When the Aaronic priesthood was restored a promise was given or a timeframe for its persistence was described, depending on whether you listen to the Oliver Cowdery account or the Joseph Smith account. It’s supposed to endure that the sons of Levi may yet offer an offering in righteousness unto the Lord, or until the sons of Levi do offer an offering unto the Lord in righteousness. Well, that event has not occurred. It’s persistent.

Joseph Smith said all priesthood is Melchizedek but there are different portions or degrees of it. When you carve it all the way down to the least of these, the Aaronic priesthood, it holds the keys of the ministering of angels. Angels were the source from which priesthood was restored. Angels in turn can lead people to the Son of God. The Son of God can take a person to the throne of the Father. Every bit of what is to be accomplished through priesthood is possible to achieve so long as you get Aaronic priesthood into the hands of someone. Looking at the lay of the land today there are not many who can say that they have been in fellowship with angels or realized the blessings of Aaronic priesthood. There are fewer still who can say that they have been in fellowship with Christ, and there are only a small handful who have been in fellowship with the Father. That doesn’t matter because everything that is necessary in order to start down the pathway comes as a consequence of receiving some portion of priesthood. 

In my own case I reckon four lines of priesthood. I reckon one from Aaronic ordination. I reckon another from Melchizedek and ordination as an Elder, and I reckon another, as happenstance with habit, priesthood was conferred again when I became a high priest, and then the fourth is something that involved God himself. But I don’t think I would have gotten the fourth without accepting all of the work that had been left behind by the prophet Joseph Smith and respecting the patterns that had been put here. True enough, they’ve been corrupted. True enough, they’ve been compromised, but God’s plan for His children is capable of being accomplished and the work that God begins is resilient enough to overcome a lot of failure. 

You look at Caiaphas prophesying that it is better that one man should perish than that the people should be destroyed, which he spoke not of himself but because the Spirit moved upon him to speak those words. That’s confirmed in the gospels in Acts. That’s confirmed. What that is saying, is that God is capable of using the guy who in his corruption intended to say, we have to kill Jesus because he’s going to disrupt our culture, when others hearing that statement said, of course, Christ is going to die to redeem his people from their sins because he is the offering that all of those rites under the Law of Moses pointed forward to, and so he will be the offering of sin, so that the people are not lost. It doesn’t have anything to do with preserving the Jewish hierarchy, the Sanhedrin, and the high priest in Jerusalem, it had to do with redeeming mankind.

Question #2: I have a question to add to that. I’ve been excommunicated. Twelve years from now I’ll have a boy, a son, I don’t know if age matters. How would that child get priesthood? Would it go through my line of authority? Would it be exactly the same?

Denver: It’s your obligation and your right as a father to ordain him. I would give to him every line of authority that had been handed to you, and it doesn’t matter. Hand it to him. Say, these are the lines of authority through which priesthood comes down to you. I find it really ironic that the three witnesses are included in the bunch of folks that this disbarring from priesthood includes because they’re almost universally in everyone’s line of authority. Which means that you can be in the role and then you can get kicked out of the role, but while you’re in the role and you set something in motion, people that receive what was set in motion go on and you do not. You lose out. Your right got removed from you.

Question #3: We’re removing Section 20. What is the role of offices? Is there even a role?

Denver: Orson Hyde got excluded. If you read the writings of Joseph Smith from Liberty Jail and the revelation, the affidavit that he signed seconding the Marsh affidavit condemning Joseph and making him responsible, which at that moment was designed to get Joseph killed, it was designed to have him executed by the State of Missouri. If he’s included in the group, his position in the Quorum of the Twelve was suspended and then he came back after it was safe and they were relocated in Commerce, later Nauvoo, Illinois, defended his position and made some apologies, and he was reinstated into the Quorum of the Twelve, and he continued to function as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve from then until his death. He held the office of apostle, likely with no priesthood authority, but held the office. 

If you want to create offices people can create offices. Offices in the Church are a matter of vote by the members putting them into a position. Technically, every time we have a conference someone ought to be a recorder for the conference. Someone ought to be chairman for the conference. We don’t do that because all of these things get organized informally and the people who are working on them sort that out among themselves spontaneously, voluntarily, and cooperatively. And then it’s over with. But you could if you wanted to, for every conference elect a chairman for the conference and elect a recorder. Because it is simply an office there is no reason why you couldn’t elect a woman to be the chairman of a general conference or a regional conference. There is no reason why you couldn’t elect a woman to be a recorder. We have associated in the LDS tradition in contrast to the Community of Christ tradition. In the LDS tradition we have associated some of the offices in the Church with men to the point that it is exclusively the right of a man to hold that office and some with women, in which it’s not exclusive but it is often the case. For example, a Relief Society president could be a man, if he were elected to the office. The LDS Church has a practice of not doing that. A Primary president could be a man or a woman. A Sunday School president could be a man or a woman, but as soon as you get over into a deacon’s quorum then they say no, hands off on women. 

Making offices of the Church coincident with priesthood authority…. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, for example, were elected to be the first elders of the Church in 1830. The Melchizedek priesthood would not be restored until 1831 but they held the office of elder by the people accepting them by their vote from 1830 – they could have elected them to be high priests. They could have elected them to be the presiding moose. They could elect them to be the grand – whatever! Choose a title, have everyone vote, hey, you hold the office. That’s what Brigham Young said qualified him to be the Church President. He held an election and he won the election. Admittedly it was at Winter Quarters and it didn’t involve anything more than a conference that got gathered at that point to sustain him, but when he got back to the Salt Lake Valley and said, I now hold the office of Church President because I got elected at a General Conference, the only choice was to blow the Church apart into conflict or accept the claim.

Offices and positions in an organization are not necessarily proof of possession of priestly authority. Someone raised the problem of Heber J. Grant’s practice of ordaining people to an office but not conferring upon them priesthood, a practice that persisted for about 20 years. John Taylor predicted that there would come a time when members put people in the Church claiming to hold priestly authority would not know whether or not they actually did. I guess the proof is in the pudding in whether or not angels minister and other things happen, which if they do is probably pretty good evidence, and if it doesn’t it maybe raises a question about, well maybe I ought to be re-ordained. I would use and rely on the LDS lines of authority until they get displaced at some point in the future. But right now for this incipient work we really need as broad a base from which to begin to change the direction of the decay and renew the direction in the hopes of restoration so that we get far enough along that God approves of some of the things that we’re doing and gets behind it. I think the last conference up in Boise is evidence that God’s somewhat approving, even if He is somewhat scolding, yeah, I get it.

Question #4: So, you said it is not necessarily evidence of priestly authority. Is there ever a case where it actually supplies priestly authority?

Denver: The focus of attention on priesthood really skews what may be most important. It really does distort the whole picture. All of the miraculous things that Melchizedek accomplished – quenching the violence of fire, closing the mouths of lions, causing rivers to run out of their course – all of those things were accomplished by Melchizedek without the priesthood. When Paul goes through the list of things that got accomplished by faith he’s talking about the power of faith; he’s not talking about priesthood, or ordination, or office, or authority. The fact is that most of what we think belongs to the franchise called “priesthood” really should be viewed as the evidence or the absence of faith. Priesthood has a really limited bundle of rights and responsibilities that, at its most basic level, involves baptism and blessing the sacrament. At its most basic level.

Question #5: Would it be fair to say then that the overemphasis on priesthood may be something that has caused us to have an overabundance of damning traditions?

Denver: Yes, because what people regard the priesthood as, is as a right of government and as a right of control. No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood. Well, I’m your president, therefore I’m in control here, and my presidency reckons from priesthood, which is only men can hold it. Therefore, I have the right to control not only you but your wife too, because she’s subordinate to you, so you’re subordinate to me too, both of you. Now I’m in charge. Here’s what we’re gonna do. It’s ridiculous!

Comment: I have a comment.

Denver: No, I didn’t allow you because I’m in control. [Audience laughter.]

Comment: Good luck with that.

Question #6A: This will change the topic a little bit. As a warning in a way – I don’t know if it’s because my head is in the end of Alma and the beginning of Helaman and I’m seeing Gaddianton robbers starting to come in, and all the lying, and the scandals that go on that leads to murder, and this is exactly what I’m seeing. I see this as a warning to us as a people. At the end you said the fellowship is communing with the Father and Christ, and there be no lying or contention between that person and the Father, and if us as a group want to have that communion as a Zion with the Father there can’t be any lying or mistrust or scandal among us.

Comment: Lying for power.

Question #6B: That is what I’m seeing. Maybe my brain is too focused on the Book of Mormon.

Denver: Priesthood, ambition, and pride, they almost inevitably go together. There are many called but few are chosen, and the fact of being chosen is impaired or altogether prevented because hearts are too much set on the things of this world. We really misplace the focus. What matters most, the weightier matters, mercy, justice, love, the things that Christ called attention to, the weightier matters are what matter far more than whether or not someone is a mission president, or a stake president, or a deacon’s quorum president, or a relief society president, or asked to talk in KSL TV’s live broadcast of a General Conference. None of that matters. What matters is whether or not you take Christ at His word and then you try to do what He tells us to do in the Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon on the Mount is a blueprint for Zion, it’s not a blueprint for just having a low crime society with people in vastly different economic strata, in which some are given extraordinary advantages because of their education and the wealth of their family and some are deprived. 

There’s a short story by Mark Twain I like a lot. It’s called Extract from Captain Stormfield’s Visit to Heaven. This is an American humorist’s telling about the afterlife that is largely based doctrinally on D&C Section 76, covers the same sort of differentiated afterlife, but there people are recognized and respected for who they really are, not necessarily for what they achieved in this life. 

Captain Stormfield wants to go meet the greatest general that ever lived, and of course, since he’s in heaven, your wishes are all granted, so they’re taking Captain Stormfield to go see the greatest general that ever lived. On his way he’s wondering and guessing. He’s guessing about Alexander the Great; he’s guessing about Napoleon; he’s throwing out some of these names. I forget which one, it may have been Napoleon. He said, “Oh yeah, Napoleon is with him, he polishes his boots, he helps take care of his stuff.” Then he wants to know, “Well who is it then, who is the greatest general that ever lived?” and he’s given a name. I don’t remember the name, it was Fred something, just some name that means nothing to any of us, and Captain Stormfield says, “I’ve never heard of him. What battles did he win?” And the answer is, “Oh, he was never in a battle, he was a shoe cobbler in New England. But if he’d ever commanded, he would have been the greatest general that ever lived, and here we recognize people for what they really are, not for what they accomplished there.” What was in his heart was the greatest general that ever lived. That’s who you want to be, the greatest Christian that ever lived.

Question #7A: You had that list of people who, their priesthood was terminated and would not persist from generation to generation, there’s no limit to the number of generations that was given but let’s just assume for a minute to the third and fourth generation, because that seems to be a common…

Denver: That seems to be a common sort of thing.

Question #7B: What about those people? What about people who are direct or other descendants of them who are alive now or who were alive, who might be in priesthood line and have transmitted…. I’m going to go back and look through my lines as well and just see where we are, but what if….

Denver: I was really hoping to find at least one in one of the lines, but I couldn’t find any of them in mine.

Question #7C: What about their descendants? Are they eligible now? Should we be careful about to whom we ordain priesthood?

Denver: I would say that whoever thinks that they fall within the category probably ought to make it a matter of not just personal prayer but some sincere…. What provoked the curse was derision, rejection, and conspiracy of Joseph Smith. Almost every problem that we encounter in this life requires repentance in order to fix the problem that we’ve uncovered in this life. How do you fix the problem in which rejection, derision, conspiracy to destroy Joseph provoked God’s ire? One of the ways to do that would be to say, let me see what I can do to combat the lies, the derision, the misrepresentations, and the rejection of someone God sent to try and save a fallen world. 

If anything, Joseph Smith understated the significance of him, his role, and what God was trying to accomplish through him. Some of the statements that get construed as evidence that Joseph had delusions of grandeur, if you try to understand what the man was saying, instead tell you a whole lot that’s extraordinarily positive about the man. For example, he said, “I have more to boast of than any man. I have more to boast of than Peter, and the apostles and even Jesus couldn’t keep the church together, but I’ve managed to keep the church together.” If you’re acquainted with Christian history, Joseph is absolutely right. The organization of the New Testament church in Christ’s day did not survive the lives of those apostles. In fact, by the time they were dead you had Pauline Christianity, and –you had Petrine Christianity, you had Matthean Christianity. You had different brands of Christianity and they were dissimilar enough that some of them looked at others of them and said, we don’t have much in common because it was never integrated into a whole. Paul writes about “how I went up to Jerusalem and withstood Peter to his face.” Why is that? Because Paul considered himself possessor of his own dispensation and therefore not accountable to Peter or any of the others at Jerusalem. 

The New Testament church didn’t survive the New Testament in a unified whole. Joseph did, in fact, manage to accomplish that. He had an integrated whole, and under his benign leadership he regarded the First Presidency, the Twelve, the high councils of the Church, the Seventy, all as coequal, which given the ambitions of men means that it was doomed but he kept it together. It was doomed either to result in an impasse. For example, Thomas Monson died a couple of days ago. Under the organizational pattern that Joseph set up, the death of Thomas Monson should result in a long period of time in which there are different people contending and there are conflicts and uncertainties in which the Quorum of the Twelve continues to function, the Seventy continue to function, the stakes continue to function, and there is no First Presidency president. And at some point, based upon the virtue of the individual and based upon the consensus of the people, and it might take 20 years, someone gets acknowledged by people as being sufficiently trustworthy and evidencing the kinds of gifts that would justify it, and we get a replacement president, and then he gets to choose his counselors. Joseph Smith never took a single apostle and put them in the First Presidency. Those were two different quorums and they didn’t overlap. The mechanism that has been chosen is not necessarily anything like what was established by Joseph.

Question #7D: So the descendants of those people then, through repentance, can re-qualify, or can qualify…

Denver: I would say that the sentence of those people need to repent of their father’s sins. Almost everyone that I know who’s a Mormon thinks Joseph Smith was a liar and an adulterer, a dishonest man. I don’t. I think Joseph Smith sealed women to him, and that was one of the qualifications I put into the words that I used: “carnal sexual relations.” I think that from the time that the first realization of what sealing power could be used for rolled out until the earliest reference I can find it, is in October 1843, which was eight months before his death, there appears to have been one and only one ordinance associated with sealing, and that one and only one ordinance was the marriage covenant. Using that one and only ordinance, marriage, didn’t mean that what you were trying to achieve was sexual access to other women, it meant you were trying to bring…. 

One of the things that I liked about Bushman’s book, with all the flaws that it has, Rough Stone Rolling, was his acknowledgement that Joseph Smith seemed to be very sexually modest and very respectful of women, and anything but a “Lothario”, and he uses that word, anything but a lustful man. And that what Joseph Smith seemed to want, according to Bushman, and I agree with him on this, was plentitude of family, meaning he wanted to bring everyone into a family together. And so the sealing mechanism was the means by which you bring family together, not to commit adultery but to bind people together through an ordinance that was authoritative, that allowed them to pass out of this life into the next life as part and member of a family of God.

Question #8: Is that to covenant and be committed to one another?

Comment: Well, he said, “I will carry you on my back.”

Denver: Yes. And then you have all of those statements about how Joseph would manipulate people, promising them and their family salvation in the afterlife if this marriage covenant were entered into. Sounds a whole lot like what you are trying to achieve is sealing people together into a family that will endure into eternity so that they can lay claim on one another.

Question #9: Didn’t those later come to be known as adoption?

Denver: No, that’s what he set up until eight months before his death. Beginning in October of 1843 there’s a mention made of a new ordinance that never gets mentioned by Joseph until then. Beginning in October, he, for the first time, mentions a different ordinance that might be used. That different ordinance is adoption.

Question #10: Different than sealing, you are saying?

Denver: He’s saying that adoption would accomplish the same thing. This is a passing mention. If you’re picking up on the fact that Joseph Smith was trying to put together the family of God, and you saw that chart that comes out in, was it the Millennial Star, where you have God, and then you have the Tree of the Family….

Denver: Yes, Orson Hyde prepared it but he did it based upon something that Joseph had been teaching. This is 1839, mind you. There’s still only one ordinance associated with sealing at this point. It’s going to be four more years before the word “adoption” ever appears in anything that Joseph writes. Listen to this. Thinking in terms of the role Joseph Smith may have occupied, although it was not generally understood at that time, and of what was happening with adoption later on, think about this in terms of covenantal relationships and of what is being assembled as a family of God in order to endure into eternity:

Time and experience, however, is the only safe remedy against such evils. (Let me back up.) It opens such a dreadful field for the avaricious and indolent and corrupt hearted to pray upon the innocent and virtuous and honest. We have reason to believe that many things were introduced among the saints before God had signified the times, and notwithstanding the principles and plans may have been good; yet aspiring men, in other words, men who had not the substance of godliness about them, perhaps undertook to handle edged tools. Children, you know, are fond of tools while they are not yet able to use them. Time and experience, however, is the only safe remedy against such evils. There are many teachers but perhaps not many fathers. There are times coming when God will signify many things which are expedient for the wellbeing of the saints, but the times have not yet come but will come as fast as there can be found place and receptions for them. 

I hesitated on “receptions” because it’s spelled R-E-S-E-P-T-I-O-N-S. Mark Twain said he didn’t have any respect for a man that could only spell a word one way.

Question #11: Can you tell us where you are reading from?

Denver: Page 396 and 397 of the Documents Volume Six of the Joseph Smith Papers. So there are many teachers but there aren’t many fathers. The challenge is to put people into position in which you have this family of God reconstituted on earth. Joseph was aimed in that direction, and it was 1839. But you have one tool, and only one tool.

Comment: Teachers have no skin in the game. If you teach your child poorly it’s going to come back and bite you, but if you have some student that you decide that you’re just going to write them off, in a few years you won’t even remember their name or face, maybe sooner than that. I think there are plenty of people who are out there who are willing to just divulge.

Question #12A: There’s acres of land on the Mount of Olives over in Israel that Orson Hyde has been over there to dedicate.

Denver: It got rededicated.

Question #12B: It got rededicated. Want to expound on that or talk about it?

Denver: Some doubts were raised about whether Orson accomplished it or whether he came back and told a great story about accomplishing it, and another group went over later and redid the work. But we are loathe to admit some of the… warts and wrinkles in the history of the Church and so not much attention is paid to the rededication.

Question #12C: Dedicated for the return of Israel?

Denver: Yes.

Comment: It’s a beautiful park. 

Denver: The Church has done great things. Anything money can buy. 

Comment: It’s right by the Garden of Gethsemane. 

Question: That’s has nothing to do because he was cursed or anything like that so the rededication was not necessary because he’s on this list.

Denver: He is, but the rededication didn’t have to do with that. People do not take seriously the revelations and voice of God through Joseph. If they did a whole lot of what you see going on would not even be considered as something appropriate to have go on. I may be pointing this out but no one takes it seriously. To Mormons it’s just another “Oh, yeah sure… right…”

Question #13: What volume of the Ensign is that in? 

Denver: What, the rededication? Don’t expect it.

Question #14: There’s two parts to this question. First, what’s the role of the other ordinances and sacraments like child’s blessing, marriage, and sealings, now that many of us are not in any church? How does that work? We are so used to a level of priesthood that accomplishes those things.

Denver: Fathers’ blessings scripturally had legitimacy because they were spoken through the gift of the Holy Ghost. Three years previous to the death of Adam he called together his posterity in the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman and there he bestowed his final blessing on them. And not withstanding he was bowed down with great age. He rose up and he prophesied what should befall his descendants to the end of time. That was the first patriarchal blessing. It was given by the power of the Spirit and it was prophecy. It would be appropriate to read out of that event “priesthood” and to read into that event “Holy Ghost, power of the Spirit, word of prophecy”. Because a patriarchal blessing delivered with no benefit of the Spirit is just more ink on paper, but a blessing delivered by the power of the Spirit as a prophecy is the word of the Lord, the mind of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation which cannot be broken. 

When Jacob called his kids before him to bestow his final blessing, when father Lehi called his kids before him to bestow his final blessing, it was a reenactment of the event that the first father, Adam, had enacted in the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman in which someone – bowed down with great age, knowing that they are going to soon depart this world, having no personal investment in the outcome, intending only to say what is for the blessing and benefit through the Spirit of what will befall their children after them, things that they will not be around to witness – confirm by the spoken voice what it is that God has put into their hearts. It’s given generally by someone like Lehi, like Jacob in Genesis chapters 49 and 50 in the KJV. (If I had the new set of scriptures, I’d tell you where it is in Genesis the new volume, but I don’t have one yet.) They are calling upon all of the experience that they’ve had with the kids throughout their lifetime and then they are projecting forward by the power of the Spirit. 

Some of what, in giving blessings by the power of the Spirit, is prophesied to befall a child may be surprising to the one filled with the Spirit but generally that lifetime of experience with the child helps prepare the mind, the heart, and the connection of the father to heaven in order to speak by the power of the Spirit concerning the child and what will befall the child. All of which, every bit of that, can occur with or without priesthood, every bit of that, which is another reason why we tend to associate and therefore to limit the power of the Spirit to influence any person without regard to rank, position, or office. 

Denver: Deborah was a prophetess.

Denver: If she was filled with the Spirit and she uttered a prophecy then that was God speaking through her. That doesn’t mean that she now gets to preside in the High Priests group. If she’s smart, she’ll stay the hell away from the High Priests group.

Question #15A: With the fathers, like Abraham and Isaac for example; Isaac was the father of many nations also. When we have sealings to the fathers, are these sealings that are done to the individual fathers? Or is there going to be a major time where there’s going to be sealings to all of the fathers or is there going to be, and has there been, sealings already done to fathers in their time? Or am I mixing this up.

Denver: No, there were sealings to fathers…

Question #15B: So those who were sealed to Isaac – Isaac is the father, so maybe they are under his wing, and then maybe, Abraham is like “grandpa feeling” or are they all just fathers to their….

Denver: Yes. Yes. The government of God is the family. The government of God is not stakes and wards and districts and missions and areas and all that. It’s family; the government of God is family. Therefore, the sealing is to put together a family. 

One of the requests that the mother of John and his brother came and made of Christ was that when Christ got into his kingdom, the mother was asking if her boys could sit on his left and on his right. Christ said that “when I get my kingdom, they can be there with me but I don’t have the right to assign who’s going to sit on my right and who’s going to sit on my left. That’s left up to the Father.” The purpose of organizing the family on earth through the sealing process is to make sure that you get into the kingdom, but it’s kind of foolish to say I have ambition to be way up high in the organization of the family of God, because Christ told parables about people that are capable of ruling over a city will be put in that position. People that aren’t – his parable of the talents, his parable of the laborer in the vineyard – but what you really want is to get into the kingdom. Once you get into the kingdom then how the kingdom gets organized is going to be entirely up to the Father. How that will unfold will be the permanent resolution of all issues involving salvation pertaining to this planet at the very end, and all those who have lived or come through here. And that organization at the end is more relevant for what will come thereafter. 

Comment: So it’s permanent for [inaudible]. 

Denver: It’s permanent until there is some further development that requires people to go out and develop.

Question #16: The goal isn’t to assign yourself a position, but just hopefully get into the kingdom because the Father knows your capabilities.

Denver: Right. Get into the kingdom. Because, like the talk down in Ephraim, the prototype of the saved man is Jesus Christ. If any man will be saved, he must be precisely what Christ is and nothing else, because Christ attained to the resurrection. We’re going to be resurrected. Christ attained to the resurrection. On the other side of that you won’t hold the keys of death and hell, He will. He’ll use them for your benefit but ultimately, you’re going to have to hold the keys of death and hell if you’re going to be precisely what the prototype of the saved man is, or else not be saved.

Question #17A: Does this kingdom have a [inaudible].  

Denver: This kingdom?

Question #17B: The kingdom you’re talking about.

Denver: When it is established in its – I hate the word fullness, but I can’t think of another word. When it is completely organized according to God’s will, that will be necessary, but I don’t anticipate that happening separate from the command to build a temple, and then God filling that temple with what is necessary in order for it to come to pass.

Question #18: In D&C 124 it talks about an even higher priesthood, and in that priesthood,  it communicates, like you talked about, genealogical curses, it communicates genealogical blessings, one being which Joseph Smith has received. Like Lehi received covenants for his seed and Abraham received covenants for his seed, does [D&C] 124 communicate covenants to Joseph’s seed, and is it the same conditional as it will come to pass for the remnant of Lehi’s seed?

Denver: Joseph would certainly have the right to lay claim upon not just himself and his wife, but certainly his children. It begins to become a little less certain and a little more tenuous when you get to his grandchildren, and even more so when you get to his great-grandchildren because it’s one thing… The reason why father Abraham had to go to Melchizedek in order to then rejoice and say, “I have gotten me a priesthood,” was because although the line may have had fatherly connections from father Shem down to Abraham, the immediate ancestors of father Abraham were idolaters. True enough, his father repented for a short period of time, but he didn’t persist in that. Therefore, despite the fact that Melchizedek certainly held authority, there were members of the posterity of Melchizedek between him and father Abraham who were lost and then Abraham was required to come and reconnect because of the apostasy. 

When you’re talking about the greatest blessings that God offers for the salvation of his children, when you’re talking about the family of God, if it could simply be put in one time forever then putting it into father Adam would have solved the problem all the way down to us today. It can and it has been broken. It can and it has been restored. It can and it has been reconnected after a period of apostasy. In fact, once you reconnect Abraham with Melchizedek, you actually have then a family of God beginning with Adam that runs in one continuous line right down to Ephraim. Then you have Joseph’s comment about the prophets of the Old Testament. I’m not sure that he means all of them, but he certainly means a number that are identifiable. All prophets held Melchizedek priesthood and were ordained by God himself, Joseph said that. I don’t think what Joseph is talking about is, “I confer upon you something.” I think he’s talking about this very connection where you have an isolated faithful individual who honors the fathers and is doing everything that he can in his day but for whom there is no existing possibility for having it occur. God fixes that problem for that individual, not in order to establish a new dispensation in which salvation proceeds with the gathering of a people, and a making of a people. But it’s a dispensation to that individual for purposes of trying to call others to repentance, and if others were to repent then God could do something with that. 

The reason He lead away Lehi and the family of Lehi was to try and establish a righteous branch and a vineyard unto the Lord, and the only way to do that was to get them away from the people who were corrupt in Jerusalem, and maybe give them the potential for holding onto and becoming a people of promise. They were on again, off again, and faithful. A number of troubling moments in their history, but in general, they were sufficiently intact by the time that the Lord came, that He visited with them and He renewed that with them, and that connection was certainly fulsome at that point. 

The only purpose behind the last days work, both what was happening at the time of Joseph and what the Lord is offering to us today, is to accomplish that fulsome restoration of the family of God. Joseph talked about temples and they were built incrementally, and they never reached the finish line even on the second one before he was killed, but he laid a fabulous foundation and pointed in a direction that the restoration necessarily must go to and complete. If we don’t have the tabernacle of God where he comes to dwell with his people, which he does when he has a family on earth, then the prophecies are not going to be fulfilled. Then the promises that were made to Enoch will not be realized. Then the statements of what will happen in the last days through Moses will not be vindicated. Then Adam’s prophecy concerning his descendants to the end of time will not be realized. All of these things point, so we know it is going to happen. The question is not, is it going to happen, the question is, will we rise up or will we not. Because what he’s offering is, in fact, a legitimate opportunity for that to indeed happen. 

We seem to get so easily distracted that we have a hard time staying on task. It’s one of the gentile afflictions. We’re very ambitious people and we’re very ego centric. A lot of what is going to be required will require sacrifice and selflessness.

Question #19: On that track, what it is we’re supposed to be doing. In Boise you mentioned a vision where some few followers went into the cavity of the rock. Margaret Barker seems to hint that the cavity is feminine, similar to the virgin, the womb, a hidden cave or place, the Holy of Holies, if you will. For us, what it is? What’s the cavity of the rock, and is it accessible? Can we get to it? Is this what Alma 5:62 is referring to when Alma commands the members and invites the members to get baptized, sort of in a cavity, so that they can reach up and partake of the Tree of Life? Could you explain that a little and help us out with what we may be doing better?

Denver: I could explain a great deal about that but I’m going to be talking specifically about things bearing on that topic in March. It probably would be best if I get… It’s going to take a little bit of work to lay the whole thing out, but that’s a topic that is fraught with the potential for… making a lot of mistakes. Hopefully some balance will be achieved in the talk. There is a lot to that topic. That would take longer than the time we’ve spent already.

Comment: You make it sound like that’s a bad thing.

Question #20: With the patriarchal priesthood and it falling on the descendants of one another with the earlier fathers, is biological lineage important? Do you think someone could arise to that position who is outside of that lineage or do you think that there will be someone who will?

Denver: We don’t have time for that, and I don’t mean at this moment, this discussion. I’m talking about this point in history. If you cannot reconstruct the family through an adoption ordinance process the work cannot be accomplished. There just isn’t time. We’re in the process of walking back to how it was in the beginning. A lot of people think that by getting a New Testament church put on the ground that Joseph Smith accomplished the fulsome restoration. It was never intended to stop there; it’s supposed to go all the way back to the beginning. It’s a giant chiasm and it’s a giant mirror, and today we do not live 900 years. The way in which it will be rebuilt at the end is going to be by ordinance in the house of the Lord and a place that He has accepted. The only kinds of places that are legitimately the house of God are houses that God has come to, to dwell in, in order for those who seek His face to find Him. That happened at Kirtland. It never happened at Nauvoo or Salt Lake. 

I know that… well… the fact is that a pillar of fire by night and a pillar of smoke by day is an allusion, an attempt to refer to things we are familiar with to describe things that we are not familiar with. A conduit that reaches up into heaven as the temporary appearance of the Lord to Joseph in the First Vision is intended to be a permanent connection at some place. It will be one of the reasons why people say, let’s not go up against the people of Zion because Zion is too terrible. The presence of God is dreadful to the wicked, it’s frightening to them. They get near it and it convicts them of their unworthiness. They dare not go up. But the pure and the humble and the noble are drawn to it. They will want to be there. And so that conduit, that fiery pillar, that stairway to heaven, Jacob’s ladder, the chariot of fire, all of those things are an attempt to describe that heavenly connection, that heavenly presence. To the unworthy and the ungodly looking at it, they may or may not be able to see anything about it but they will sense extraordinary dread. It will frighten them. To the worthy there will be something enlightened about the very presence of the place. It will not seem to them to just be another place. It will seem as though the God of heaven has some base established there. That’s when you know that an ensign has been established in the tops of the mountains to which nations will flow saying, come, let us go up and learn from the god of Jacob, because that ensign is actually something godly, holy, edifying, instructive, revelatory, filled with light, and redemptive, and the god who dwells there is going to be the Lord. So, we don’t have time… If you think about it, Enoch taught for 365 years before his people were prepared enough to go up, and we have to be prepared enough for them to come down and not destroy us by the brightness of their presence.

Comment: Is anyone else feeling screwed right now?

Denver: We don’t live 365 years. We’re going to have to do it with bigger steps instead of our little…

Comment: Shuffle…

Question #21: What about the children of divorce that are tattered? I keep going back to talk two, from divorce, marriage divorce, where the world takes us out to do whatever is necessary to not even survive, and can take you away? What about the children of divorce, because those outside looking in, there’s a lot of [inaudible]. What about them?

Denver: One of the promises that was made by the Lord to John for those in the last days who are going to connect up with him is that Christ intends to wipe away every tear. It’s going to be difficult to be in the presence of the Lord and not feel like He’s given enough to take care of everything that has gone wrong in every one of our individual lives. I don’t know how we can feel the wounds in His hands and wrists and feel the wound in His side, and kneel and behold the wounds in His feet, and then tell Him He didn’t do enough, or what He offers to us is insufficient. 

Families are intended to be a place of joy, not a place of combat, and many families have degenerated into places of abuse and combat. That article in the Salt Lake Tribune that I referred to is harrowing. I read that. This was an eight-year-old child! I read that and I can’t witness child abuse depicted in a movie and not get upset. I get up and go to the bathroom. I turn the volume down and stop watching the TV. Everyone who has gone through anything like that is going to be made whole. The Savior’s wipe away every tear means exactly that. He has that ability. Probably every one of us sitting here have legitimate complaints about someone else, and you may have legitimate complaints about someone else who is here. Christ has a bigger reason to complain about every one of us, and His mission is unfulfilled when we don’t allow those things to be washed away in what He did. The abuses, the indignities, the things that were heaped upon the Lord are almost beyond description. Mel Gibson didn’t quite get it, although it was very Catholic.

I assume we’re now getting phone calls from home asking where we are. It’s been longer than I thought. Thanks for coming. You’ll want to tune in online in March and we’ll address some of that. It’s going to be broadcast live.

The topic is dangerous but when Christ talks about that gathering, which is Zion, the gathering which He refers to is the feminine, it’s the hen gathereth chicks under her wings. That subject has led repeatedly to hostility, abuse, apostasy, degradation, and so it’s got to be handled with care. Right at the outset it’s got to be put into balance, into a framework that says, be careful.

Comment: Good luck.

The post Cursed: Denied Priesthood appeared first on Restoration Archives Blog.