The Fulness

I would like to spend some time on the expectations the Lord has put upon those who are called lead His church. By what authority do I speak of these things? None, other than the promptings of the spirit and the word of God as recorded in the scriptures. Based on my own study and the comments of others, I seek to understand what one must do to be chosen. We find this in the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 121:

34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?

35 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—

36 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.

37 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degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.

If I were to summarize one of the key points of these verses, I would say that the ‘rights’ of the priesthood can only be maintained by exercising the ‘principles of righteousness.’ I find it interesting that right is the root word for righteousness so we have somewhat a circular statement. Our rights represent our legitimate claim or privilege, in this case, to exercise the priesthood. Our ability to do so is based on righteousness, which represents adherence to a code of conduct defined as righteous. Said another way, if we want to have the right (claim or privilege), we must be right.(operate in a correct manner).

We read here that there are specific items that are not ‘right’ or correct which inhibit our ‘right’ or privilege. The existence of these traits in our personal behavior can block our ability the exercise the rights of the priesthood.

If our hearts are set upon the things of this world, we will not be chosen. I believe that there are at least two aspects of this idea that we should consider. The first is associated with the desire for material possessions. Are our hearts set upon the acquisition of worldly things like homes, cars, big screen televisions and the like? If so, we should consider that these desires may inhibit our ability to exercise the priesthood. This is quite a blow to me, and perhaps many others, who have enjoyed the ‘gospel of wealth’ that hovers over our activities inside and outside the chapel. The second aspect one should consider is the dependence on the things of the world as a demonstration of our correctness. I speak specifically to our apparent need to build magnificent buildings, such as the conference center, the renovation of downtown Salt Lake City, and other fine structures to exhibit our righteousness. These works of man, as cited in 3 Nephi 27:11, will bring us joy for a season but are of no value.

A second aspect of this focus on the things of the world deals with the more personal and intangible aspects of our lives. Do we assume that being anxiously engaged is necessary and sufficient for our claim on righteousness? Do we toil in our callings, in our home/visiting teaching, in priesthood assignments and other physical activities and assume these are sufficient to demonstrate our righteousness? In ancient Israel, the people were required to do many things in order to be considered as righteous. Have we adopted a modern version of Israel’s 615 do’s and don’ts and hope that this proves our correctness? Could this be considered having our hearts set upon the physical things of this world?

These verses tell us that seeking the honors of men inhibits our ability to exercise the priesthood. Do we aspire to the honors of men? We are told repeatedly that we are not to seek positions in the church but is this sufficient? How much of what we do in the church is done for the benefit of being seen by others? We may tell ourselves that we are doing things for the glory of God but how easy is it to acquire a little personal benefit along the way? Do we assume that our calling, whatever it may be, brings with it privileges and perks? Any amount of pride or ambition can turn off our priesthood rights. Who has not been drawn to this irresistible flame of positions of power and prestige; and, in the process, lost their power to lead?

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

What is this ‘disease’ called unrighteous dominion that ‘almost all men’ have? What is this trait intrinsic to most of us that causes us to lose our ability to act in God’s name? In the middle ages, the Holy Roman Church placed themselves between man and God. The pope had assumed the authority to dispense forgiveness of sins and used this to enrich the coffers of the church. This, to me, is as example of unrighteous dominion. Do we have some flavor of this in the modern church? Do we establish man-made rules of conduct that insert the church between man and God?

In the above reference from Doctrine and Covenants, Section 121, we read that in order to have a legitimate claim to the authority of God or to the priesthood, a man must be righteous, and must also demonstrate that righteousness through the traits of persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, love unfeigned, kindness, and must be without guile.

41 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;

42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—

43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.

When Christ called the twelve disciples during His visit to the Nephites after His resurrection, he instructed them to be ministers and servants. Have we lost something in the modern church due to our near adoration of the general authorities? Do these men truly act as servants or have they assumed ’star’ status among the members of the church? Could it be that, as Joseph Smith indicated, almost all men have lost the ability to exercise the priesthood through pride, vanity, and the need to feel important?

Those that are not chosen have fallen victim to the needs of the things of the world – possession, wealth, and power. Those who are chosen will be those who shed themselves of a focus on material possessions, shun all pride and vanity; who humble themselves as servants and who dismiss the trappings of position and rank.

What think ye?

In 3^rd Nephi, the scriptures record the visits of Christ among the Nephites. He selected twelve disciples, taught them the message of the gospel and gave them the authority to baptize, give the Holy Ghost and to administer the sacrament. In 3^rd Nephi, chapter 26, we find this recorded:

17 And it came to pass that the disciples whom Jesus had chosen began from that time forth to baptize and to teach as many as did come unto them; and as many as were baptized in the name of Jesus were filled with the Holy Ghost.

18 And many of them saw and heard unspeakable things, which are not lawful to be written.

19 And they taught, and did minister one to another; and they had all things common among them, every man dealing justly, one with another.

20 And it came to pass that they did do all things even as Jesus had commanded them.

21 And they who were baptized in the name of Jesus were called the church of Christ.

This passage strongly suggests that those who were baptized, first with water then with fire and the Holy Ghost, were privileged to live the law of consecration – they were a Zion community. These people had ‘all things common;’ a phrase, I believe, notes the participation in the type of community we are to be living in as members of the church of Christ.

Given the presence of this sanctified community, it is interesting to note that the following verses opening chapter 27 find the disciples ‘gathered together…united in mighty prayer and fasting.’ They were apparently praying for an answer to a question when Christ appeared before them:

2 And Jesus again showed himself unto them, for they were praying unto the Father in his name; and Jesus came and stood in the midst of them, and said unto them: What will ye that I shall give unto you?

3 And they said unto him: Lord, we will that thou wouldst tell us the name whereby we shall call this church; for there are disputations among the people concerning this matter.

I am somewhat comforted and discomforted by this question. The people who were living as a Zion community apparently were arguing about the name of their group. I am comforted because there are, even in Zion, disputes. These disagreements, I assume, can be resolved without anger and malice. At the same time, I am discomforted, perhaps by the facts that we are all human. We already read in the last verse that these people called themselves the church of Christ, yet there are apparently disputes about what the disciples were doing relative to this important topic.

In His response, Christ lays out what I would consider the markers by which we are to know that the organization is His church – In his name, built upon His Gospel, and showing forth the works of the Father.

In My Name

In verse 7, Christ reaffirms that ‘ye shall call the church in my name.’ The church of Christ is to be the name we are to be known by. It carries with it the implicit assumption that we have chosen to take upon us the ‘name of Christ’ individually and collectively.

6 And whoso taketh upon him my name, and endureth to the end, the same shall be saved at the last day.

I have often wondered where the spiritual ‘church of Christ’ and the corporate church of Christ overlap. Being known as the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-Day Saints seems to fit with the requirement to be called in His name. There is, however, this nagging concern regarding the comment Christ made in verse 8:

“…if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man;”

Does this remain simply a ’spiritual’ name or should it be extended to the real or corporate aspects of this organization? As an example, the copyright of the scriptures that I read are held, not by the church, but by the ‘Corporation of The President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.’ The local stake center is not ‘owned’ by the church of Christ, but by the ‘Corporation of the Presiding Bishop..’ These real assets of the church are carried ‘in the name of a man.’

To most of you who read this post, this may not be an issue. To me it begs the question of the rationale of putting the assets of the church in the name of a man. Is this a type to show that there is a significant difference between the spiritual and corporate church? Is it a demonstration of just how entwined with Babylon we have become?

Built Upon My Gospel

The Lord continues His answer to the disciples’ question with this statement found in verse 8: “…but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel.” In other words, it is not sufficient that the church bear His name, it must also be based on the gospel as He taught it. There are four places in the scriptures where the Lord puts forth His gospel; each time stating for clarity ‘this is my gospel.’ Certainly, the most appropriate is found here in the same chapter of 3^rd Nephi in verses 13 through 21. For brevity I will not quote the entire reference but I do think that the summary found in verses 19 through 21 are crucial:

19 And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end.

20 Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day.

21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel; and ye know the things that ye must do in my church; for the works which ye have seen me do that shall ye also do; for that which ye have seen me do even that shall ye do;

As we read here in verse 20, sanctification should be our primary goal in preparation for our last day of judgment – according to His gospel. This sanctification is further clarified by reading one of the other definitions of the gospel found in D&C 33:

11 Yea, repent and be baptized, every one of you, for a remission of your sins; yea, be baptized even by water, and then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost.

12 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel; and remember that they shall have faith in me or they can in nowise be saved;

We are sanctified through having our sins remitted – made clean through the blood of Jesus Christ. This is accomplished by the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost. Christ taught this principle to the Nephites in 3 Nephi 12:

2 … Yea, blessed are they who shall believe in your words, and come down into the depths of humility and be baptized, for they shall be visited with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and shall receive a remission of their sins.

This is the same message as found in the doctrine of Christ delivered by Nephi in 2 Nephi 31:

17 Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost.

18 And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; yea, ye have entered in by the gate; ye have done according to the commandments of the Father and the Son; and ye have received the Holy Ghost, which witnesses of the Father and the Son, unto the fulfilling of the promise which he hath made, that if ye entered in by the way ye should receive.

We are to receive a remission of our sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost BEFORE we are on the strait and narrow path leading to eternal life. This is the same message we find in Moroni, chapter 6:

4 And after they had been received unto baptism, and were wrought upon and cleansed by the power of the Holy Ghost, they were numbered among the people of the church of Christ; and their names were taken, that they might be remembered and nourished by the good word of God,

It was not until AFTER the people experienced this sanctification that they were numbered with the church of Christ. As I see it, the message between these scriptures is consistent. It is necessary for us to receive the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost before we are on the strait and narrow path and before we can truly be a member of the Church of Christ. This is the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ as defined in the scriptures. This is the gospel upon which the church must be built that it may be His church.

I bring this up because it is critical that we are in alignment with the gospel as defined in the scriptures. As I listen to the leaders of the church on the topic, there have been consistent comments from general conference in recent years on the topic of the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost. By example, here is one of the recent comments by Elder Christofferson from April 2008:

“You may ask, Why doesn’t this mighty change happen more quickly with me? You should remember that the remarkable examples of King Benjamin’s people, Alma, and some others in scripture are just that—remarkable and not typical. For most of us, the changes are more gradual and occur over time. Being born again, unlike our physical birth, is more a process than an event. And engaging in that process is the central purpose of mortality.”

Can the process of the mighty change, being born again, as Alma described it, something that can happen gradually over a long period of time for ‘most of us?’ How can this be the gate to the strait and narrow path to eternal live when it is being presented as a long process? A gate is an entry point, not a long process. How can the cleansing of the Holy Ghost – through the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost - be a gradual, imperceptible change over time if it is a prerequisite to membership in the church of Christ as presented in Moroni 6?

In October, 2007, Elder Packer spoke of his calling as an Assistant to the Twelve:

“It puzzled me for a long time until finally I could see that I already had what was required: an abiding testimony in my heart of the Restoration of the fulness of the gospel through the Prophet Joseph Smith, that we have a Heavenly Father, and that Jesus Christ is our Redeemer. I may not have known all about it, but I did have a testimony, and I was willing to learn.

I was perhaps no different from those spoken of in the Book of Mormon: “And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost, even as the Lamanites, because of their faith in me at the time of their conversion, were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and they knew it not” (3 Nephi 9:20; emphasis added).

Elder Packer’s emphasis on ‘they knew it not’ suggests that the baptism with fire is something that can simply evolve from a testimony. As I have indicated above, this does not agree with the scriptural representation of the baptism of fire nor does it agree with the idea presented above that this baptism is a gate to the strait and narrow path to eternal life.

Contrast this statement with the comment by Alma after his born again experience from Mosiah 27:

24 For, said he, I have repented of my sins, and have been redeemed of the Lord; behold I am born of the Spirit.

25 And the Lord said unto me: Marvel not that all mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, must be born again; yea, born of God, changed from their carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness, being redeemed of God, becoming his sons and daughters;

Alma states here that the experience of being born again; having our sins remitted by the power of the Holy Ghost is a requirement of all mankind. Alma was born of the Spirit – all mankind must be born again in the same way. The way to the strait and narrow path to eternal life is through the gate of baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost.

Let’s look at the context of this scripture found in 3 Nephi 9:20. There is a strong suggestion that this conversion of the Lamanites is referencing an event in the Book of Mormon. Prior to the edition released in 1981, there was a footnote on this scriptural verse pointing back to Helaman 5:45. (A footnote on Helaman 5:45 still points to 3 Nephi 9:20) This passage chronicles the miraculous rescue of Lehi and Nephi from prison and the conversion of 300 Lamanites. These Lamanites were apparently unfamiliar with things spiritual and needed one Aminadab to explain what was happening to them and what they needed to do to have the darkness lifted from them. It is very reasonable to me to accept that these Lamanites did not understand what was happening to them but were fully overwhelmed. Yes, I would suggest they didn’t know it was the Holy Ghost that was bringing them this baptism of fire. That is what was meant by ‘they know it not.” That situation is completely different from them not knowing that something had gradually changed them over time.

What does it say about the prevalence of the baptism of fire in the church when the person next in line to be prophet and president has determined that it is an imperceptible process over time? Even if the event were rare among LDS circles, doesn’t the man who leads the quorum of twelve apostles have the implicit requirement to have greater access to spiritual matters than those in the rank and file of the church? Does this fact teach the common member that they don’t need to strive for the baptism of fire if the man in line to be the next prophet hasn’t received it? Or alternatively, does it speak to the lack of sanctification demonstrated by those who profess to be apostles and prophets?

Let me now return to the question of this section. Is the latter-day church built upon the gospel of Christ? The fundamental question is whether the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost is a point event or a process over a long period of time. Based on the definition of the gospel found in 3 Nephi and D&C 33; based on the description in this second baptism in the scriptures, the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost is a critical component of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is a singular experience that should be sought by all members. It is the gate to the strait and narrow path and the final entry point for church membership. Any effort to redefine this essential element of the gospel from a life changing event to a gradual culmination of a Christ-like life changes the gospel as taught by Christ. If the church is not built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ, it is not His church.

The Works of God

The last marker of the church of Christ is found in the following verses:

10 And if it so be that the church is built upon my gospel then will the Father show forth his own works in it.

11 But if it be not built upon my gospel, and is built upon the works of men, or upon the works of the devil, verily I say unto you they have joy in their works for a season, and by and by the end cometh, and they are hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence there is no return.

12 For their works do follow them, for it is because of their works that they are hewn down; therefore remember the things that I have told you.

In order to qualify as the church of Christ, the organization is to demonstrate the works of the Father as opposed to the works of men. To help us understand what the works of the Father are, Christ included this description later in the same chapter:

21 … ye know the things that ye must do in my church; for the works which ye have seen me do that shall ye also do; for that which ye have seen me do even that shall ye do;

Here Christ teaches us that the works that He did among the Nephites are the works of the Father. We find a good summary of these works in chapter 26:

15 And it came to pass that after he had ascended into heaven—the second time that he showed himself unto them, and had gone unto the Father, after having healed all their sick, and their lame, and opened the eyes of their blind and unstopped the ears of the deaf, and even had done all manner of cures among them, and raised a man from the dead, and had shown forth his power unto them, and had ascended unto the Father—

I would submit that the works of the Father are demonstrated by the miracles that Christ performed while he was among the people. He healed their sick, gave sight to the blind and hearing to the deaf. He also raised the dead. These are the works that can be used to identify the church of Christ.

It is notable that this admonition to do the works of Christ was given, not the general membership, but to the twelve disciples. We find that these men did follow through in demonstrating the works of God in 4 Nephi:

5 And there were great and marvelous works wrought by the disciples of Jesus, insomuch that they did heal the sick, and raise the dead, and cause the lame to walk, and the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear; and all manner of miracles did they work among the children of men; and in nothing did they work miracles save it were in the name of Jesus.

While we may, based on our faith, be party to miracles in our lives, the marker of the church can be found in the performance of these works of God by the leadership as demonstrated in these passages. The twelve that were called to lead the church among the Nephites were able to perform the works of the Father. Even after the people had turned against them, they still continued to do mighty miracles among the people as we read in 4 Nephi:

30 Therefore they did exercise power and authority over the disciples of Jesus who did tarry with them, and they did cast them into prison; but by the power of the word of God, which was in them, the prisons were rent in twain, and they went forth doing mighty miracles among them.

I think this is a significant aspect that these men continued to follow through with the charge given them by Christ even though they were threatened by the people and cast into prison. It does not appear that the faithfulness of the general population was needed to conduct miracles. Just as Peter healed the lame in Acts 2 to the wonder of all around, these men continued to perform miracles among the people. Are these miracles among us today? If the disciples of the Nephites, as commanded by Christ, performed miracles, should we not see these same miracles performed by the twelve that are called to lead us in this day?

Given a clear understanding of the works of God, let us now consider the works of men. I would suggest that the works of men are the things that we can do with our own hands and by our own strength. The building of great buildings is a good, but easy, example of the works of men. I would even include that acts of fellowship and the rituals of activity such as home teaching and temple attendance. Are these not the works of our own hands in contrast to the works wrought by the power of God? In the absence of these works of God, the works of men will bring us joy for a season but in the end we will be hewn down.

To be the church of Christ, the body of members must bear His name, they must abide by His gospel and the works of the Father must be demonstrated among them. I believe that all three of the markers must be present in order to be called the Church of Christ. Do we truly carry the name of Christ in all we do? Do we strictly adhere to the gospel Christ presented in the Book of Mormon? Do we have the works of God demonstrated by our leaders? These are the markers defined by Christ to identify His church.

What think ye?

The Webster’s definition of apostasy is 1) renunciation of a religious faith and 2) abandonment of a previous loyalty. Tracing the word back to its original Greek, one finds that an apostate could be defined as ‘one who stands apart.’ There are many great men and women who, based on their conscience or on revelation, were called to stand apart from their religious traditions. I would like to consider a few of these great souls both within and without the Mormon sphere.

Martin Luther

I have truly enjoyed reading on the life and works of Martin Luther. For many years, I simply placed him in the realm of a predecessor to Joseph Smith. This is still a valid statement but I believe we can learn much more from his life and struggles. He was born 8 years before Columbus discovered America. He grew up in the home of his parents who looked forward to their son becoming a lawyer and supporting them. While returning to school after a visit home, he was knocked down by a lightning strike. Fearful for his life, he pledged at the spot to enter the service of God. Two weeks later, he entered the monastery at the age of 22 never having read the Bible. When it was presented to him, he devoured it spending many days and months reading the word of God. Continually, through fasting and prayer, he sought to be acceptable to God. In 1510, Luther had the privilege of spending a month in Rome. He returned to Germany disillusioned by the crassness of the priests and the singular focus he saw there on money and excess.

While much of his life in the monastery was filled with the anxiety of a sinful soul, Martin struggled to find peace with God. Something, he realized, that could not happen until the whole man had been changed. With this challenge he struggled for many months. In 1513, he was assigned the chair of the Bible. Teaching from the Psalms brought him to the realization that Christ had indeed taken upon him our sins. It was an epiphany for the man who came to realize that he had did not have to rely on the myriad of acts demanded by the Holy Roman Church but only upon the merits and mercies of Jesus Christ.

This awakening caused him to rethink all that he had come to accept within the church and quickly led to the 95 Theses hanging on the door of the church in Wittenberg. His path took him before kings and princes. He was thrice excommunicated and condemned to death for his efforts to reconcile the actions of the church with the scriptures. His writings were burned and his life was only spared by the help of friends.

While he did not initially intend to break from the Catholic Church, he succeeded in crystallizing the German efforts to separate themselves from the Italian papal domination.

“Here, I stand” Words Martin Luther is said to have uttered as he stood before Emperor Charles V who was awaiting a recantation of all the ills that Luther had brought out upon the church. Luther did not recant but branded himself an apostate. One who stands apart.

(Here I Stand, A Life of Martin Luther by Roland H. Bainton and The Life and Times of Martin Luther by J. H. Merle D’Aubigne’)

Lehi

What would you call a man who deserted his home and struck out into the wilderness with his family without telling anyone? What would you think if this same man sent his sons back to kill one of the leaders of the church, kidnap his assistant and steal the sacred records of their faith?

I have often wondered what Lehi must have endured to follow the word of God into the desert. In this day, I would liken it to someone fleeing out of Salt Lake only to return, kill a church official and steal one of the original copies of the Book of Mormon.

Here is a man who, based on a dream, packed up a few possessions and disrupted the lives of his family in a major way. I don’t think Laman and Lemuel ever got over it as they stated in 1 Nephi 18:

21 Behold, these many years we have suffered in the wilderness, which time we might have enjoyed our possessions and the land of our inheritance; yea, and we might have been happy.

22 And we know that the people who were in the land of Jerusalem were a righteous people; for they kept the statutes and judgments of the Lord, and all his commandments, according to the law of Moses; wherefore, we know that they are a righteous people; and our father hath judged them, and hath led us away because we would hearken unto his words…

Lehi was called to leave his comfortable surroundings and his family, friends and church at the request of God. He was to separate himself from the life and environment that, undoubtedly, was comfortable and appealing. Wouldn’t Lehi have been considered an apostate by the leaders of the Jerusalem community? What kind of faith would it have taken to leave behind the comfort of orthodoxy for a tent in the desert?

Lehi, the visionary man, was willing to stand apart from what had been his entire life and livelihood. He caused his family and selected friends to leave the known and comfortable for the unknown and painful. While he may have been an apostate to the elders of Jerusalem, he was the father of a new nation to us… all because he hearkened to the word of God given him in a dream.

Alma the Elder

Alma had things going quite well. He had recently been elevated to a high priest position under great King Noah. He, perhaps along with his wives and concubines, were likely living large as we read in Mosiah 11:

14 And it came to pass that he (King Noah) placed his heart upon his riches, and he spent his time in riotous living with his wives and his concubines; and so did also his priests spend their time with harlots.

15 And it came to pass that he planted vineyards round about in the land; and he built wine-presses, and made wine in abundance; and therefore he became a wine-bibber, and also his people.

That is, until he heard Abinadi preach of Christ and was convinced that something was seriously wrong with what he was seeing. Unable to convince Noah of the error being committed, Alma was forced to flee for his life. He found refuge in the wilderness and was led by God to form a community based on principles that set him apart from his former life and position.

Given that King Noah was the ruling secular and religious authority at the time, I am sure that Alma was branded as an apostate; one who has abandoned his previous loyalty. To us, Alma was responding to the promptings of the spirit – first, seeking to give a man of God a wide berth but ultimately to re-establish the church of Christ in the wilderness.

Good Apostate or Bad Apostate?

The message here is that there may be times when being an apostate is doing the right thing. If the existing religious framework has become disconnected from the original mission of the church, it may take an apostate or two to bring some, perhaps a remnant, back in alignment with the will of God. Samuel the Lamanite stood on the wall and delivered a message to the Nephites that God was not pleased. Some people heard his words and repented. Most times, it seems these outliers are given the task of taking the message of repentance to the majority and are then encouraged to flee for their lives.

In D&C Section 112, we are told that ‘vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth’ and ‘upon my house shall it begin.’ The meaning here to me is that latter day church is to encounter a correction or cleansing. Several times in the Book of Mormon, we Gentiles are told to ‘repent and return’ to the gospel. We are told that only we Gentiles who repent will participate in the building of New Jerusalem (3 Nephi 21:14-24). I believe there are many scriptural signs that dictate we, as a people who profess to have taken upon them the name of Christ, will need to repent and return or be left behind.

Have our hearts been so focused on riches that we are ripe for the message of Samuel the Lamanite to be delivered to us? Could it come from someone who was branded by the hierarchy of the church as an apostate? Time will tell.

What think ye?

In Section 84 of the Doctrine and Covenants, we read of the condemnation that ‘resteth upon the children of Zion, even all.’ We also have the words of President Ezra Taft Benson reminding us that this condemnation has not been lifted in this day. I have had some concern that I didn’t completely understand what was being said in these verses. This is my feeble attempt to better represent what the Spirit is telling me on this topic.

Starting in verse 47 of D&C 84 we read:

47 And every one that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit cometh unto God, even the Father.

48 And the Father teacheth him of the covenant which he has renewed and confirmed upon you, which is confirmed upon you for your sakes, and not for your sakes only, but for the sake of the whole world.

The process of ‘coming unto God’ is facilitated by listening to the voice of the Spirit. The result of this liaison with the Spirit is that we are taught of the covenant that Lord expects us to make when we have come unto Him. Each of us have the opportunity to seek the Spirit, hear the words, and participate in this covenant individually. The comment regarding the covenant has been ‘renewed’ suggests that it was offered before to those who were called by His name.

49 And the whole world lieth in sin, and groaneth under darkness and under the bondage of sin.

50 And by this you may know they are under the bondage of sin, because they come not unto me.

51 For whoso cometh not unto me is under the bondage of sin.

52 And whoso receiveth not my voice is not acquainted with my voice, and is not of me.

53 And by this you may know the righteous from the wicked, and that the whole world groaneth under sin and darkness even now.

I find it interesting that those who don’t come unto God are bound by sin. Conversely, those who come unto God have received a remission of their sins. I equate this process of coming unto God to the process of being sanctified through the remission of our sins. This remission of sins is achieved through the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost (2 Nephi 31:17).

54 And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received—

55 Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation.

56 And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all.

57 And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written—

Vanity can be defined as ‘excessive pride in one’s abilities and achievements (dictionary.com). At the time when this revelation was given, it was vanity that pushed the members of the church in that day to set themselves upon the land of Zion without adequate preparation. As a result, they were put under condemnation and we remain under that condemnation today according to President Benson.

One of my concerns is that this condemnation may have been incorrectly applied in this generation. Does the current church organization truly represent Zion either geographically or spiritually? We are not located where God defined Zion to be nor are we collectively ‘the pure in heart’ that the Lord requires. We call ourselves ‘Zion’ but it is vanity to assume that our abilities and achievements are sufficient to warrant the title.

Another concern is that the admonition of President Benson was turned into a drive to read the Book of Mormon. It is ironic that the Lord included the warning ‘not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written.’ I would equate our focus on reading the Book of Mormon with only saying the words. Have we collectively or individually DONE what that Lord has asked us to do?

But what is this ‘new covenant even the Book of Mormon?’ One aspect is that we are told the everlasting covenant is the fulness of the gospel (D&C 66:2). We also know the Lord speaks of the Book of Mormon stating the ‘fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in it, as delivered by the Savior to the ancient inhabitants’ (Joseph Smith – History, verse 34). One good reason to read the chapters dealing with the visit of Jesus Christ is to understand what the ‘fulness’ of the gospel is and what it is not.

Perhaps what this covenant means is that we are to embrace the covenants found in the Book of Mormon. Of the more than 150 references to covenant in the Book of Mormon, most of them refer to the original covenant the Lord made with the house of Israel. There are references to the covenants of the Gadiantons which we will ignore. There are also covenants made by groups, such as the Anti-Nephi-Lehies regarding the use of weapons to protect themselves (Alma 24).

There are references to two covenants that I think are pertinent to this discussion. Those souls that gathered with Alma at the waters of Mormon were participants of a covenant prior to their baptism as we read in Mosial 18:10:

Now I say unto you, if this be the desire of your hearts, what have you against being baptized in the name of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a covenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you?

This covenant, or two-way promise, was that the people would be baptized and serve him and keep his commandments. The Lord’s obligation was to bless them with an outpouring of His Spirit. I would suggest that this pre-baptismal covenant is fulfilled when we receive the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost.

The second covenant I would like to highlight is found in Mosiah, chapter 5. After the people of King Benjamin collectively received the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost and received a remission of their sins, they expressed a willingness to enter into a new covenant as we read here:

5 And we are willing to enter into a covenant with our God to do his will, and to be obedient to his commandments in all things that he shall command us, all the remainder of our days, that we may not bring upon ourselves a never-ending torment, as has been spoken by the angel, that we may not drink out of the cup of the wrath of God.

6 And now, these are the words which king Benjamin desired of them; and therefore he said unto them: Ye have spoken the words that I desired; and the covenant which ye have made is a righteous covenant.

7 And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.

8 And under this head ye are made free, and there is no other head whereby ye can be made free. There is no other name given whereby salvation cometh; therefore, I would that ye should take upon you the name of Christ, all you that have entered into the covenant with God that ye should be obedient unto the end of your lives.

Again, the people covenanted to do the will of God and be obedient to his commandments for the rest of their lives. The other half of the covenant, the Lord’s half, is that they became His sons and daughters; they have been spiritually born of Christ. In becoming sons and daughters of Christ, we become heirs also. I speak of this not in a material sense but of a spiritual sense. We become recipients of the knowledge and wisdom of God which is more precious than any kingdoms or principalities.

The Lord also tells us that it does not matter what lineage we belong to; what matters is what is in our heart individually:

For behold, I say unto you that as many of the Gentiles as will repent are the covenant people of the Lord; and as many of the Jews as will not repent shall be cast off; for the Lord covenanteth with none save it be with them that repent and believe in his Son, who is the Holy One of Israel. (2 Nephi 30:2)

Whether you consider yourself a Gentile, a Jew, or a member of the house of Israel, you have an equal opportunity to enter into this covenant.

In summary, those who seek to be called by the name of Christ are to be bound by covenants. Our baptismal covenant can be fulfilled by the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost which is a component of the fulness of the gospel or the everlasting covenant. If we are diligent in keeping the commandments of God, we are presented with an opportunity to have the bondage of sin removed from us and with it, the condemnation of God; hopefully, an opportunity to build Zion in the mode that God intends.

What think ye?

One of the primary markers of a true Zion community is the sharing of both spiritual and physical resources. As the title of this post suggests, the church of Christ founded after the visit of the Messiah to the Nephites treated the material possessions of the members as ‘common property.’ We read in Fourth Nephi of the establishment of this community:

…behold the disciples of Jesus had formed a church of Christ in all the lands round about. And as many as did come unto them, and did truly repent of their sins, were baptized in the name of Jesus; and they did also receive the Holy Ghost.

And it came to pass in the thirty and sixth year, the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face of the land, both Nephites and Lamanites, and there were no contentions and disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another.

And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift. (4 Nephi 1:1-3)

This community, more than any other in the scriptures, enjoyed the ‘fruits of the Spirit’ and the bounty of the Lords blessings. In the description of their ‘continued peace in the land’ we read of the following attributes:

• All manner of miracles…among the children of men (verse 5)
  
• Rebuilt the great cities that were burned (verse 7)
  
• No longer followed the law of Moses (verse 12)
  
• Continued fasting and prayer (verse 12)
  
• Meeting together often to pray and hear the word of the Lord (verse 12)
  
• No contentions among all the people (verse 16)
  

Perhaps the best summary of their lifestyle is found in the following verses:

And it came to pass that there was no contention in the land, because of the love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people.

And there were no envyings, nor strifes, nor tumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor any manner of lasciviousness; and surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God.

There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God. (4 Nephi 1:15-17)

As we read here, Nephi attributed the success of the church to the ‘love of God’ found in the ‘hearts of the people.’ This idyllic community lasted about 165 years. Its end was marked with the return of ‘mine and yours;’ as pride enveloped the community:

And now, in this two hundred and first year there began to be among them those who were lifted up in pride, such as the wearing of costly apparel, and all manner of fine pearls, and of the fine things of the world.

And from that time forth they did have their goods and their substance no more common among them.

And they began to be divided into classes; and they began to build up churches unto themselves to get gain, and began to deny the true church of Christ.

Once the people no longer kept on things in common, the true church of Christ found it was competing with another ‘church’ which apparently was very attractive to the people. These new churches were built to get gain and grew very strong even to the point of persecuting the true church.

Other examples are found in the scriptures of this people called Zion. We can read in Acts of this type of community following the Lords ministry in the land of Jerusalem:

And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.

And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

These people were able to achieve and sustain their community. We do not know how long it lasted but we do know they were able to achieve the goal while embedded in the larger community.

Here is what we find in Moses 7:17-19 regarding the society of Enoch:

The fear of the Lord was upon all nations, so great was the glory of the Lord, which was upon his people. And the Lord blessed the land, and they were blessed upon the mountains, and upon the high places, and did flourish.

And the Lord called his people ZION, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.

And Enoch continued his preaching in righteousness unto the people of God. And it came to pass in his days, that he built a city that was called the City of Holiness, even ZION.

Here we find more attributes necessary to establish a community of the Lord called ZION. If we are to become a ZION, we need to be of ‘one heart’ which I suggest means that we must see the value in each individual and have the godly love mentioned earlier. We need to be of ‘one mind’ suggesting that we must be unified in the doctrines of the kingdom. We must dwell in righteousness meaning we cannot be distracted by pastimes which bring no value. We, finally, must find a way to share our bounty with those who are in need. This requires an absence of pride and selfishness. From these above examples, we can now determine some glimmer of what we are required to do before we call ourselves ZION.

So… how do we stack up? In this last dispensation, the Lord once again called upon those who profess His name to establish Zion. The early saints were called to go to Independence and establish Zion through the law of consecration. For a variety of reasons, this early attempt failed.

Brigham Young attempted to establish communities following prescriptions of the United Order. Orderville, Brigham City and other communities made valiant attempts to live as ‘one’ but achieved limited success over a short period. By the time of his death in 1877, it could be said that Brigham Young had done all that he could to ‘reform’ and ’sanctify’ the people of the church to prepare them as a Zion people but with no lasting success.

I had an acquaintance who would regularly end their correspondence with “next year in Zion.” This phrase was meant to signify the goal that we should all have in becoming the people of God. Do we still have this goal prominent among us or have we redefined ‘Zion’ to mean something more comfortable to our materialistic and prideful society of saints? Do we have the right to call ourselves ‘Zion’ when we do not meet the criteria established by the Lord to use that name?

What think ye?

Beginning with the 1921 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, the book no longer contained what was called the ‘Lectures on Theology’ and later the ‘Lecture on Faith.’ I thought it would be of interest to briefly recap some of the aspects of this change to our inspired standard works. As a reference point, I have scanned the first pages of the two major sections of an 1898 edition of the D&C. You see below that the first section was composed of the Lectures on Faith with a header noting the Lectures focused “on the Doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, originally delivered before a Class of the Elders, in Kirtland, Ohio.”

The next major component of the book contains the sections as we would expect in the D&C. As you can see, this second part of the book is called the “Covenants and Commandments of the Lord, to his servants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” The words ‘covenants’ and ‘commandments’ are then found at the top of all pages in this segment of the book while the first segment has ‘lectures on faith’ across the top of each page.

So, why would it be acceptable to include the Lectures on Faith in the Doctrine and Covenants for 86 years, but then remove the information? FAIR has summarized the church’s viewpoint on this matter here.

(http://en.fairmormon.org/Lectures_on_Faith_removed_from_Doctrine_and_Covenants)

From an historical perspective, the effort began in September 24, 1834 as noted in the minutes of the High Council meeting at Kirtland:

The council then proceeded to appoint a committee to arrange the items of the doctrine of Jesus Christ, for the government of the Church of Latter-day Saints, which Church was organized and commenced its rise on the 6th of April, 1830. These items are to be taken from the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the revelations which have been given to the Church up to this date, or that shall be given until such arrangements are made.” (Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., introduction and notes by B. H. Roberts, 2:, p.165)

This committee was composed of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and Frederick G. Williams. Little is known about the activities of this committee but one can find a reference to Joseph Smith activities subsequent to the formation of the committee in this diary note:

January, 1835.-During the month of January, I was engaged in the school of the Elders, and in preparing the lectures on theology for publication in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, which the committee appointed last September were now compiling. (Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., introduction and notes by B. H. Roberts, 2:, p.180)

It appears from this entry that it was clearly Joseph’s intent to include the lectures in the replacement for the Book of Commandments to be known as the Book of Doctrine and Covenants.

On August 17^th, 1835, a general assembly of the church was held at Kirtland. The main purpose of the meeting was to ‘take into consideration the labors of a committee appointed by a general assembly of the Church on the 24^th of September, 1834, for the purpose of arranging the items of doctrine of Jesus Christ for the government of the Church.’ The full text of the report on this meeting is found In the History of the Church, vol. 2, pages 243-246; I will attempt to summarize the proceedings.

The assembly of the church was presented with the proposal to include the ‘lectures on theology’ and the assembled revelations in the new Doctrine and Covenants. The first recorded pronouncement came from W. W. Phelps who ‘bore record that the book presented to the assembly was true.’ Other members and quorums followed suit with a similar witness acknowledging the proposal ‘as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by unanimous vote.’

Elder John Smith, speaking for the High Council in Kirtland ‘bore record that the revelations in said book were true, and that the lectures were judiciously arranged and compiled, and were profitable for doctrine.’

The testimony of the twelve was also recorded ‘that these Commandments were given by the inspiration of God, and are profitable for all men, and are verily true.’

The report ends with this statement. ‘The several authorities and the general assembly, by a unanimous vote, accepted the labors of the committee.

The Doctrine and Covenants was then published later that year, 1835, and contained the following description of it contents addressed to the members of the church in the preface:

Dear Brethren: We deem it unnecessary to entertain you with a lengthy preface to the following volume, but merely to say that it contains in short the leading items of the religion which we have professed to believe.

The first part of the book will be found to contain a series of lectures as delivered before a theological class in this place, and in consequence of their embracing the important doctrine of salvation, we have arranged them in the following work.

The second part contains items or principles for the regulation of the church as taken from the revelations which have been given since its organization, as well as former ones.

At first glance, the two parts discussed would seem to carry at least equal weight. In the first part, we are presented with material describing the ‘important doctrine of salvation’ while the second part contains ‘principles for the regulation of the church.’

While the Lectures on Faith remained in the Doctrine and Covenants for more than 8 decades, there appears to be some concern for their placement as summarized by the following footnote from the History of the Church written by B. H. Roberts:

These “Lectures on Theology” here referred to were afterwards prepared by the Prophet, (see page 180) and published in the Doctrine and Covenants under the title “Lectures on Faith.” They are seven in number, and occupy the first seventy-five pages in the current editions of the Doctrine and Covenants. They are not to be regarded as of equal authority in matters of doctrine with the revelations of God in the Doctrine and Covenants, but as stated by Elder John Smith, who, when the book of Doctrine and Covenants was submitted to the several quorums of the Priesthood for acceptance, (August 17, 1835,) speaking in behalf of the Kirtland High Council, “bore record that the revelations in said book were true, and that the lectures judicially were written and compiled, and were profitable for doctrine.” The distinction which Elder John Smith here makes should be observed as a marking the difference between the Lectures on Faith and the revelations of God in the Doctrine and Covenants. (Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols., introduction and notes by B. H. Roberts, 2:, p.178)

Under the direction of Heber J. Grant, the 1921 Doctrine and Covenants was published without the Lectures. The following comment can be found in that edition:

While this seems to be a technicality, I would submit that the Lectures on Faith were indeed accepted by the assembly of the church as representing the doctrine of their faith. The original directive was to capture ‘items of the doctrine of Jesus Christ, for the government of the Church of Latter-day Saints.’ B.H. Roberts then rejects the Lectures because they weren’t revelation? So can I assume that the definition of revelation could easily cover both the pronouncements appended to ‘thus saith the Lord’ as well as those inspired documents developed for the education of our missionaries, especially when it is directed by Joseph Smith? Are the words found in the Lectures on Faith no longer considered to be the ‘doctrine of our faith’ as they were presented in 1835?

I find it interesting that the section of the original Doctrine and Covenants which was pronounced to be ‘embracing the important doctrine of salvation’ was demoted while the section pertaining to the principles for the regulation of the church’ remained intact. Which of these two topics would you consider more valuable?

What has really happened here? Seventy-five pages of material that Joseph Smith intended to be included in the Doctrine and Covenants are summarily discarded from the Book seventy-seven years after his death. Was the exclusion of the Lectures ever put to a vote by the assembly of the church? I can find no record of this event. On the other hand, I have submitted above the record of the general assembly of the church accepting the contents of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants as true. Did Heber J. Grant have the authority to ‘trump’ the intention of Joseph Smith to include the Lectures on Theology in the sanctioned scripture of the Church?

Did this change that occurred more than 80 years ago represent a step closer to the true doctrines of the kingdom? Have you considered reading and studying the Lectures on Faith as the pronouncement from Joseph Smith as being important for our salvation?

Perhaps I should offer my opinion. I have no doubt that Joseph Smith was called to restore the fulness of the gospel as found in the Book of Mormon. Along with that charge, he was to establish an organization to assist in the teaching of the gospel. I believe that he was given a reasonably wide degree of freedom in how to achieve that. The development of the original Doctrine and Covenants was Joseph’s best idea at the time to give the members a glimpse into the theology as he understood it in 1835.

I do consider the Lectures on Faith as a valuable source for insights that Joseph and Sidney received through the variety of spiritual experiences they received. It also contains some ideas that appear to conflict with the current view. As such, it is for me a springboard for forming questions and aids in my search for understanding faith and truth. I agree with the assembly that voted to accept the Doctrine and Covenants as defined by Joseph, Oliver, Sidney, and Frederick as representing the doctrines and commandments needed for the administration of the church. Should the 1921 Doctrine and Covenants have been ’stripped’ of its doctrine? I think we lost something in the process.

What think ye?

“Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed.”

(2 John 1:9-10)

John’s challenge to us in this scripture is to stay true to the doctrine of Christ. An acceptance and commitment to this doctrine or teaching is the path to eternal life with the Father and the Son. Rightly so, we, each of us, should be concerned about staying true to the doctrine of Christ.

Today, as in any other time in history, doctrines flow readily from many sources, we regularly receive warnings in the scripture to be watchful of the source of the doctrines presented to us “that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine.” (Ephesians 4:14)

In First Nephi 15:14 we read:

“And at that day shall the remnant of our seed know that they are of the house of Israel, and that they are the covenant people of the Lord; and then shall they know and come to the knowledge of their forefathers, and also to the knowledge of the gospel of their Redeemer, which was ministered unto their fathers by him; wherefore, they shall come to the knowledge of their Redeemer and the very points of his doctrine, that they may know how to come unto him and be saved.”

The remnant of Jacob, along with the Gentiles who receive the message of the restoration, shall come to a knowledge of the doctrine of Christ. This information contains instructions about what we must do to ‘come unto Christ and be saved.’ It is incumbent upon each of us to understand and embrace this doctrine and reject any attempts to replace it with the teachings of man.

As with the definition of the gospel, the definition of the doctrine of Christ is clearly outlined in the scriptures. Three times in the latter day scriptures, the Lord defines that which constitutes His doctrine.

In Second Nephi, chapters 31 and 32, we are presented with the doctrine of Christ. I will add some highlighting and commentary:

2 Wherefore, the things which I have written sufficeth me, save it be a few words which I must speak concerning the doctrine of Christ; wherefore, I shall speak unto you plainly, according to the plainness of my prophesying.

3 For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding.

4 Wherefore, I would that ye should remember that I have spoken unto you concerning that prophet which the Lord showed unto me, that should baptize the Lamb of God, which should take away the sins of the world.

5 And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!

6 And now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water?

7 Know ye not that he was holy? But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments.

8 Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove.

9 And again, it showeth unto the children of men the straitness of the path, and the narrowness of the gate, by which they should enter, he having set the example before them.

Nephi stresses that, in the context of following the commandments, Christ can be used as an example.

10 And he said unto the children of men: Follow thou me. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, can we follow Jesus save we shall be willing to keep the commandments of the Father?

11 And the Father said: Repent ye, repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son.

12 And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me do.

13 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.

What better summary can there be of the doctrine of Christ than is contained in verse 13. The Lord is asking for complete commitment. He expects us to repent of our sins and be baptized both by water and by fire and the Holy Ghost. I have bolded what I consider to be the key points of the doctrine of Christ as presented by Nephi.

14 But, behold, my beloved brethren, thus came the voice of the Son unto me, saying: After ye have repented of your sins, and witnessed unto the Father that ye are willing to keep my commandments, by the baptism of water, and have received the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost, and can speak with a new tongue, yea, even with the tongue of angels, and after this should deny me, it would have been better for you that ye had not known me.

15 And I heard a voice from the Father, saying: Yea, the words of my Beloved are true and faithful. He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.

16 And now, my beloved brethren, I know by this that unless a man shall endure to the end, in following the example of the Son of the living God, he cannot be saved.

17 Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost.

It is important to note that repentance, baptism by water, then baptism by fire and the Holy Ghost represent the gate. By gate, I interpret this to mean the starting point. We are all expected to follow the example of Christ in completing the commandment outlined in this verse. We are all expected to receive the two baptisms, “first with water, then with fire and with the Holy Ghost, following the example of our Savior” ( Mormon 7:10)

18 And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; yea, ye have entered in by the gate; ye have done according to the commandments of the Father and the Son; and ye have received the Holy Ghost, which witnesses of the Father and the Son, unto the fulfilling of the promise which he hath made, that if ye entered in by the way ye should receive.

19 And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.

Once we have passed through the gate of baptism by water and by fire and the Holy Ghost, then we are on the strait and narrow path. The following verse now lays out what should be our objectives for the rest of our lives

20 Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.

21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

Nephi ends this sermon with two key messages. First, there is no other way to salvation. I take this to mean no amount of hometeaching, tithing, temple attendance, and the other ‘markers’ matter if they are not predicated on the passage through the gate defined above. Secondly, Nephi makes the point that this is the only and true doctrine. I find it interesting that he chose these words. Does this make the other doctrines we cling to today null and void? Could this make other aspects of doctrine taught today as the doctrines of men? Moving on to chapter 32.

1 AND now, behold, my beloved brethren, I suppose that ye ponder somewhat in your hearts concerning that which ye should do after ye have entered in by the way. But, behold, why do ye ponder these things in your hearts?

2 Do ye not remember that I said unto you that after ye had received the Holy Ghost ye could speak with the tongue of angels? And now, how could ye speak with the tongue of angels save it were by the Holy Ghost?

3 Angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore, they speak the words of Christ. Wherefore, I said unto you, feast upon the words of Christ; for behold, the words of Christ will tell you all things what ye should do.

4 Wherefore, now after I have spoken these words, if ye cannot understand them it will be because ye ask not, neither do ye knock; wherefore, ye are not brought into the light, but must perish in the dark.

5 For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will enter in by the way, and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what ye should do.

6 Behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and there will be no more doctrine given until after he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh. And when he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh, the things which he shall say unto you shall ye observe to do.

Nephi understood what was in the hearts of his listeners. To answer the concerns, he encourages them and us to stay close to the Holy Ghost. How does one speak with the tongues of angels? I would submit that this is our ability to rely on the Holy Ghost to know what to say. As the missionaries were sent out in the early days of the church, they were told:

“Wherefore, lift up your voice and spare not, for the Lord God hath spoken; therefore prophesy, and it shall be given by the power of the Holy Ghost.” (D&C 34:10)

Returning to the discussion of the doctrine of Christ, the comment is also made that there will be no more of the doctrine of Christ given until He comes in the flesh. This occurred when Christ visited the Nephites after His resurrection. At that time, He did present more of His doctrine as found in 3 Nephi, chapter 11:

28 And according as I have commanded you thus shall ye baptize. And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been.

29 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.

30 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.

31 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will declare unto you my doctrine.

32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.

33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.

34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.

35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost.

The doctrine of Christ recited here correlates well with the sermon of Nephi cited earlier. We must be baptized, by water and the Holy Ghost, to be saved

36 And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.

37 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and become as a little child, and be baptized in my name, or ye can in nowise receive these things.

38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.

Become as a little child… What a tremendous challenge for us the rid ourselves of our envies and jealousies in becoming as a child. One that exhibits implicit trust and love; one who can then truly be called a son or daughter of God.

39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them.

41 Therefore, go forth unto this people, and declare the words which I have spoken, unto the ends of the earth.

The warning here is that we are not to add or take away from the doctrine of Christ. I have pondered this for a long time. Can it be that the whole substance of the doctrine of Christ can be found in these two scriptures found in second Nephi and third Nephi? I must answer affirmatively. By commandment, we are told to sustain this as the “only and true doctrine” of Christ. While there may be other doctrines such as the doctrine of the priesthood or the doctrine of the resurrection, etc. there is only one version of the doctrine of Christ that promises sanctification and salvation.

Let us now look at the third reference to the doctrine of Christ found in the Doctrine and Covenants, section 10:

“67 Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church.

68 Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church.

69 And now, behold, whosoever is of my church, and endureth of my church to the end, him will I establish upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.”

In this component of the doctrine of Christ, we find His definition of the church that bears His name. I would hearken back to the scripture I quoted in 1 Nephi 15:14 where we are told that the doctrine of Christ will teach us how to come unto Christ. I would submit that to come unto Christ is to be baptized by water and by fire and the Holy Ghost. I say this because this is exactly what has been defined as His doctrine in the earlier scriptures cited.

We can be considered His church only if we repent and come unto Him. Anyone who declares more on less than this is not of Christ. I would suggest that you ponder the implications of this scripture found in D&C 10. What if the only acceptable criterion for belonging to His church is that we repent and come unto Him? What if repenting and coming to Him is only defined in the scriptures cited earlier? What would his church look like today if this were the only condition for membership?

What think ye?

In one month, we will come upon the tenth anniversary of the deadly tornado that coursed across Salt Lake. On August 11, 1999, Utahans stood in awe as nature unleashed a whirlwind packing wind speeds as high as 150 mph. As many of you may remember, the tornado cut a swath across downtown, shattering glass and ripping off roofs. The Delta Center took a direct blow shortly after the tornado touched down. Follow a northeast path; it then shredded a temporary tent set up for a retail event. Here is where the storm’s only fatality occurred. Moving quickly, the storm then hit temple square, ripping the east doors off the tabernacle, uprooting the famed ‘Sweetheart Tree,’ and shattering panes of glass of the rotunda in front of the Christus statue located in the North Visitor’s Center. The tornado then crossed North Temple and toppled a crane on the site of the assembly hall construction. Its final target was the area around the state capitol where roofs and trees were forfeited to the fury of the storm.

Here is a graphical representation of the storm’s path from Salt Lake City’s Tornado’99, a Deseret News book published shortly after the event.

This was a unique event. It was the only tornado to hit Salt Lake City in its recorded history. Such a rare event should be notable; but is there a deeper spiritual meaning to this event? Why would He who controls the elements allow such an event to transpire? Should we, as members of His church, have taken a message from this whirlwind that struck at the center of Mormondom?

As I pondered this question, I was reminded of the scripture from the Doctrine and Covenants, section 112:

23 Verily, verily, I say unto you, darkness covereth the earth, and gross darkness the minds of the people, and all flesh has become corrupt before my face.

24 Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord.

25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord;

26 First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord.

So… it appears here that the Lord is issuing a warning, not just to the church but to ‘all flesh.’ We are to look forward to a ‘day of desolation and lamentation.’ The image the Lord uses in this circumstance is that of a whirlwind or tornado. This is certainly appropriate given the images recorded of the devastation of 8/11/99.

The warning here is clear that we, the inhabitants of the earth, are in for some trying times. What should be of more interest to us is that the ‘housecleaning’ is to begin with us. I believe that ‘house’ as the Lord uses it here, can have a dual meaning. It can signify both His temple (D&C 94:1) and His people (D&C 103:22).

First, let’s look at those ‘who have professed to know my name.’ In Isaiah 52:6, we read that ‘my people shall know my name.’ I would suggest that there is a spiritual link between knowing His name and membership in His kingdom. I would suggest that this may have a deeper meaning and the topic of another discussion. For now I would assert that knowing the name of God means to know who He is, what He does and how He does it. A similar discussion on the conditions pertaining to His church is found here. But what if I only ‘profess’ to know the name of God but don’t really follow through? I would align this with ‘talking the talk but not walking the walk.’

We find a similar thought expressed in D&C 56:1 as follows:

HEARKEN, O ye people who profess my name, saith the Lord your God; for behold, mine anger is kindled against the rebellious, and they shall know mine arm and mine indignation, in the day of visitation and of wrath upon the nations.

The section continues with a chastisement of several members for stiffneckedness, pride, and selfishness. I suggest that the message here, as well as in Section 112, is that we, as members of His church, need to repent.

Next, consider what the Lord means in reference to those of us who ‘have not known me.’ Knowing Christ is essential to eternal life as we read in John 17:3:

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

To gain eternal life, we must be cleansed by His blood and receive sanctification:

And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end.

Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel; (3 Nephi 27:19-21)

We are sanctified by receiving a remission of sins through the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost. As stated in 3 Nephi 12:1, Christ, himself, administers the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost. I believe that this is an essential component to knowing Christ and to Him knowing us.

The final warning in D&C 112 is against those that blaspheme against God in the midst of His house. Blasphemy could present itself in many ways. Certainly using the name of God in vain qualifies. To speak against God is another way it is presented in the scriptures. But what does it mean to blaspheme in the midst of his house. Is house, in this context, his people or his temple, or both?

First , as a people. Is it blasphemy to make light of the things of God? Do we utter mindless blessings on food or utter the pat answers with our head and not our heart? Is it blasphemy to stand before the congregation and announce our testimony of God by reciting a travel dialog?

Second, as a temple. Has the Lord’s temple been a site for conducting the business side of the corporate church? Is God pleased when we assign spiritual strength to the works of men? In 3 Nephi 27:11, the Lord speaks of His church in these terms:

But if it be not built upon my gospel, and is built upon the works of men, or upon the works of the devil, verily I say unto you they have joy in their works for a season, and by and by the end cometh, and they are hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence there is no return.

Do we blaspheme our God when we replace His works with the works of men? It would seem so since those who do so end up at the same place as the rebellious described in D&C 56:1

So, in summary, I would suggest the long forgotten tornado of 1999 can easily be categorized as a warning to the members of the church. How important is the fact that this act of nature occurred where it occurred, that it struck with such force to the sacred places of the church, that it seemed to be aimed directly at the assembly hall under construction? Such should be the subject of our pleadings with our God. What does this mean to me?

What think ye?

I would like to propose a little self-administered quiz. Here we go:

From the title page of the Book of Mormon we read: “Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile.” So we have three groups identified as targeted recipients of the Book of Mormon:

1. Remnant of the House of Israel, or the Lamanites
   
2. Jews
   
3. Gentiles
   

Now for the question: To which one of these three groups do you belong?

[please proceed when you have completed the test]

If you are a native American, a Pacific Islander or other similar lineage, there is a traditional answer; that being number one. But what if you are a white of European descent? The only two options left for you are Jew or Gentile. Perhaps a couple of scriptures may help to point you in a direction of an answer.

First, from 2 Nephi 33 verse 8:

“I have charity for the Jew—I say Jew, because I mean them from whence I came.”

Also, in 2 Nephi, chapter 15, first in verse 17 and again in verse 20, Nephi seems to be comfortable interchanging two groups, Jews and ‘house of Israel.’:

“for the very cause that he shall be rejected of the Jews, or of the house of Israel.”

In the context of the Book of Mormon, a Jew represents those that were of the house of Israel who lived in the area around Jerusalem.

So, I would suggest that you out there of European descent don’t qualify as Jews.

The only answer left is… guess what????? Yes, Gentile.

The members of the LDS Church, who have long pointed at the world and said, ‘eeww Gads, Gentiles’ are actually pointing at their own brothers????? Could Mormons actually be Gentiles according to the Book of Mormon?

My answer is an emphatic yes. Fortunately, I am not alone. In the dedicatory prayer of the Kirtland Temple, Joseph Smith stated the following:

“Now these words, O Lord, we have spoken before thee, concerning the revelations and commandments which thou hast given unto us, who are identified with the Gentiles.” D&C 109:60

So what does being identified with the Gentiles mean? I suggest it means we are part of that group.

Prefer something of a little later vintage? How about Boyd K. Packer’s statement in a 2007 speech at BYU?

“Wherefore, O ye Gentiles [and the term gentile in that place in the Book of Mormon refers to us in our generation], it is wisdom in God that these things should be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you. . . . ” Ether 8:23

Boyd K. Packer, devotional address was delivered on January 16, 2007

This certainly begs the question, how do you tell when the use of the term ‘Gentile’ in the latter day scriptures refers to us as members of His church? I would suggest that throughout the Book of Mormon, we are identified with the Gentiles. We are part of that group. We, therefore, should be paying close attention to the messages and warnings contained in these scriptures that were delivered by way of the Gentile because the messages and warnings are to US! I will elaborate further on this topic in the next post.

Going back to the title page of the Book of Mormon, we find that this record was ‘to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile.’ Since the Book of Mormon contains the ‘fulness of the Gospel,’ it is only appropriate that Nephi would assert that ‘the fulness of the gospel of the Messiah come unto the Gentiles, and from the gentiles unto the remnant of our seed.’ So, it is through the Gentiles that the remnant of the house of Israel is to receive the Book of Mormon. We, Gentiles, are the recipients of the Book of Mormon, just as the title page suggests and it is our responsibility to take the fulness of the Gospel, as contained in the Book of Mormon to the remnant of the house of Israel. That I will leave to further explore also in another post.

Assuming that you have even read this far, I would suspect that a significant majority of you are muttering something about the patriarchal blessings, the tribe of Ephraim and Joseph Smith being a descendent of Joseph of Egypt.

So how can Joseph Smith (and the rest of us) be both of the tribe of Ephraim and a Gentile? Actually, we should expect that we could carry both titles given the blessing Ephraim received at the hands of his grandfather, Isaac, as found in Genesis 48:

“And Joseph took them both, Ephraim in his right hand toward Israel’s left hand, and Manasseh in his left hand toward Israel’s right hand, and brought them near unto him.

And Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid it upon Ephraim’s head, who was the younger, and his left hand upon Manasseh’s head, guiding his hands wittingly; for Manasseh was the firstborn.

And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day.

The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.

And when Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, it displeased him: and he held up his father’s hand, to remove it from Ephraim’s head unto Manasseh’s head.

And Joseph said unto his father, Not so, my father: for this is the firstborn; put thy right hand upon his head.

And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.”

Here is where a little Hebrew comes in handy. The blessing of Ephraim states that ‘his seed shall become a multitude of nations (male hagoyim).’ If you have a Strong’s concordance, you will find that ‘goy’ is translated just as easily as Gentiles rather than nations.’ So, Isaac’s blessing is a prophecy that Ephraim will produce a multitude of Gentiles, or a fulness of nations, or even the fulness of the Gentiles. So, we can be both a descendent of Ephraim AND a Gentile. The point I want to make here is that it is entirely credible that the Gentiles described in the Book of Mormon are us. Yes, Gentiles-R-Us.

Perhaps one of the most demonstrative of the scriptures that point to Gentiles being composed of both believing and unbelieving is found in 3 Nephi, chapter 16.

First, let’s read verses 6 and 7:

“And blessed are the Gentiles, because of their belief in me, in and of the Holy Ghost, which witnesses unto them of me and of the Father.

Behold, because of their belief in me, saith the Father, and because of the unbelief of you, O house of Israel, in the latter day shall the truth come unto the Gentiles, that the fulness of these things shall be made known unto them.”

Here we have Gentiles who have received a witness of Christ and the Father ‘in and of the Holy Ghost.’ Who else could that be? The unbelief of the house of Israel also leads God to give the fulness of the gospel to the Gentiles. Again, who else could this refer to? We, indeed, claim to have the testimony of the truthfulness of these things ‘in and through the Holy Ghost.’ We, positively, claim to have the fulness of the gospel. We, as gentiles, have received these things.

Believers who have received a witness by the Holy Ghost can still be considered Gentiles, but not all Gentiles are believers as we read in the verse 8:

“But wo, saith the Father, unto the unbelieving of the Gentiles—for notwithstanding they have come forth upon the face of this land, and have scattered my people who are of the house of Israel; and my people who are of the house of Israel have been cast out from among them, and have been trodden under feet by them;”

So, here we clearly see that there are unbelieving Gentiles as well as believing Gentiles. In these verses, Christ identified both the believing and unbelieving of the Gentiles.

In summary, The restoration and the delivery of the Book of Mormon occurred to the Gentiles. We, being identified with the Gentiles, are the recipients of the fulness of the gospel.

What think ye?

“When Jesus came into the coasts of Cæsarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:13-19)

The scriptures recount the Lord’s promise to Simon Peter regarding the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Keys represent a significant item not only in the current LDS Church but also in the Catholic Church. I was reminded of this fact in a recent trip to Rome. An easy way to recognize a statue or painting of Peter, the apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, is to look for keys in his hand.

For example, in this statue located in Saint Peter’s Basilica, we see Peter holding the keys in his left hand. I have included an inset of a closeup of the keys.

The keys of the kingdom also adorn other aspects of Catholic life. The coat of arms of the Pope has, for centuries, included the keys. This view, also from St. Peter’s Basilica,  shows the coat of arms of Pope Leo X who was instrumental in the construction of the basilica.

Today, the coat of arms of Pope Benedict XVI, continues the tradition. One gold key representing the power in heaven and one silver key representing the power on earth. These two keys are linked by the papal cord signifying the connection between the actions on earth and heaven.

Even the floor of the entry to Saint Peter’s Basilica is decorated with the keys.

The message is clear. Peter received the keys from Jesus Christ and the Pope still retains them today. Catholicism contends that there has been an unbroken chain of authority from Peter, the first ‘bishop’ of Rome through to the current Pope. As early as Bishop Clement in A.D. 88, the Catholics demonstrate that the bishop of Rome held sway over the church through his letter of correction to the Church in Corinth.

While there is no solid proof that the power vested in Peter by the Lord Jesus Christ was transferred to the subsequent bishops of Rome, this transfer is inherent in the position occupied by Peter and those that followed him in the Holy Roman See. Such is the Catholic contention. A defense of the Catholic position is found in the this letter by Art Kelly.

Did Peter, as an apostle, transfer the keys of the kingdom of God to the titular bishop of Rome? Did the Lord no longer need the apostles that represented personal witnesses of His resurrection? Did the less than Christ-like demeanor of some of the popes negate whatever power and authority that was given to them by God?

Now, shift forward a few centuries. The restoration of the fulness of the gospel and the keys of priesthood authority contend that the keys given to Peter were lost. Without the organization as constituted by the Lord Jesus Christ, the church was left to the wiles of men who used it to gain power and wealth. The restoration of the organization of the original church with it’s twelve apostles and the ordination of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey to the higher priesthood represent that these powers to seal on earth and in heaven are again upon the earth. Elder Bateman expressed the following support in October 2003 general conference:

“The priesthood is the power and authority of God delegated to man. Priesthood keys are the right to direct the use of that power. The President of the Church holds the keys necessary for governing the entire Church. His counselors in the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles also hold the keys of the kingdom and operate under the President’s direction.”

These keys are passed on by ordination from generation to generation. But, does the simple passage of these keys through the laying on of hands constitute the only condition by which the keys of the priesthood can be exercised? In Doctrine and Covenants, section 121, further conditions are identified relative to the conduct of a bearer of the priesthood:

 ”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.” D&C 121:34-37

As the scripture states, the rights or keys of the priesthood can only be exercised when the principles of righteousness are present. Any degree of unrighteous control or compulsion can negate a leaders authority. This admonition is not restricted to any class or position.

But what constitutes ‘unrighteous control?’ In earlier times during the Spanish Inquisition, Jews who would not renounce their belief and join the Holy Roman Church were drug through the streets by their feet or hanged. I would say that is a clear case.

Would the excommunication of a person because they promote the belief in a heavenly mother  constitute unrighteous dominion? Where does striving for the purity of the faith cross over into unrighteousness?

Were the keys of the priesthood lost in the earlier dispensation? Can the keys of the priesthood be lost in this dispensation? The Lord tells us that:

“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.” D&C 121:39-40

What is the definition of ‘almost all men?’ How easy is it ‘to cover our sins, to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion’ on others from a position of authority?

Does it gratify our pride when we accept accommodations in a multi-million dollar penthouse suite? Or a car and driver? Or an unlimited expense account?

Do we contribute to the problem when we extend adulation and bestow public honors upon those Christ called to ‘minister unto us and to be our servants?’ (See 3 Nephi 12:1)

What think ye?

I recently read a biography of Martin Luther by D’Aubigne entitled “The Life and Times of Martin Luther.” It is a good read for anyone interested in the Reformation. It certainly was a different time where one could find themselves at odds with the church hierarchy and be rewarded with not just excommunication, but death.

Of all the issues that Luther recounted in his 95 theses, the practice of indulgences elicited the most venom. Indulgences were long a practice of the Holy Roman Church where the time in purgatory could be reduced, either for one’s self or a relative. This was accomplished by purchasing a defined reduction in the time spent; paying for one’s sins prior to the entry into heaven and backed by the office of the Pope. The story is told of the wife of a shoemaker who purchased such a letter for a gold florin and died shortly later. When the shoemaker was accused of contempt of his religion for not causing a mass to be held for his wife, he answered by producing the indulgence letter stipulating that his wife, upon her death, immediately enter heaven. Hence no mass was needed. It seems that the sale of any product was enhanced by a jingle reminding the prospective buyer of its value. Such was the case with indulgences with this little ditty: 

“ As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, The soul from Purgatory springs.” (page 100, Here I Stand by Roland H. Bainton)

 During this time, the Holy Roman Church was working to rebuild the Church of Saint Peter. The original structure was built during the time of Constantine and had been condemned. Pope Leo, eager to continue the construction begun by his predecessor, pressed the use of indulgences to a greater level. The monies collected through the sale went to fund one of the greatest construction projects of that era. 

In these enlightened times, it is easy to look back and make light of the logic of that time. The basic idea being that we could gain protection in the afterlife by putting money toward a letter which frees us from ‘purgatory.’ The money, in turn is used to support church building projects. Today, we seem to consider tithing in the same light. How many lessons have been given where tithing is characterized as ‘fire insurance?’  Certainly there is support for this idea from D&C 64:23, “…for he that is tithed shall not be burned at this coming.” This term was also used by the proponents of indulgences to induce fear into the potential buyer.   The payment of tithes was used by President Hinckley as a marker of the condition of the church. Can the success of the church of Christ truly be measured by the money flowing into its coffers and the vast building projects that are completed? It seems to me that these are easily characterized as the works of men, not the works of God.  There is, however, a more disturbing aspect to the focus of tithing in the today’s LDS church and culture. Tithing was formally defined in Section 119 which was an answer to a prayer by Joseph Smith where he sought to understand what the appropriate tithe should be. In the commentary of Section 119 we read: 

“The Lord had previously given to the Church the law of consecration and stewardship of property, which members (chiefly the leading elders) entered into by a covenant that was to be everlasting.  Because of failure on the part of many to abide by this covenant, the Lord withdrew it for a time, and gave instead the law of tithing to the whole Church.” 

So, the law of tithing was instituted within the Church as a temporary substitute for the higher law of consecration which the members failed to observe. Perhaps, one way to view this situation is to present the law of consecration as the celestial law being supplanted by the terrestrial law of tithing. As we read above from Section 119, it was because the members of the church failed to live the higher law. Should we be satisfied that we are measured by this ‘inferior’ metric? Should we not be pleading with the Lord to make us worthy of the return of the law of consecration rather than using tithing as a marker of how well the Church is doing?

As we read in the New Testament, Acts 2:44:

“And all that believed were together, and had all things common”

This circumstance was also found in the church after the Nephites were visited by Christ as we read in Fourth Nephi 1:3:

“And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift.”

These two societies demonstrated aspects of the law of consecration, having all things in common. Are we, in our material world, setting our sights on the wrong goal? Has tithing become the end rather than a temporary way station as we move toward the higher law?

What think ye?

The purpose of this blog is to explore aspects of the message of Jesus Christ. The intent is to focus substantially on the scriptures rather than the commentary of man. Topics such as the gospel and doctrine of Christ, the role of Gentile and Jew, and the scriptures of the restoration are all seen as material for discussion.