(deseretnews.com 1-1-15)
Friday, December 31, 2021
Wednesday, December 29, 2021
Is man “nothing”?
(by Dan Peterson sic et non blog)
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2021/12/is-man-nothing.html
Tuesday, December 28, 2021
A devious manipulator?
(by Dan Peterson sic et non blog)
Heber C. Kimball told a story of Joseph’s being reduced to tears at a little girl’s simple faith. “He was gentle to children,” remembered George Q. Cannon, “and universally won their love.”
When Martin Harris lost 116 manuscript pages of the translation. Joseph’s mother recalls his reaction: “‘Oh, my God!’ said Joseph, clinching his hands. ‘All is lost! All is lost! What shall I do? I have sinned—it is I who tempted the wrath of God.’” “He wept and groaned,” she says, “and walked the floor continually.” His sister Katharine remembers that “he fasted and prayed several days” after he learned what had happened.
Such displays of emotion seem difficult to counterfeit. If they were fake, Joseph Smith must have been guilty of an almost unfathomable cynicism. But of such cynicism and falsity his friends and associates saw no trace whatever. “The people fairly adored him,” recounted one woman. He showed “not the least affectation,” remembered Wandle Mace. “There was not the slightest appearance of ostentation or conscious power on his part,” recollected Mercy R. Thompson. “He was as free and sociable as though we had all been his own brothers and sisters, or members of one family. He was as unassuming as a child.” A member of the United States Congress wrote to his wife, following a meeting with Joseph Smith in Washington, that “Everything he says is said in a manner to leave an impression that he is sincere. . . . In his garb there are no peculiarities, his dress being that of a plain, unpretending citizen.” A reporter in Washington D.C. by the name of Matthew L. Davis commented on Joseph’s appearance during a sermon there. “He is sincere,” Davis wrote. “There is no levity, no fanaticism, no want of dignity in his deportment. . . . He is but a man, he said; a plain, untutored man; seeking what he should do to be saved.” A Methodist minister by the name of Prior visited Nauvoo in 1842 or 1843 and attended a Sunday service at which Joseph spoke. Later, he wrote that he had been expecting to see a guilt-ridden, hyperemotional fanatic. “But how was I disappointed when instead of the heads and horns of the beast and false prophet, I beheld only the appearance of a common man. . . . I was sadly disappointed.” Still, he was sure that Joseph’s sermon would meet his expectations. But it didn’t. “He commenced calmly, and continued dispassionately to pursue his subject. . . . He glided along through a very interesting and elaborate discourse with all the care and happy facility of one who was well aware of his important station, and his duty to God and man.”
Saturday, December 11, 2021
The return of Oliver Cowdery
The Lord said unto Noah, my spirit shall not always strive with man….Yet his day shall be 120 years; and if men do not repent, I will send in the floods upon them.” That is a remarkable and telling statement. At one and the same moment it is a stern warning and a source of comfort. The Lord and His Spirit will strive with us, He does not give up on us that easily. May I illustrate?
Oliver Cowdery was a man highly favored of the Lord. He was granted a vision of the Lord to know that the Book of Mormon was true even before he met Joseph Smith. He wrote nearly the entire Book of Mormon as it fell from the lips of the Prophet. He received the lesser Priesthood under the hand of John the Baptist and the greater Priesthood from Peter, James and John. He saw in vision the glories these two Priesthoods would work down through time. He was the first man baptized for the remission of sins in this dispensation and was the second elder in the Church. He stood in the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ in the Kirtland Temple and with Joseph received the keys of the kingdom from Moses, Elias, and Elijah.
But then in 1838 Oliver became angry with the government of the Church and what he considered the unjust behavior of certain officers. He was called before the High Council to answer a number of charges against him. On the basis of principle and pride Oliver refused to appear and was excommunicated. At this critical moment other men angry with the Church approached Oliver and asked him candidly if he really had seen the plates and the angel. To their surprise he affirmed that the testimony written in the Book of Mormon was true. Oliver may have been angry, but he was not an apostate. Indeed, Phineas Young, Brigham’s brother and Oliver’s brother-in-law said of Oliver, “his heart is still with his old friends.”
For 10 1\2 years Oliver was outside the Church. He practiced law in Ohio as the Church moved on. He maintained favorable relations with friends in the Church, and strove diligently to maintain a reputation worthy of what he had witnessed.
As time progressed, Oliver’s heart softened. He spoke in his correspondence of being the oldest member of the Church, and of returning to the Church and going west. Finally on October 27, 1848 Oliver rode into a clearing near Kanesville, Iowa in the middle of a Church Conference. He was brought to the stand and invited to speak. With great emotion he took the pulpit and spoke to the largest audience he had ever addressed. He bore a powerful and compelling witness of what he knew of a certainty.
October 21, 1848, Oliver Cowdery Speaking at a Conference at Kanesville:
Friends and Brethren, My name is Cowdery, Oliver Cowdery, in the early history of this church I stood identified with her, and one in her councils, true it is that the gifts and callings of God are without repentance; not because I was better than the rest of mankind was I called; but, to fulfill the purposes of God, as he called me to a high and holy calling. I wrote with my own pen, the entire Book of Mormon (save a few page) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet Joseph Smith, as he translated it by the gift and power of God, by the means of the Urim and Thummin, or, as it is also called by that book, ‘holy interpreters.’ I beheld with my eyes, and handled with my hands, the gold plates from which it was transcribed. I also saw with my eyes and handled with my hands the ‘holy interpreters.’ That book is true. Sidney Rigdon did not write it; Mr. Spaulding did not write it; I wrote it myself as it feel from the lips of the Prophet. It contains the Everlasting Gospel, and came forth to the children of men in fulfillment of the revelations of John, where he says he saw an angel come with the Everlasting Gospel to preach to every nation, kindred, tongue and people. It contains principles of salvation; and if you, my hearers, will walk by the light and obey its precepts, you will be saved with an everlasting salvation in the kingdom of God on high,. Brother Hyde has just said that it is very important that we keep and walk in the true channel, in order to avoid the sand-bars. This is true. The channel is here. The holy Priesthood is here. I was present with Joseph when the higher or Melchisedek priesthood ws conferred by the holy angel from on high. This Priesthood, as was then declared, is also to remain upon the earth until the last remnant of time. This holy Priesthood, or authority, we then conferred upon many, and is just as good and valid as though God had done it in person. I laid my hands upon that man–yes, I laid my right hand upon his head–‘[pointing to brother Hyde] and I conferred upon him this Priesthood, and he holds that Priesthood now. He was also called through me, by the prayer of faith, an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Early November 1848, Oliver Cowdery Speaking to the Kanesville High Council
Brethren, for a number of years I have been separated from you. I now desire to come back. I wish to come humbly and to be one in your midst. I seek no station. I only wish to be identified with you. I am out of the Church. I am not a member of the Church, but I wish to become a member of it. I wish to come in at the door. I know the door. I have not come here to seek precedence. I come humbly and throw myself upon the decisions of this body, knowing, as I do, that the decisions are right, and should be obeyed.
Source: Journal History, October 21, 1848
On November 12, 1848, Oliver was rebaptized by Orson Hyde in Mosquito Creek near Council Bluffs, Iowa. Not long after he was visited by Jacob Gates who inquired of him his witness of the Book of Mormon. Gates recorded the following.
"Jacob, I want you to remember what I say to you. I am a dying man, and what would it profit me to tell you a lie? I know," said he, "that this Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God. My eyes saw, my ears heard, and my understanding was touched, and I know that whereof I testified is true. It was no dream, no vain imagination of the mind—it was real".[
Sometime in 1849, Oliver became progressively ill to the point of coughing up blood. Though his plans were to go to Salt Lake, he was too ill, and traveled instead to Richmond, Missouri to be with his in-laws, the Whitmers. It was there on March 3, 1850. David Whitmer described Oliver’s last moments.
"Oliver died the happiest man I ever saw. After shaking hands with the family and kissing his wife and daughter, he said: `Now I lay me down for the last time: I am going to my Savior'; and he died immediately with a smile on his face."
I hope this story comforts you. It is a witness that God will indeed strive with men. He does not give up on us easily, but rather is patient and works with us, indeed, if we are willing, all the way to completion and perfection.
Friday, December 10, 2021
Wednesday, December 1, 2021
This Winter’s Wood
Tuesday December 8, 1835, Kirtland, Ohio. Joseph Smith the Prophet preached as usual in a meeting to his brethren of the Priesthood. He would describe the meeting “had great liberty in speaking. [The] congregation [was] attentive.” At the close of the services, Leonard Rich suggested that they gather firewood for the Prophet and his family.
Two days later, on a beautiful winter morning the brethren came together to chop and haul wood for the Prophet. In his history Joseph recorded,
They have also been very industrious, and supplied me with my winter’s wood, for which I am sincerely grateful to each and every one of them, and shall remember, with warm emotions, this winter’s wood by the Brethren, [and the] expression of their goodness to me; and in the name of Jesus Christ I invoke the rich benediction of heaven to rest upon them, and their families, and I ask my heavenly Father, to preserve their health, and those of their wives and children that they may have strength of body to perform their labors, in their several occupations in life, and the use and activity of their limbs, also powers of intellect and understanding hearts, that they may treasure up wisdom, understanding, and intelligence above measure; and be preserved from plagues pestilence and famine, and from the power of the adversary, and the hands of evil designing men, and have power over all their enemies, and the way be prepared for them, that they may journey to the land of Zion, and be established, on their inheritances, to enjoy undisturbed peace and happiness forever and be crowned with everlasting life in the celestial Kingdom of God, which blessings I ask in the name of Jesus of Nazareth.
And of the man who first suggested the service project, Leonard Rich, Joseph said,
I would remember Elder Leonard Rich, who was the first one that proposed to the brethren, to assist me in obtaining wood for the use of my family, for which I pray my heavenly Father to bless him with all the blessings named above, and I shall ever remember him with much gratitude for this testimony of benevolence and respect, and thank the great I Am, for putting into his heart to do me this kindness; and I say in my heart I will trust in thy goodness, & mercy forever.
Say what you want about Joseph Smith the man, but that is gratitude on a godly scale.
Sunday, October 31, 2021
Why are so many of the most influential moms on the internet Mormon?
(christiancentury.org)
In 2011, Jordan Page, then 24, decided to start a family finance blog.
Page and her husband had recently recovered from what she commonly calls their “financial disaster.” They had put all of their savings into building a home they ultimately couldn’t buy and then accrued $15,000 in credit card debt trying to stay afloat as Page quit her job to stay at home with the couple’s first child and her husband launched a new start-up business.
None of the advice from the celebrity finance gurus had worked for the Pages, so they had pieced together their own money management system. And it worked. Page was excited to share what she had learned with other moms, and thus Fun Cheap or Free was born.
Wednesday, October 27, 2021
Sunday, October 24, 2021
“All Can Partake, Freely”
(by Daniel C. Peterson interpreterfoundation.org)
Abstract: The Interpreter Foundation welcomes faithful ideas, insights, and manuscripts from people of all backgrounds. In this brief essay, I share some that were recently shared with me regarding Lehi’s vision of the tree of life, as recorded in 1 Nephi 8. Among other things, Lehi seems to have been shown that the divine offer of salvation extends far beyond a small elite. As Peter exclaims in the King James rendering of Acts 10:34, “God is no respecter of persons.” Other translations render the same words as saying that he doesn’t “play favorites” or “show partiality.” The passage in James 1:5 with which the Restoration commenced clearly announces that, if they will simply ask, God “giveth to all men liberally.”
https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/all-can-partake-freely/
Wednesday, October 20, 2021
An Ishmael Buried Near Nahom
(by Neal Rappleye interpreterfoundation.org)
Latter-day Saint scholars generally agree that “the place called… Nahom,” where Ishmael was buried (1 Nephi 16:34) is identified as the Nihm tribal region in Yemen. Significantly, a funerary stela with the name y s1mʿʾl — the South Arabian equivalent of Ishmael — was found near the Nihm region and dated to ca. 6th century bc. Although it cannot be determined with certainty that this is the Ishmael from the Book of Mormon, circumstantial evidence suggests that such is a possibility worth considering.
https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/an-ishmael-buried-near-nahom/
Joseph Smith and his First Vision
This volume celebrates the bicentennial of Joseph Smith's 1820 First Vision of the Father and the Son, a founding event in the Restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ. Contributors examine the various accounts of the vision, the religious excitement prevalent in the region, the question that prompted Joseph to enter the grove, the powers of darkness that assailed him, and the natural environment and ultimate preservation of the Sacred Grove. This volume brings together some of the finest presentations from a 2020 BYU Church History Symposium.
https://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Smith-His-First-Vision/dp/1950304086
Ancient Sacred Vestments: Scriptural Symbols and Meanings
(by Donald W. Parry interpreterfoundation.org)
In this essay Parry starts with the symbology of ritual vestments, and then discusses in detail how the ancient clothing worn in Old Testament temples are part of the rituals and religious gestures that are conducted by those who occupy the path that leads from the profane to the sacred. The profane is removed, one is ritually washed, anointed, invested with special clothing, offers sacrifices, is ordained (hands are filled), and offers incense at the altar, before entering the veil. Putting on clothes, in a Christian context, is often seen as symbol of putting on Christ, as witnessed by the apostle Paul using the word “enduo,” when talking about putting on Christ, a word mainly used in the Septuagint for donning sacred vestments (symbols also for salvation, righteousness, glory, strength and resurrection) in order to be prepared to stand before God. Parry then goes on explaining how priestly officiants wearing sacred vestments, emulated celestial persons who wear sacred vestments, making one an image of those celestial persons. He concludes with showing how the ancient garbs of the High Priest point to Christ.
https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/ancient-sacred-vestments-scriptural-symbols-and-meanings/
Sunday, October 10, 2021
In just 10 years "the Book of Mormon" musical has gone from America's darling to America's latest problem
This year marks the tenth anniversary of The Book of Mormon the musical on Broadway. If this show were an actual Mormon, a tenth is what would be given away as a tithe to God. Thanks to the pandemic, that’s more or less what’s happened. The Book of Mormon cast and crew closed its doors in March 2020 and will open them again this November—one year for an act of God plus eight months given to the devil in the details.
The details, in this case, have to do with race. During the course of the Broadway shutdown, Black actors from The Book of Mormon petitioned the show’s creative team to rewrite parts of the hit musical they felt furthered harmful racial stereotypes of Africa and Africans. This is no small ask. Anyone familiar with The Book of Mormon is likely familiar with its capacity for rudeness. The cartoonish world of the show’s creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone paints white Mormonism and Black Africa with brushes so broad they blend both the ludicrous and the actual. Broadway audiences have sometimes had a hard time telling these apart.
Some sincere tenets of the show’s Mormon missionaries often sound hilariously inflated to an outsider, while the war-torn and corrupt Uganda where they’re proselytizing remains flat, one-note, and unimaginative. To write out the show’s insensitive portrayals of, well, everyone is in some ways to ask for a different show entirely. So be it, many say. The world has changed its tune about this one-time monster hit. We’ve developed new languages to name indecencies and grown spines to say them out loud. A tithe seems appropriate. Ten years is a long time to be on top without giving something back.
The trajectory of The Book of Mormon from America’s Broadway darling to America’s latest problem traces an inverted path Mormonism itself took in this country. Born in 1830 in upstate New York, Mormonism spent much of the nineteenth century retreating further and further into America’s middle spaces in the face of rejection and violence. Mormons practiced polygamy and built communities of shared resources—qualities that historian Paul Reeve has shown disqualified this almost totally white religion from the protections of whiteness.
Looking but not acting white in nineteenth-century America meant not being white. And, in twentieth-century America, the musical stage became one of the more important spaces where Mormonism’s racialized identity was litigated in the court of public opinion. Operettas and vaudevilles marked Mormons the villains, often linked socially and racially with Muslims and other social pariahs at the time associated with China and Africa.
It wasn’t until the middle of the twentieth century that Mormonism put forward a narrative of itself that flipped the script on its racial identity. The Church dropped polygamy and opened its arms wide to America. Mormons became linked with the highest favors of middle-class whiteness—industrious, capitalist, monogamous. Their social retribution even took shape through the very mechanism that had once set them apart: musical theater. Mormons developed a dynamic culture and practice of musical theater that persists today, which importantly set the stage for Broadway’s satirical, full-circle swing back to Mormons in 2011—over 180 years and several iterations later, Mormonism was back in New York where it had started.
Mormons were something of an easy target in 2011, what with the Mormon Church’s opposition to marriage equality and Mitt Romney’s seemingly picture perfect life running perpendicular to a nation paying increased attention to America’s imperfections. Contrary to the source of their ridicule in the nineteenth century, twenty-first-century Mormons were now too white, too American, too representational of values receding into a problematic past.
Mormons found few defenders when The Book of Mormon came out of Broadway’s gates swinging; left to its own devices, the Church made lemonade by taking out ads in the Playbill. “You’ve seen the play,” boasted one, “now read the book.” Clever. But it might as well have been a postcard from the nineteenth century. Here we were again, Mormons back on stage, losing a battle of wills with a country unsure of the terms of its belonging.
America has found other villains in the intervening years. The #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo movements trended in 2013 and 2017, bringing a new urgency to conversations about racial violence and sexual assault. How those topics are depicted on stage matters to a heightened degree. What no one could have predicted is just how much the musical’s imagined Africa would in ten years look like today’s very real America. Ugandans in The Book of Mormon are facing an epidemic (in the case of the show it’s AIDS). They bend to superstition and choose sexual assault as a remedy. In the real world, Americans suffering our own pandemic reject scientific reason and resort to eating horse de-wormer. This is the world The Book of Mormon’s curtains open out to in a few weeks. It’s difficult to imagine a more glaring and deeply unfunny satire than the one we’re living through.
Which is to say that The Book of Mormon puts identity at the center of its humor in ways that are much riskier in 2021 than they were even ten years ago, its jokes presuming too much idealization for whiteness and what it represents. Like actual Mormons, then, the satirical musical’s carefully constructed trajectory into America’s heart now seems miscalculated. In positioning Mormonism’s exaggerated whiteness and bright-eyed Disney demeanor against an invented Africa, equally buffoonish and gullible, the musical took too much pleasure in punching down and now looks too much like the thing it tried to laugh off. Whiteness, once the musical’s cause célèbre, is now its liability. It took Mormons most of the twentieth century to chart an exponential path from problematically not white enough to problematically too white. The musical spoofing them took only ten years to do the exact opposite.
As for Mormons, they actually don’t exist anymore—not in name anyway. In 2018 the Church’s leadership dropped the once derogatory moniker its nineteenth-century enemies gave them, emphasizing instead the mouthful of a name given them by God: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or Latter-day Saints for short). In November when The Book of Mormon’s protagonist Elder Price belts the phrase “I am a Mormon”—the five note leitmotif itself taken from the now defunct Mormon musical drama The Hill Cumorah Pageant—he will be singing of ghosts. The Mormons are gone. They took account of the last ten years and tithed something of themselves away. A tithe is a sacrifice, after all—an opportunity to move through the world with a little less baggage and a measure of greater intention.
Now we watch to see if the musical will follow suit. Its actors petitioned for a show that takes seriously “the systemic and racial inequality” in theatre. “No one is going back on stage until they feel great about it,” promised Matt Stone. It’s been ten years a Mormon and now a tithe is on the table, a down payment on a more just and equitable world. What the musical chooses to give away will say a lot about the world it wants to hold onto.
Sunday, September 26, 2021
Wednesday, September 22, 2021
198 years ago today
198 years ago today, Joseph Smith first laid his eyes on the gold plates. After 4 years of heavenly instruction, Moroni finally turned over the sacred record on September 22nd, 1827. That was a very special day, more so in fact than many may realize...
You see, September 22nd of that year was Rosh Hashanah...or as the ancient Jews called it, The Feast of Trumpets. Jewish scholars have claimed the Feast of Trumpets signifies four things: The beginning of Israel’s final harvest, The day God had set to remember His ancient promises to re-gather Israel, a time for new revelation that would lead to a new covenant with Israel, and a time to prepare for the Millennium.
On 22 September 1827, Israel’s trumpets sounded throughout the world; it was the day the Prophet Joseph Smith received the golden plates, which would help fulfill God’s promise to remember Israel in the latter days. It is no wonder a statue of Moroni with his trumpet symbolically and beautifully stands upon the top of most temples.
Tuesday, September 21, 2021
Theories and Assumptions: A Review of William L. Davis’s Visions in a Seer Stone
(by Brian C. Hales interpreterfoundation.org)
A review of William L. Davis, Visions in a Seer Stone: Joseph Smith and the Making of the Book of Mormon. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2020, 264 pp. paperback $29.95, hardcover $90, e-book $22.99, ISBN: 1469655675, 9781469655673.
Abstract: Within the genre of Book of Mormon studies, William L. Davis’s Visions in a Seer Stone presents readers with an innovative message that reports how Joseph Smith was able to produce the words of the Book of Mormon without supernatural assistance. Using oral performance skills that Smith ostensibly gained prior to 1829, his three-month “prodigious flow of verbal art and narrative creation” (7) became the Book of Mormon. Davis’s theory describes a two-part literary pattern in the Book of Mormon where summary outlines (called “heads) in the text are consistently expanded in subsequent sections of the narrative. Termed “laying down heads,” Davis insists that such literary devices are anachronistic to Book of Mormon era and constitute strong evidence that Joseph Smith contributed heavily, if not solely, to the publication. The primary weaknesses of the theory involve the type and quantity of assumptions routinely accepted throughout the book. The assumptions include beliefs that the historical record does not support or even contradicts (e.g. Smith’s 1829 superior intelligence, advanced composition abilities, and exceptional memorization proficiency) and those that describe Smith using oral performance skills beyond those previously demonstrated as humanly possible (e.g. the ability to dictate thousands of first-draft phrases that are also refined final-draft sentences). Visions in a Seer Stone will be most useful to individuals who, like the author, are willing to accept these assumptions. To more skeptical readers, the theory presented regarding the origin of the Book of Mormon will be classified as incomplete or inadequate.
Baptized for the Dead
(by Kevin L. Barney interpreterfoundation.org)
https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/baptized-for-the-dead/
Abstract: This thorough treatment of the mention of baptism for the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:29 gives a meticulous analysis of Paul’s Greek argument, and lays out the dozens (or perhaps hundreds) of theories that have been put forth with respect to its interpretation. Barney concludes that “the most natural reading” and the “majority contemporary scholarly reading” is that of “vicarious baptism.” Therefore, “the Prophet Joseph Smith’s reading of the passage to refer to such a practice was indeed correct.”
[Editor’s Note: Part of our book chapter reprint series, this article is reprinted here as a service to the LDS community. Original pagination and page numbers have necessarily changed, otherwise the reprint has the same content as the original.
See Kevin L. Barney, “Baptized for the Dead,” in “To Seek the Law of the Lord”: Essays in Honor of John W. Welch, ed. Paul Y. Hoskisson and Daniel C. Peterson (Orem, UT: The Interpreter Foundation, 2017), 9–58. Further information at https://interpreterfoundation.org/books/to-seek-the-law-of-the-lord-essays-in-honor-of-john-w-welch-2/.]
Monday, September 13, 2021
Elder Holland: What They Heard is Not What He Said
(by Daniel C. Peterson latterdaysaintmag.com 9-7-21)
https://latterdaysaintmag.com/elder-holland-what-he-said-is-not-what-they-heard/
Between my first arrival on campus in the fall of 1970 and my retirement on 1 July 2021—a span of fifty-one years—all but approximately eight years were spent as a member of either the student body or the faculty of Brigham Young University. I say this not for nostalgia’s sake, and not even because my now-advanced age and the sheer length of that elapsed period amaze me, though they do. (Jacob’s words, at the end of his life and of the book that bears his name, in which he writes that “the time passed away with us, and also our lives passed away like as it were unto us a dream” [Jacob 7:26] resonate with me more and more.) I say it because it suggests how very long it has been since I first fell in love with BYU and with the idea of BYU.
Elder Jeffrey R. Holland’s connections with the school, his undergraduate alma mater as well, are far more impressive than mine: Now a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he returned to BYU after earning a doctorate from Yale University. He served as a college dean and then, after a stint as overall Commissioner of Education for the Church, returned yet again as the University’s ninth president. He is currently a member of the BYU Board of Trustees.
Elder Holland recently addressed the 2021 edition of BYU’s annual University Conference, a gathering to which all of the University’s faculty, staff, and administrators—even retirees—are invited. He began and ended his remarks with his own story of falling in love with BYU—a story that, again, resonates deeply with me.
It’s what Elder Holland said between his expressions of affection for BYU, however, that has generated controversy in some circles, and even bitter anger.
He has been called irresponsible, a hater, and a bigot. His speech has been widely portrayed as an angry tirade against gays. When a BYU student was videotaped muttering an anti-gay slur and pouring water on a sidewalk to erase a chalk rainbow, the headline in one national gay publication said that “The incident comes on top of a former Brigham Young University president urging the use of “muskets” to fight LGBTQ+ equality.” It cited the explanation given by a national gay organization: “Elder Jeffrey Holland gave license for such conduct, using dangerous and warlike comments against LGBTQ students earlier this week.”
“It looks like the muskets are out and being used to abuse the LGBTQ community,” said one anonymous critic of the Church on a predominantly atheist message board. “If there is any justice, there has to be a special place in hell reserved for people like Holland.”
I would like to briefly comment on such curious reactions.
What Elder Holland had to say to the University as a whole on 23 August 2021 was, to my mind, strikingly reminiscent of the bracing message that he delivered to BYU’s Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship on 10 November 2018—a message that had absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality.
First of all, of course, he asked that employees of the Church’s flagship school be personally loyal to the standards and doctrines of the Restoration:
“If we are an extension of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” Elder Holland said, “taking a significant amount of sacred tithes and other precious human resources, all of which might well be expended in other worthy causes, surely our integrity demands that our lives be absolutely consistent with and characteristic of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ . . . in harmony with the Lord’s anointed, those whom He has designated to declare Church doctrine and to guide Brigham Young University as its trustees.”
However, he also urged BYU employees to teach, to advocate, and, sometimes, to defend those doctrines and standards. He cited a 2004 campus speech in which the late Elder Neal A. Maxwell had said that, in a way, Latter-day Saint scholars at BYU “are a little bit like the builders of the temple in Nauvoo, who worked with a trowel in one hand and a musket in the other. Today scholars building the temple of learning must also pause on occasion to defend the kingdom. I personally think this is one of the reasons the Lord established and maintains this university. The dual role of builder and defender is unique and ongoing. I am grateful we have scholars today who can handle, as it were, both trowels and muskets.”
Like other faithful Latter-day Saints, Elder Maxwell recognized the accuracy of Susan Evans McCloud’s hymn lyrics, that
“The truths and values we embrace
Are mocked on every hand.”
He also understood the need to defend them.
I was in the audience for those 2004 remarks, in which Elder Maxwell expressed his appreciation for scholars at BYU who defended the claims, scriptures, and teachings of the Restoration against attack. (As far as I recall, he didn’t refer in any way to homosexuality or homosexuals.) The illustration that he used clearly drew upon an account given in Nehemiah 4 (especially verses 16-18). In it, the Jews who have returned from the Babylonian captivity to rebuild Jerusalem and its temple are obliged, because of threats and attacks from their neighbors, to work with one hand while holding a sword in the other—a defensive measure, not an aggressive one, that plainly has nothing to do with homosexuality.
Elder Maxwell’s modified biblical metaphor was adopted by then-Elder Dallin Oaks in 2017, when he exhorted members of the BYU faculty to increase their defense of the Church and its teachings: “I would like,” he said, “to hear a little more musket fire from this temple of learning.”
Referring to Elder Oaks’s appropriation of the imagery, Elder Holland importantly observed that “He said this in a way that could have applied to a host of topics in various departments”—just as, in fact, Elder Maxwell had applied the musket metaphor more generally.
“But,” Elder Holland continued, “the one he specifically mentioned was the doctrine of the family and defending marriage as the union of a man and a woman.”
This is easily understandable: Issues of gender, sexuality, and the nature of families loom very large today in our culture, law, and politics, and societal trends related to them clearly and increasingly clash with the standards and teachings of the Church. Accordingly, Elder Holland’s own speech alluded fairly prominently to such matters—in, by my quick estimate, four of forty-four paragraphs of the published text:
“I have focused on this same-sex topic this morning more than I would have liked,” he said, adding that “I pray you will see it as emblematic of a lot of issues our students and community face in this complex, contemporary world of ours.”
In other words, the speech was not, as many have claimed, primarily devoted to issues of same-sex attraction. He simply chose gender issues to represent the other areas in which the teachings of the Church come under attack, areas in which some members of the BYU faculty might be well situated to help. And, I add, the speech was neither hateful nor angry; as anyone can learn by simply watching it online:
“My Brethren,” said Elder Holland, “have made the case for the metaphor of musket fire which I have endorsed yet again today. There will continue to be those who oppose our teachings and with that will continue the need to define, document, and defend the faith. But we do all look forward to the day when we can “beat our swords into plowshares, and [our] spears into pruning hooks,” and at least on this subject, “learn war [no] more.””
Specifically referring to those who experience same-sex attraction, Elder Holland said,
“Let me go no farther before declaring unequivocally my love and that of my Brethren for those who live with this same-sex challenge and so much complexity that goes with it. Too often the world has been unkind, in many instances crushingly cruel, to these our brothers and sisters.”
But, he also said, “we have to be careful that love and empathy do not get interpreted as condoning and advocacy, or that orthodoxy and loyalty to principle not be interpreted as unkindness or disloyalty to people. As near as I can tell, Christ never once withheld His love from anyone, but He also never once said to anyone, “Because I love you, you are exempt from keeping my commandments.” We are tasked with trying to strike that same sensitive, demanding balance in our lives.”
Plainly, just as with Elder Maxwell’s 2004 use of the musketry image and Elder Oaks’s 2017 reappropriation of it, the reference is not to military combat, let alone to hateful prejudice or violent bigotry, but to intellectual contestation and reasoned argument—which are, after all, at or near the very core of scholarship and higher education. And what they said was completely consistent with the exhortation of 1 Peter 3:15: “Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear”—or, in the more contemporary language of the English Standard Version, “with gentleness and respect.”
The Kingdom of God is, always has been, and must always be at odds with the world. And BYU, an integral part of the developing Kingdom, must also be, as Elder Holland said, “unique” and “special.” That—not homosexuality—was what his speech was about. It wasn’t angry or hateful. It has been grievously misrepresented.
I close with heartfelt appeal from an unidentified Latter-day Saint (I came across it at second hand) with which I heartily agree:
“I hate that this topic gets so much attention when there are so many bigger life and death issues going on right now…but the bandwagon keeps making loops. . . . As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I would like to make one thing very clear. I am not anti gay. I am pro family. There is a difference. Do not assume I won’t love you as you are. Do not assume all church members are the same ignorant individuals. Do not assume I am “brain washed” into believing old traditions. Do not assume you know how I feel, or what I think. Do not assume I would be “disappointed and ashamed” of my child if they were gay. This is not a “with or against me” topic. I believe in supporting perfect doctrine. But, heaven knows I am not even close to perfect. If I can’t even live up to my own idea of perfection, what makes you think I’d ever try to live up to yours? Just because I don’t wave your flag, doesn’t mean I want you to hide who you are in the shadows. Stop turning sincere words spoken by pure souls into some kind of hate speech. Stop trying to brain wash members of the church into believing it’s us against you. Because some of us just ain’t playing the polarization game this time. So, I’ll say it again. I’m not anti gay. I am pro family, pro Mom, Dad and kids in one LOVING home whenever possible. So, please, from one discriminated against group to another, stop polarizing.”
The complete text and video of Elder Holland’s remarks to the 2021 University Conference are available at https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/elder-jeffrey-r-holland-2021-byu-university-conference.
For the text of his 2018 speech, see “The Maxwell Legacy in the 21st Century,” on pages 8-21 of the “2018 Annual Report” of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship (https://byumiuploads.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2019/06/2018-Maxwell-Institute-Annual-Report-small.pdf).
For something of my reaction to it, see “The Interpreter Foundation
and an Apostolic Charge” (https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-interpreter-foundation-and-an-apostolic-charge/).
Saturday, September 11, 2021
Lessons from Oliver Cowdery for Today
(by Andrew Miller fairlatterdaysaints.org)
In the summer of 1830, while The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was yet in its infancy, Oliver Cowdery, “the second elder of [the] church” (D&C 20:3), wrote Joseph Smith, saying, “I command you in the name of God to erase those words, that no priestcraft be amongst us.” Oliver Cowdery was referring to words Joseph Smith added to Doctrine and Covenants 20:37. Oliver disapproved of a phrase included in the list of requirements for baptism: “And truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins.”
Joseph, the Prophet, was astonished and saddened. He knew that this baptismal requirement had come by revelation from the Lord. Joseph “immediately wrote to [Oliver] in reply, in which [Joseph] asked him by what authority [Oliver,] took upon him to command [him] to alter or erase…a revelation…from Almighty God.”
Shortly after, Joseph traveled to see Oliver at the Peter Whitmer home where he was living. Unfortunately, Oliver not only had become angry with Joseph, but he had negatively influenced the Whitmers so that the entire household had become agitated in their feelings. Joseph’s history records, “I found the [Whitmer] family in [favor] of [Oliver’s] opinion … and it was not without both labor and [persistence] that I could prevail with any of them to reason calmly on the subject.” In the end, Joseph “succeeded in bringing not only the Whitmer family, but also Oliver Cowdery to acknowledge that they had been in error” (The proceeding account and quotations are from History of the Church 1:104-105).
Although it is easy to condemn Oliver Cowdery’s actions from our vantage point today, that isn’t my intent; we are all prone to sin and mistakes. Regardless, there is a lot we can learn from this relatively unknown event in church history.
First, Oliver Cowdery should have humbled himself and withheld judgement until he could better understand the will of the Lord. Instead of accusing the prophet of priestcraft, he would have been better served to resist the urge to jump to judgement. Rather than presume that the Lord’s prophet was wrong, he should have done some prayerful, humble introspection. Pride allowed Oliver to not only jump to judgement, but to feel a false sense of righteous indignation. He was utterly convinced he was right!
Ego and the Holy Ghost cannot reside in the same heart at the same time. We can’t be full of the Holy Ghost while we’re full of ourselves. We must remember the Lord’s command and promise: “Be thou humble, and the Lord thy God shall lead thee by the hand…” (D&C 112:10). Oliver’s pride problem was not unique then, and it certainly isn’t unique now. As famously taught by President Ezra Taft Benson, “Pride is the universal sin.” There continue to be many today who see themselves as always being right while believing their divinely appointed leaders are always liable to be wrong.
Oliver’s mistake was greatly magnified by persuading the Whitmers to join him in his rebellion. The proud always seek validation and converts. Oliver should have avoided saying or doing anything that weakened others’ trust in the Lord’s servant. President Dallin H. Oaks taught:
Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local…. Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true…. “When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.”
(Dallin H. Oaks, “Criticism,” Ensign, February 1987)
If Oliver had withheld judgement and held his tongue, he would have not damaged the faith of those around him. It is sobering to consider that the Lord may hold us accountable for the sins of others when those sins are caused by our influence or even only our negligence (See Jacob 1:19).
Perhaps Oliver would have next benefited from searching the scriptures for understanding. Had he done so, he may have discovered that the baptismal requirement the prophet added to Doctrine and Covenants 20:37 was already found almost word for word in 3 Nephi 7:25. And, Oliver, of all people, knew the Book of Mormon was true; he had seen the plates and heard the voice of God declare the translation was correct! So, finding this same requirement in the Book of Mormon undoubtedly would have satisfied any concerns he had about the correctness of the doctrine.
Finally, Oliver had forgotten what the Lord said in the first revelation to the church after it was formally organized only a few months earlier, on April 6, 1830:
Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.
(Doctrine and Covenants 21:4-6)
Oliver Cowdery, though a powerful and gifted servant of God, struggled at times with following this commandment of the Lord. Perhaps because of their long and close relationship, it was especially easy for him to see the flaws and human foibles of Joseph Smith. He struggled with submitting to the prophet’s authority. Consequently, the Lord rebuked Oliver, saying, “thou shalt not command him who is at thy head, and at the head of the church” (D&C 28:6).
In 1970, President Harold B. Lee taught:
Now the only safety we have as members of this church is to do exactly what the Lord said to the Church on that day when the Church was organized. We must learn to give heed to the words and commandments that the Lord shall give through his prophet, ‘As he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me… as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.’
There will be some things that take patience and faith. You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord himself, with patience and faith, the promise is that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory’ (D&C 21:6).
(Harold B. Lee, Improvement Era, December 1970, p. 126)
Giving heed to the word of God given through his prophet can be especially difficult when what he asks us to do is contrary to our strongly held personal views. But, remember that God doesn’t give commandments because we are already inclined to keep them. God gives us commandments to help us do, or not do, things contrary to our nature. “For the natural man is an enemy to God… unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit…” (Mosiah 3:19). God tells us what we need to hear, not necessarily what we want to hear.
Because God’s commandments can be contrary to our own thinking, we may be inclined to resist them. However, as taught by the prophet Joseph Smith, “the moment we revolt at anything which comes from God, the devil takes power” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 181). If what we think, believe, or do is contrary to what the living prophets are teaching, we can be certain that our thoughts, beliefs, or actions are being influenced by our inner “natural man.”
Of special concern is following the living prophets who are led by the living Lord for the benefit of his living Church (See D&C 1:30, 38). President Dallin H. Oaks once received a “seven-page single-spaced letter that essentially disagree[d] with a talk” he had given. The writer quoted many previous church leaders “to justify his [contrary] position.” President Oaks responded, inviting the writer “to be more sensitive to the promptings of the Holy Spirit about the meaning of the words of living prophets” (Turley, R. In the Hands of the Lord. pp. 333-334). As taught by President Ezra Taft Benson, “Beware of those who would set up the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence” (Ezra Taft Benson, “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet“)
In these turbulent times with so many conflicting voices and information, each of us is liable to be misled or confused (See D&C 50:2-9). Perhaps we have fallen into some of the same errors Oliver Cowdery grappled with and have found ourselves at times criticizing or rejecting the inspired direction given through the Lord’s living prophet and other leaders. Thankfully, “if any [person] sin and repent, we have an advocate with the Father” (JST 1 John 2:1)
Oliver’s struggles with pride and obstinance eventually led him into apostasy and bitterness. In 1838, he and most of the Whitmers lost their membership in the church. To their credit, none of them ever denied their witness of the Book of Mormon in spite of being estranged from Joseph Smith and the Church. Many years later, Oliver repented of his sins, was rebaptized, and died in full fellowship of the Church. We honor and revere him for his essential role as scribe for the Book of Mormon, as a witness of the Book of Mormon plates, for standing with Joseph Smith when priesthood and priesthood keys were restored by angelic messengers, and assisting in the establishment of the Church. Because of his amazing contributions and his sincere repentance, very few people today remember the controversy over Doctrine and Covenants 20:37.
Importantly, the Lord has said, “He who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more” (D&C 58:42). I rejoice in the assurance that we can become free from the guilt of our mistakes and sins. I am also grateful that although the Lord may “remember them no more,” we are able to retain the important lessons learned from our mistakes and sins.
Monday, August 23, 2021
Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet
by President Ezra Taft Benson of the Quorum of the Twelve
Address given Tuesday, February 26, 1980 at BYU
My beloved brothers and sisters. I am honored to be in your presence today. You students are a part of a choice young generation—a generation which might well witness the return of the Lord.
Not only is the Church growing in number today, it is growing in faithfulness and, even more important, our young generation, as a group, is even more faithful than the older generation. God has reserved you for the eleventh hour—the great and dreadful day of the Lord (D&C 110:16). It will be your responsibility not only to help to carry the kingdom to a triumph but to save your own soul and strive to save those of your family and to honor the principles of the inspired constitution of the United States.
To help you pass the crucial tests which lie ahead, I am going to give you today several aspects of a grand key which, if you will honor, will crown you with God’s glory and bring you out victorious in spite of Satan’s fury.
Soon we will be honoring our prophet on his 85th birthday. As a Church we sing the hymn, “We Thank Thee, O God, for a Prophet.” (Hymn no. 196). Here then is the grand key—Follow the prophet—and here are fourteen fundamentals in following the prophet, the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
In section 132 verse 7 of the Doctrine and Covenants [D&C 132:7] the Lord speaks of the prophet—the president—and says:
“There is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred.”
Then in section 21 verses 4–6 [D&C 21:4–6], the Lord states:
“Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;
“For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.
“For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.”
Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works.
President Wilford Woodruff tells of an interesting incident that occurred in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith:
“I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living prophets and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: ‘You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.’
“When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, ‘Brother Brigham I want you to go to the podium and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.’ Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: ‘There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,’ said he, ‘when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.’ That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation; ‘Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.’” (Conference Report, October 1897, pp. 18–19.)
Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
God’s revelation to Adam did not instruct Noah how to build the Ark. Noah needed his own revelation. Therefore the most important prophet so far as you and I are concerned is the one living in our day and age to whom the Lord is currently revealing His will for us. Therefore the most important reading we can do is any of the words of the prophet contained each month in our Church Magazines. Our instructions about what we should do for each six months are found in the General Conference addresses which are printed in the Church magazine.
Beware of those who would set up the dead prophets against the living prophets, for the living prophets always take precedence.
Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.
President Wilford Woodruff stated:
“I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of the Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God.” (The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, pp. 212–13.)
President Marion G. Romney tells of this incident which happened to him:
“I remember years ago when I was a bishop I had President Heber J. Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home … Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: ‘My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.’ Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, ‘But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.’” (Conference Report, October 1960, p. 78.)
Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or diplomas to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
Sometimes there are those who feel their earthly knowledge on a certain subject is superior to the heavenly knowledge which God gives to his prophet on the same subject. They feel the prophet must have the same earthly credentials or training which they have had before they will accept anything the prophet has to say that might contradict their earthly schooling. How much earthly schooling did Joseph Smith have? Yet he gave revelations on all kinds of subjects. We haven’t yet had a prophet who earned a doctorate degree in any subject. We encourage earthly knowledge in many areas, but remember if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet and you’ll be blessed and time will show you have done the right thing.
Sixth: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.
Sometimes there are those who argue about words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obliged to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet, “Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you.” (D&C 21:4.)
And speaking of taking counsel from the prophet, in D&C 108:1, the Lord states:
“Verily thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant Lyman: Your sins are forgiven you, because you have obeyed my voice in coming up hither this morning to receive counsel of him whom I have appointed.”
Said Brigham Young, “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture.” (Journal of Discourses, 13:95.)
Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
“Thou has declared unto us hard things, more than we are able to bear,” complained Nephi’s brethren. But Nephi answered by saying, “The guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center.” (1 Ne. 16:1–2.)
Said President Harold B. Lee:
“You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may conflict with your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life … Your safety and ours depends upon whether or not we follow … Let’s keep our eye on the President of the Church.” (Conference Report, October 1970, p. 152–153.)
But it is the living prophet who really upsets the world. “Even in the Church,” said President Kimball, “many are prone to garnish the sepulchres of yesterdays prophets and mentally stone the living ones.” (Instructor, 95:527.)
Why? Because the living prophet gets at what we need to know now, and the world prefers that prophets either be dead or worry about their own affairs. Some so-called experts of political science want the prophet to keep still on politics. Some would-be authorities on evolution want the prophet to keep still on evolution. And so the list goes on and on.
How we respond to the words of a living prophet when he tells us what we need to know, but would rather not hear, is a test of our faithfulness.
Said President Marion G. Romney, “It is an easy thing to believe in the dead prophets, but it is a greater thing to believe in the living prophets.” And then he gives this illustration:
“One day when President Grant was living, I sat in my office across the street following a general conference. A man came over to see me, an elderly man. He was very upset about what had been said in this conference by some of the Brethren, including myself. I could tell from his speech that he came from a foreign land. After I had quieted him enough so he would listen, I said, ‘Why did you come to America?’ ‘I am here because a prophet of God told me to come.’ ‘Who was the prophet?’ I continued. ‘Wilford Woodruff.’ ‘Do you believe Wilford Woodruff was a prophet of God?’ ‘Yes, sir.’
“Then came the sixty-four dollar question, ‘Do you believe that Heber J. Grant is a prophet of God?’ His answer, ‘I think he ought to keep his mouth shut about old-age assistance.’
“Now I tell you that a man in his position is on the way to apostasy. He is forfeiting his chances for eternal life. So is everyone who cannot follow the living prophet of God.” (Conference Report, April 1953, p. 125.)
Eighth: The Prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
There will be times when you will have to choose between the revelation of God and reasoning of men—between the prophet and the professor. Said the Prophet Joseph Smith,
“Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof until long after the events transpire.” (Scrapbook of Mormon Literature, vol. 2, p. 173).
Would it seem reasonable to an eye doctor to be told to heal a blind man by spitting in the dirt, making clay and applying it to the man’s eyes and then telling him to wash in a contaminated pool? Yet this is precisely the course that Jesus took with one man, and he was healed. (See John 9:6–7.) Does it seem reasonable to cure leprosy by telling a man to wash seven times in a particular river, yet this is precisely what the prophet Elisha told a leper to do, and he was healed. (See 2 Kgs. 5.)
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isa. 55:8–9.)
Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter—temporal or spiritual.
Said Brigham Young:
“Some of the leading men in Kirtland were much opposed to Joseph the Prophet, meddling with temporal affairs …
“In a public meeting of the Saints, I said, ‘Ye Elders of Israel, … will some of you draw the line of demarcation, between the spiritual and temporal in the kingdom of God, so that I may understand it?’ Not one of them could do it …
“I defy any man on earth to point out the path a Prophet of God should walk in, or point out his duty, and just how far he must go, in dictating temporal or spiritual things. Temporal and spiritual things are inseparably connected, and ever will be.” (Journal of Discourses, 10:363–64.)
Tenth: The prophet may well advise on civic matters. When a people are righteous, they want the best to lead them in government. Alma was the head of the Church and of the government in the Book of Mormon; Joseph Smith was mayor of Nauvoo and Brigham Young was governor of Utah. Isaiah was deeply involved in giving counsel on political matters and of his words the Lord himself said, “Great are the words of Isaiah.” (3 Ne. 23:1.)
Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
The learned may feel the prophet is only inspired when he agrees with them, otherwise the prophet is just giving his opinion—speaking as a man. The rich may feel they have no need to take counsel of a lowly prophet.
In the Book of Mormon we read:
“O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.
“But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.
“And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their riches—yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them.” (2 Ne. 9:28–29, 42; italics added.)
Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
As a prophet reveals the truth it divides the people. The honest in heart heed his words but the unrighteous either ignore the prophet or fight him. When the prophet points out the sins of the world, the worldly either want to close the mouth of the prophet, or else act as if the prophet didn’t exist, rather than repent of their sins. Popularity is never a test of truth. Many a prophet has been killed or cast out. As we come closer to the Lord’s second coming you can expect that as the people of the world become more wicked, the prophet will be less popular with them.
Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—The highest quorum in the Church.
In the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord refers to the First Presidency as “the highest council of the Church” (D&C 107:80) and says “whosoever receiveth me, receiveth those, the First Presidency, whom I have sent …” (D&C 112:20).
Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.
President Harold B. Lee relates this incident from Church history:
“The story is told in the early days of the Church—particularly, I think, at Kirtland, Ohio—where some of the leading brethren in the presiding councils of the Church met secretly and tried to scheme as to how they could get rid of the Prophet Joseph’s leadership. They made the mistake of inviting Brigham Young to one of these secret meetings. He rebuked them, after he had heard the purpose of their meeting. This is part of what he said: ‘You cannot destroy the appointment of a prophet of God, but you can cut the thread that binds you to the prophet of God, and sink yourselves to hell.’” (Conference Report, April 1963, p. 81.)
In a general conference of the Church, President N. Eldon Tanner stated:
“The Prophet spoke out clearly on Friday morning, telling us what our responsibilities are …
“A man said to me after that, ‘You know, there are people in our state who believe in following the Prophet in everything they think is right, but when it is something they think isn’t right, and it doesn’t appeal to them, then that’s different.’ He said, ‘Then they become their own prophet. They decide what the Lord wants and what the Lord doesn’t want.’
“I thought how true, and how serious when we begin to choose which of the covenants, which of the commandments we will keep and follow, we are taking the law of the Lord into our own hands and become our own prophets, and believe me, we will be led astray, because we are false prophets to ourselves when we do not follow the Prophet of God. No, we should never discriminate between these commandments, as to those we should and should not keep.” (CR, October 1966, p. 98.)
“Look to the Presidency and receive instruction,” said the Prophet Joseph Smith. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 161.) But Almon Babbitt didn’t, and in the Doctrine and Covenants section 124, verse 84 [D&C 124:84], the Lord states:
“And with my servant Almon Babbitt, there are many things with which I am not pleased; behold, he aspireth to establish his counsel instead of the counsel which I have ordained, even that of the Presidency of my Church.”
In conclusion let us summarize this grand key, these “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet”, for our salvation depends on them.
1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.
5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.
7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.
11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.
I testify that these fourteen fundamentals in following the living prophet are true. If we want to know how well we stand with the Lord then let us ask ourselves how well we stand with His mortal captain—how close do our lives harmonize with the Lord’s anointed—the living Prophet—President of the Church, and with the Quorum of the First Presidency.
May God bless us all to look to the Prophet and the Presidency in the critical and crucial days ahead is my prayer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)