“If you meet the Buddha, kill him.” — Linji

This may sound a bit frank for you, but a great and real principle it is.  A doctrine of the Tao to go with this is ““The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.”  Or perhaps, In the Kalama Sutta Buddha says, “Do not accept anything because it comes from the mouth of a respected person. Rather, observe closely and if it is to the benefit of all, accept and abide by it.”

How in the world does this apply to me?   The way of Buddhism is really undefined, meaning it is individual.  A person must seek truth and find unattachment by themselves.  The actions and ethos and enlightenment of others do not serve to raise someone else, unless the person purposefully takes them into their own heart.  The path of truth is not found in being like or believing in other men.  IT is found in finding yourself, recognizing who you are and changing to better fill your eternal role.

Basically, in walking down the path, finding a great teacher, a priest in white clothing, a verbose preacher, or enlightened sage whom you hang your hat on and adore, only serves to hinder your own progress.  A man can never progress to eternity when he sets Idols up in men who are imperfect themselves.   If then you meet that symbolic man who seems to hold all the answers, a great teacher such as Abraham or Isaiah and are tempted to latch onto him and become him, remember that they did not get to such enlightened status by following or walking in the footsteps of a Man.  They did so by listening and following eternity within them.  Enlightenment and At oneness come from being one with the Father, seeing as he would have YOU see, not as he would have Joseph Smith see.  These men have been there and shared their experience and have given us more than enough light to walk our own paths to the tree.

The path to eternity cannot be seen or beheld in a man, no matter the teacher.  The illusion of eternity found in finite men is merely a doctrine of reliance on fallible flesh.  The fencing of all men to certain bounds only confines people to earthly existence.  Only be seeking and hearing the voice of the Eternal father that all these men have found can a man find for himself the reality of infinite existence.

Thus, if you are walking a path, finding yourself looking forward to Growth, meeting a man who has the answers, who proclaims himself to be the answer, kill him (symbolically of course, lest I find myself in a lawsuit).  HE is only a roadblock to your path of eternity.  Even Christ invited all men to not call him holy when only the father was.  Christ asked men to pray to the father, to not worship him, etc.  The reason?  That is not our Goal.  Christ is our mediator, our exemplar, etc.  He provides the way, helps clear the path, gives us strength when weary, but we must walk the path. He told us that he is the gate keeper, something to come to and be passed, to be gone through.  The father is the destination, eternal oneness with eternity.

Nephi demonstrated this path well.  In hearing his fathers dream, he hungered and thirsted for his own, and thus received far more than he would have relying on his fathers verbal explanation.  Peter did the same by receiving his doctrine of Christ form His father, not the master in front of him.  Abinadi found his strength in the personal commandment to testify against priesthood.  Joseph Smith found his path by hearing Gods word and following.  He received commandments and followed them, and is still decried as fallen today in light of them.  He followed no organization, he sought the word of God and followed it.

Find that definition of doctrine, that explanation of God, whatever knowledge it may be, then once you do it is merely something to be stepped on to reach greater heights.  To become different, to be separate, to be one with eternity, requires us to come out of worldly attachment and sameness and into the doctrine of individuality that Zion embraces.

The doctrine of and reliance on men will never provide true spiritual nourishment and rest.  Our symbolic last supper served by boys today provides a stark example of the vain striving to eat and drink we see in the church and world around us.  The Last Supper performed by the savior Anciently too provides a perfect illustration of what a person will be fed when they rely on God for bread and nourishment and not Babylonian attainment and base understanding of men.

In John 6 our Lord makes an interesting statement;

Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, ^anot because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the ^bSon of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father ^csealed.

Throughout scripture, in an astonishing amount, eating and drinking are linked literally and symbolically to physical and spiritual well being.  For instance, the meat given above is given by the Son of Man and produces eternal life.  This is the opposite effect of the very first thing that mortal man did, eat and produce mortal life.  In Isaiah 28 we see the opulent heads of Ephraim who are full of food too, and throw it up repeatedly for the people to eat at the tables.  These are of course not full people, or even satisfied, though they are rich in the worlds decor.  The wicked sons and daughters of Zion who yell “all is well in Zion” also cry, eat drink and be merry!  At the same time Christ commands, come to these waters and never thirst.

To the point, who provideth the bread and water that gives us sustenance, and therefore for what and to whom do we eat?  Is the food we eat spiritually continually enriching our souls, is it filling us with joy and HUNGER or desire for more?  An odd paradigm about the truth seeker, he seeks and receives bread and water that he may no longer hunger or thirst.  Yet, that very bread and water demands continual consumption to be effective.  It enables itself.

The vomit filled food of the Babylonian theologian however leaves one ever learning and never able to come to the truth.  He reads and he studies at the tables of his ‘teachers’, hungering and hungering, never getting full.  A person who relies on the learning of other men entirely, on the same sources repeatedly, on the direction and fences of the arm of the flesh, will always find himself searching, hungry but never full

Christ however intends a person to seek, search, apply  and learn from the fountain of truth, HIM (not a man) .  A person who does this finds himself eating, and being full, with endless capacity to eat.  This is the person who has things of this world provided.

The man leaning on other men sees a doctrine of self reliance.  HE must labor at the sweat of his brow to provide food for the table.  He is taught that in this life one must provide for himself and his family.  He must prepare for the rainy day.  He must eat only the food that is approved for him to eat, for in the day that he eats of other fruit he will die, he does so out of fear (whereas Adam ate anyway, out of knowledge).  Yet, in doing so, living this doctrine of dependence, he never gets full.  He is simply led on from one fantasy idea to another, seeking the lusts of the world and never knowing that he is looking past the mark.  He labors for meat that perisheth.  A hard days work in the name of buying food.  A hard days studying the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.  You want religion do you?  I’ll get someone to preach to you.

The man leaning on the bread of life however is free.  He is provided for as the lillies of the field.  The more complete his submission and reliance on the source of strength the more he is adorned like the lillies.  The more he relies on the word that proceedeth forth out of the mouth of God, the more nourishing and filling are his meals.

When I go to church, we take snacks for the kids occasionally.  Crackers, raisins, etc.   These are snacks, they temporarily placate.  If I brought supper, a five course meal for them, it would likely be more effective.  So here we see the difference between the terms, snack and supper, which is supposedly provided for us there too.

The way of the world demands that we dabble with spiritual things, but never fully commit.  We must not find joy in gospel extremism!  WE must read and study all of the basics, have a broad foundation.  Seek the worlds employ, search hard high and low to provide for your family, stay busy with goals and attainment.  be distracted.

Jesus gave us the parable;

And when one of them who sat at meat with him, heard these things, he said unto him, Blessed is he who shall eat bread in the kingdom of God.

Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great supper and bade many; And sent his servants at supper time, to say to them who were bidden, Come, for all things are now ready. And they all, with one consent, began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it; I pray thee have me excused.  And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them; I pray thee have me excused.  And another said, I have married a wife, therefore I cannot come. So that servant came and showed his lord these things. Then the master of the house, being angry, said to his servants, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring hither the poor, and the maimed, the halt and the blind.  And the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room.  The Lord said unto his servant, Go out into the highways, and hedges, and compel men to come in, that my house may be filled;  For I say unto you, That none of those men who were bidden, shall taste of my supper. (luke 12)

Those who were gainfully employed, those who looked and dressed the part of success, those who were providing for themselves and families and were distracted by this worldy attainment, the lord declares; “none of those men who were bidden, shall taste of my supper.”  These men were invited to the supper!  They were supposed to be guests.  The were the rich, the men with seed planted in good soil, who had the comforts and luxuries.  When the time came for supper, a full meal being offered, they had better things to do.  The world called.  Their training, though it had brought them to the point of invitation, required the work and toil in the arms of men.  This training did not allow them time to sit at supper with the rich man, after all they were already providing their own!

The other group on the other hand lived simply.  The did not live in the houses and within the fenced courts of society.  They brought all their baggage to the meal and were indeed elated to do so.  These were the travelers on the highways, those who were outliers in the fringes, found in the hedges.  Societal paws had no choking grasp around their necks.  They did not look and act the part of the babylonian business world.  Because of this, those who lived free-er and more simply, came and filled the house.  They were not married to another to whose bidding they had to conform.  Their covenant was with the keeper of the Supper and they allow him to provide.

So then I ask you, if it is supper we are asked to come to, to eat and be full… If the Lord gave us his sacrament and all who were there called it SUPPER, why then is the Lords supper today so meek, so barren?  Barely a teaspoonful of chlorinated water and a token offering of enriched white bread represent this meal we are to partake of and be full!   All of the Lords symbols of sacrament are there, accepting this one.  WE take the body in the bread.  We eat it, remember him.  The same is done with water.  However, we are left wanting.  WE are not filled with a fullness to satisfy.  In the book of Mormon we get this account of how the Lord did it;

And when the Disciples had come with ^abread and wine, he took of the bread and brake and blessed it; and he gave unto the Disciples and commanded that they should eat. And when they had eaten and were filled, he commanded that they should give unto the multitude.  And when the multitude had eaten and were filled, he said unto the Disciples…he commanded his Disciples that they should take of the ^awine of the cup and drink of it, and that they should also give unto the multitude that they might drink of it.  And it came to pass that they did so, and did drink of it and were filled; and they gave unto the multitude, and they did drink, and they were filled.  (3 Nephi 18)

Make no mistake about it, the editor went out of his way, EVERY TIME, to point out that when they took the sacrament emblems they did so until full.  The effort to eat and drink of the bread of life is pointless, if we do not do so till our cup is brimming.  The symbolism is there in literalism when we  eat and drink of body and blood, however we now forget that very vital facet of the SUPPER of Christ, becoming full. And how does one do so?  How do we become full in the spiritual sense?  Through Christ’s baptism, becomes his sons and daughters, one with him and you will be filled;

And he said unto them: He that eateth this bread eateth of ^amy body to his soul; and he that drinketh of this wine drinketh of my blood to his soul; and his soul shall never hunger nor thirst, but shall be filled. (3 Nephi 20:8)

Today at church we will partake of our token emblems.  This is quite symbolic in my mind of the food we are now offered.  The doctrine of Christ has been relegated to an art of reliance on the arm of flesh.  There is truly vomit on our tables, and just as the sacrament today will never fill us, neither will the regurgitated gospel provide us the nutrients needed to support Life eternal.  We must take it on our self to rid ourselves of the Babylonian distraction of the world which so loudly beckons in our ears in order to hear the call of the master when he offers a Supper fit for and served by a King!  Then and only then will we be full and our cup made to  run over.

Everyone, take 3 minutes and watch this video.

http://www.raisingsmallsouls.com/wp-content/themes/animal_school.swf

And remember that the key as always is in application.  This is  mainly about wordly education but the application jump is easy to the Gospel, Church, etc… We are all children of God afterall.  I was going to embed it, but that costs $49!!! for such a short video…  Enjoy

The following is a little piece of a chapter out of Gileadis last days types and shadows discussing the nature of these terms in Nephis writings…I consider the Book required reading, however here is another a link to chapter 2 in its entirety.

The Terms Great, Marvelous, and Work

In the end, Nephi’s description of the Lord’s “great and^‘ marvelous work” helped me to gain a wealth of understanding. I began to see Nephi’s expression in a new light as I analyzed other examples of these terms throughout the Book of Mormon.

First of all, I found that the words great, marvelous, and work appear both alone and in combinations—such as “great work” and “marvelous work” or in describing something “great and marvelous?’ It soon became clear that these words are not used randomly, nor as hyperbole—as words are, for example, in Eng­lish when we describe a thing as “wonderful,” whether it really is or not. On the contrary, Book of Mormon prophet-writers use the terms great, marvelous, and work definitively and with purposeful intent. Other Book of Mormon passages containing those terms, I discovered, reveal much of what Nephi means when he predicts the great and marvelous work in 1 Nephi 14:7.

Because Book of Mormon prophets saw our day, and because they wrote for us, they included in their writings what would be of most worth for us to know. Coming from a meticu­lous ancient scribal tradition, writing with difficulty on metal plates, they made every word say what they wanted it to. According to their typological mindset, so characteristic of all the holy prophets, “what has been shall be” constituted a manner of prophesying (compare Eccl. 1:9; 3 Nephi 23:3). What was past, they invariably used as a type of the future; and what was future they described in terms of the past. Such an ap­proach to prophecy placed them under constraint to use lan­guage consistently. That consistency with words gave the reader a proper sense of what the future might hold. It linked the past and the future in one continuum.

In many instances, for example, Book of Mormon prophets speak of great and marvelous works of the Lord—using those terms. The past works they so describe, by their very nature and by design of the prophets who recounted them, provide a frame of reference for any future work they describe as great and mar­velous. Thus, a key to the great and marvelous work of the last days—its nature and timing—is given in the Book of Mormon in the very way its authors use those words. By analyzing the terms great, marvelous, and work in the Book of Mormon, therefore, we can piece together a comprehensive picture of what that event is all about.

First of all, Nephi himself employs these terms often. To him, whether a great and marvelous work of the Lord occurs in the past or in the future, certain characteristics identify it as such and thus merit that description. By examining past great and marvelous works that Nephi describes, then, we gain a clearer idea of the work that he predicts for the future.

Other Book of Mormon prophet-writers, such as Mormon and Moroni, too, were careful to use descriptive language con­sistently. Like Nephi’s, their writings furnish the reader with a pattern of great and marvelous works of the Lord. The Lord’s destruction of the wicked in a day of judgment, for example, and the simultaneous deliverance and restoration of the righ­teous, comprise two prominent events throughout the Book of Mormon that are a part of “a great and a marvelous work.”

Additional insights into the Lord’s great and marvelous work come from the Doctrine and Covenants. In that book, a prophet-writer, Joseph Smith, also uses these terms definitively and consistently. This further helps establish what the scriptures mean by the Lord’s great and marvelous work. It soon becomes apparent, for example, that this “work” is a great culminating work of the last days, that it comes as a climax and finale to the gospel’s restoration. The great and marvelous work includes the restoration of the gospel but also much that is yet to come. Specifically, when the scriptures speak of the restoration of the gospel, they define it as the “beginning,” the “commencement;’ or the “foundation” of the Lord’s work (see 3 Nephi 21:7; Morm 3:17, 21; D&C 64:33). The restoration of the gospel thus “com­mences” the prophesied great and marvelous work, though the work’s larger fulfillment may yet be future.

By means of such rhetorical analysis, I found that the Book of Mormon locates the main scenario of the great and marvelous work in the last days, sometime after the gospel’s restoration. But before detailing that analysis, let us look at the structural evidence. Let’s examine the way in which Nephi organizes his material.

This Chapter, using the Names of the Laman and Lemuel.  From Book of Mormon history we can get a pretty good feel of who these guys are.

Off the top of my head:

• They are covenant people
• They are prideful and stubborn, stiffnecked
• They love their riches, the things of the world
• They forfeit the birthright
• They murmur about their trials in the wilderness
• They are the chief persecutor of the servant, beating him and tying him up, seeking his life
• The reject the fullness of the Gospel (good fruit)

In my uneducated opinion this sounds like prideful, stubborn and worldly Ephraim since the beginning.  Though, it could also just been seen as a type of ALL people who reject the message of the Gospel in favor of more smooth things of the world.  Using Laman and Lemuel then as the type for fallen Israel, mongrel Israel who forfeit the birthright, Gentile Israel who reject the fullness of the Gospel and do not repent.

He first reiterates the same promise to them as was given to Joseph, “^aInasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments ye shall prosper in the land; and inasmuch as ye will not keep my commandments ye shall be cut off from my presence.”  Just showing that God will give to all those who repent, even the Gentile who wants nothing to do with his promise.

Then Lehi does something interesting.  Remember that at this time Lamanite and Nephite don’t exist, they are lehites.  Indeed, the “lamanites” are coming here to talk to Lehi, showing that the groups had not been separated, yet Lehi says to them;

“I know that if ye are ^bbrought up in the ^cway ye should go ye will not depart from it. Wherefore, if ye are ^acursed, behold, I leave my blessing upon you, that the ^bcursing may be taken from you and be answered upon the ^cheads of your parents. Wherefore, because of my blessing the Lord God will ^anot suffer that ye shall perish; wherefore, he will be ^bmerciful unto you and unto your seed forever.”

A curse?  Is this merely prophetic of the soon to happen cursing of this people?  Or is it included in this form to tell us something?  That is the point of this blog, so we are running with personal application.  Having grown up in a time, as Nephi and Moroni predicted, when the teachings of men mingled with scripture are polluting the holy church of God.  I think it quite relevant to us to state that if we “are ^bbrought up in the ^cway ye should go ye will not depart from it.”  Indeed if we were, but we ain’t.  Much seeking and learning as individuals is required to find that way.  But, as the DC shows us, we have been cursed.  We are under condemnation and Zion is scattered from the land of its inheritance.  Lehi promises us though that we can have that curse removed, and have the sins of our fathers answered upon their heads instaed of our won.  WE can rid our garments and accept the way we should go.

Lehi then says virtually the same things to Lemuel’s kids and Ishmaels and closes his thoughts, tying them all into the same group  He then dies and we are left with a narrative to describe the events immediately surrounding the exodus of Nephi, having had the principle parties spelled out for us.

Nephi goes to the fallen covenant people right off,

“I, Nephi, was constrained to speak unto them, according to his word; for I had spoken many things unto them, and also my father, before his death; many of which sayings are written upon mine ^aother plates; for a more history part are written upon mine other plates.”

He then tells us of the necessity of scriptures, and tells us that the servant not only read and ponders them, but writes his own;

“And upon ^athese I ^bwrite the things of my soul, and many of the scriptures which are engraven upon the plates of brass. For my soul ^cdelighteth in the scriptures, and my heart ^dpondereth them, and writeth them for the ^elearning and the profit of my children. Behold, my ^asoul delighteth in the things of the Lord; and my ^bheart pondereth continually upon the things which I have seen and heard.”

He then uses that key word, which Gileadi has explained for us, to reflect to us the events sourounding the restoration of the house of Israel and the servant who perfoms it;

“Nevertheless, notwithstanding the great ^agoodness of the Lord, in showing me his great and marvelous works…“

The use of these words is integral and not by accident.  I will post a part of a chapter on the subject from Brother Gileadi after this post for further reading, the whole article can be found in here.

After turning our minds to the events at hand, and telling us that they relate to the Great and Marvelous we will see, Nephi wails a bit about his sufferings, throughout the rest of the chapter.  HE relays his frustrations and His worry of his sins.  HE cries that the Lord will deliver His people from His enemies.  Nephi is giving us a type of the suffering servant.  He is struggling with his inability to accomplish all that he wants and is called to do.  HE has confronted those of fallen Israel, and they have rejected his words.  He worries that he is inadequate for the calling.  HE is a man of sorrows acquainted with grief.

Into chapter 5 the events reach their climax, “their ^aanger did increase against me, insomuch that they did seek to take away my life.”  Bu this time, though beaten and trodden down, this servant is not killed, the enemy does not succeed.

What is their complaint against him?  “Our younger brother thinks to ^arule over us; and we have had much trial because of him; wherefore, now let us slay him, that we may not be afflicted more because of his words. For behold, we will not have him to be our ruler; for it belongs unto us, who are the elder brethren, to ^brule over this people.”

This account gives me chills in its application.  Here we have the Servant of God, the younger brother going before the elders,  He has told them of their problems frankly.  And from their words here we see that they think that he want s to rule over them.  HE has been given that right, and they, the “brethren” or the “Elders” who rule over this people have been removed from their post, though the refuse to admit it.  I don’t feel that these terms are used on accident.  Described for us plainly here is series of events that will surround the removal of the remnant from the rest of the people.  The elders of that people will refuse the servant whose right it is to rule and seek to take his life.

But the Lord delivers them;

And it came to pass that the Lord did ^awarn me, that I, ^bNephi, should depart from them and flee into the wilderness, and all those who would go with me.  Wherefore, it came to pass that I, Nephi, did take my family, and also ^aZoram and his family, and Sam, mine elder brother and his family, and Jacob and Joseph, my younger brethren, and also my sisters, and all those who would go with me. And all those who would go with me were those who believed in the ^bwarnings and the revelations of God; wherefore, they did hearken unto my words.  And we did take our tents and whatsoever things were possible for us, and did journey in the wilderness for the space of many days. And after we had journeyed for the space of many days we did pitch our tents.  And my people would that we should call the name of the place ^aNephi; wherefore, we did call it Nephi.  And all those who were with me did take upon them to call themselves the ^apeople of Nephi.

So, the manner of revelation is set out.  A servant receives the word of the Lord, and all those that would go with him, who “were those who believed in the ^bwarnings and the revelations of God”, and the people follow.  Namely, those of adotped Israel (Zoram) and those of pure blood brethren to the servant (Sam) and all of the house of Israel (Jacob and Joseph) and even all those who are of pure heart (sisters   ).

And who is left out? the rest of the World, those of the wicked old world and all of the covenant people too who reject the gospel when it is given to them, stay at home in the world.  The people of God leave to their tents in the wilderness and the rest dwindle in unbelief.   We could likely go on in our analysis, but I think the series has run its course.  the second exodus of the Book of Mormon in as many books is concluded and rife with rich symbolism to tell us of the events which we are soon facing.

Now we continue with the narrative, on to chapter 3.  Nephi and Lehi are really drawing out the eventual death of their father and exodus of Nephi, by illustrating some things to us in between in short chapters.  Again, we have to consider, why is this short chapter included in the writings?  Why is a commentary from the father being given for us all to read?  Surely this isn’t all that was said to his children and surely this isn’t the personal feelings of a parent in its entirety.  But for whatever reason, this is what we are given.

Starting with the name; the last chapter described well to us the significance of a name.  Jacob was described after the manner of Isaiah as the house of Israel in need of Repentance.  Now, in this chapter, we oddly move on to another name that is significant to Israel, that of Joseph.  We learn from Josephs story in Egypt, in section 86, from 2 nephi 3 and many other places the significance of this name to the Gentiles and as the saving grace of all Israel.  Many types and shadows and literal descriptions are offered throughout sacred writ.

A lot has been written on this chapter.  Most of it by using to to prove that Joseph smith is the prophet and seer mentioned here.  We will go over this in just a minute.  Since this whole chapter is discussing the significance of the name Joseph, lets delve into the chapter itself.

Very first verse in this chapter;

“And now I speak unto you, Joseph, my ^alast-born. Thou wast born in the wilderness of mine afflictions; yea, in the days of my greatest sorrow did thy mother bear thee.”

That first sentence is meaningful.  Its not often that we see two sentences in one verse.  This suggests to me that they are really one thought.  But, in that first sentance we again see some symbolic language to the house of Israel.  Joseph of Egypt was the youngest at the time of his exile, though later he was not.  However, Joseph of the Last-Days, or the house of Joseph, is part of Gods plan that the first shall be last.  Indeed, the Last born in the last days, is Israel.  And according to the types in scripture and in the descriptions of the Book of Mormon, this last-born group is hid from the world and becomes the Savior of all Israel.  The Birthright is switched and the last born, hid and exiled son is given the blessing of returning.  Indeed, as we see in the Book of Mormon and DC, as is illustrated many times in the annals of this blog, when the Gentiles finally are ripe and the gospel removed from them and given to Israel, it is among the greatest afflictions that the earth has ever seen.  They are Born, as Revelations puts it, when the woman is in travail, crying out at the afflictions of the world (ISaiah 42, 1 Thes 5, DC 136).  Joesph here was born too in a similar circumstance.  thus, with this type holding true, we can look for the house of Joseph to be born in majesty shortly after the time of greatest Travail begins.  This is also the tradition of the Jewish Messiah, who is born at a time that the Lords people enter into true sorrow and cry out.  The servant then is born, and through his instrumentality the Knigdom is born to of its shackles and binds.  The Lord than completes his chiasmic writing in the next two verses;

“And may the Lord consecrate also unto thee this ^aland, which is a most precious land, for thine inheritance and the inheritance of thy seed with thy brethren, for thy security forever, if it so be that ye shall keep the commandments of the Holy One of Israel. And now, Joseph, my last-born, whom I have brought out of the wilderness of mine afflictions, may the Lord bless thee forever, for thy ^aseed shall not utterly be ^bdestroyed.”

He states one sentence than reiterates the first verse in slightly different wording.  The chiasm is illustrative to us.  The Last thought, “may the Lord bless thee forever, for thy ^aseed shall not utterly be ^bdestroyed” is a continuation and broadening of the utterance, “yea, in the days of my greatest sorrow did thy mother bear thee”.  Showing that the Seed of Joseph will be saved and on the Land of promise as a result of turning to the Lord when his people cry out.  Central to the chiasm is a description that will come as a surprise to Israel.  The promise and savior of that house will come from the Land, the America.  That consecration and renewing of covenant which all the prophets had prophesied will happen here, they will be born here through tribulation, not in the old world where most of the worlds eyes are turned.

In verse 3-5 Lehi tells us that Joseph of Egypt is indeed a type and promise of the fulfillment of the house of Israels promise.  He tells us that the Messiah will manifest himself to the Seed of Joseph in the Last Days and that that event will bring them out of darkness and into the Light.  What a Glorious thought!  and Appearance of our Lord will be the catalyst for the saving of all Israel, as Joseph was promised.  Indeed Lehi literally says; “the Messiah should be made ^emanifest unto them in the latter days, in the spirit of power, unto the bringing of them out of ^fdarkness unto light—yea, out of hidden darkness and out of captivity unto freedom.  For Joseph truly testified, saying: A ^aseer shall the Lord my God raise up, who shall be a choice seer unto the fruit of my ^bloins.”

Notice here the continuation of thought.  There is no delineation between the two ideas.  The one tells us who the Choice seer is, the Messiah.  Moroni in his visits to the boy Joseph was similarly blunt saying that “that prophet was Christ, but that that day had not yet come (JSH 1:40).  The Lord himself revealed twice, in 3 Nephi 20 & 21, the same thing, that “Behold, I am he of whom Moses spake, saying: ^aA prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren”.

Lehi goes on,

Yea, Joseph truly said: Thus saith the Lord unto me: A choice ^aseer will I ^braise up out of the fruit of thy loins; and he shall be esteemed highly among the fruit of thy loins. And unto him will I give commandment that he shall do a work for the fruit of thy loins, his brethren, which shall be of great worth unto them, even to the bringing of them to the ^cknowledge of the covenants which I have made with thy fathers. And I will give unto him a commandment that he shall do ^anone other work, save the work which I shall command him. And I will make him great in mine eyes; for he shall do my work. And he shall be great like unto ^aMoses, whom I have said I would raise up unto you, to ^bdeliver my ^cpeople, O house of Israel. And ^aMoses will I raise up, to deliver thy people out of the land of Egypt.”

This Choice seer, or servant of God, is said here to be “like unto Moses”.  This in the same language that Moroni and the Lord himself used, as cited.  We are told how to recognize him in that “he shall do none other work”.  This will be his focus, the sole reason he is here, to bring the knowledge of the covenant.  He will deliver Israel from their bondage, as Joseph did.  And as is here mentioned, like Moses, he will bring them from bondage out of the land of Egypt.  This is significant because it reiterates what Lehi had said earlier.  Isaiah uses Egypt to speak of the great last days central economic place of Babylon, America.  As Lehi above noted, The seed of Joseph will do his work from out of the Land of the Americas, where Lehi’s seed are.  And Moses did the same, showing that both stories are perfect types for the events and the prophet who will be the principle cause of this movement.  He will be great, but only in the eyes of the Lord.  Being that he will remove the people from Egypt, or Babylon, the world at large will not look at him nearly so fondly.  Also, this servant will be esteemed in the eyes of the fruit of Joseph.  They will look to Him as a leader, even while the Egyptians, or Gentile nations do the opposite.  HE will do a work for the seed of Lehi on this continent.  This of course sounds nothing like Joseph Smith in the 1800′s, whose principle work was done amongst Egyptian gentiles.  He never really carried any weight or esteem in the eyes of the Lamanites, nor did he renew a covenant to them which allowed them to change and become the savior of the house of Israel.  He did how ever lay the groundwork for that eventuality and even served well as a type of the future.

Verse 11 is pivotal in explaining the time period of all this;

“But a ^aseer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins; and unto him will I give ^bpower to ^cbring forth my word unto the seed of thy loins—and not to the bringing forth my word only, saith the Lord, but to the convincing them of my word, which shall have already gone forth among them.”

This time around, this seer, will not only bring forth the word, in the Book of Mormon, but he will convince them that it is true.  AND they will know that has “already gone forth among them.”  This is of course NOT the order of things for Joseph Smith in his first restorative movement.  When the book of Mormon reached the seed of Joseph, it was the first time it had.  IT also did not convince them of their calling in Israel’s plan, as shown plainly in their continued trials, languishing and persecution.  This is a movement which, as Moroni put it, “that day had not yet come”.

Then, of this movement when the seed of Joseph will miraculously turn, Joseph predicts through Lehi;

“Wherefore, the fruit of thy loins shall ^awrite; and the fruit of the loins of ^bJudah shall ^cwrite; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together, unto the ^dconfounding of ^efalse doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing ^fpeace among the fruit of thy loins, and ^gbringing them to the ^hknowledge of their fathers in the latter days, and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord. And out of weakness he shall be made strong, in that day when my work shall commence among all my people, unto the restoring thee, O house of Israel, saith the Lord.”

The Book of Mormon will finally do what it was intended to do.  IT wil bring a peace through covenant keeping to a group of people who has not had it since about 200 AD.  Their weakness, indeed at the moment there are not many people who look weaker, they will be made  strong.  His Work (restoring Israel to covenant, exalting his children) will then be commenced.  Simultaneously to this resoration to the pure blood, the Gentiles will be purged; “I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them. And then will I ^aremember my covenant which I have made unto my people, O house of Israel, and I will bring my gospel unto them (3 Nephi 16)”.  Indeed, the Lord tells us in section 45,

“And when the times of the ^aGentiles is come in, a ^blight shall break forth among them that sit in darkness, and it shall be the fulness of my ^cgospel; But they ^areceive it not; for they perceive not the light, and they turn their ^bhearts from me because of the ^cprecepts of men.  And in that generation shall the ^atimes of the Gentiles be fulfilled. And there shall be men standing in that ^ageneration, that shall not pass until they shall see an overflowing ^bscourge; for a desolating ^csickness shall cover the land.”

Showing that in the same generation that the Light breaks forth (the Last Days messiah as Lehis shows, who is the covenant and fulness of the Gospel), the Gentiles fate will be sealed as they will finally reject that Light entirely, as the Jews of old.  And the overflowing scourge will cover the land, the woman cry out and Zion will be born.

Lehi continues;

“And thus prophesied Joseph, saying: Behold, that seer will the Lord bless; and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded; for this promise, which I have obtained of the Lord, of the fruit of my loins, shall be fulfilled. Behold, I am sure of the fulfilling of this promise; And his ^aname shall be called after me; and it shall be after the ^bname of his father. And he shall be ^clike unto me; for the thing, which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand, by the power of the Lord shall bring ^dmy people unto ^esalvation.”

AS we saw in Josephs Smiths first trip to the vineyard, he was destroyed and the Gentiles were not confounded.  But, the promise in the last days is that that servant will be marred but healed, and the Gentiles who seek to destroy him will be confounded. related commentary on Isaiah;

Isaiah 42:4 He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.

***The Servant is a lawgiver, like Moses.  And, like Moses, he does not grow dim.  This implies that he has extraordinary powers.  No one will be able to prevent him from fulfilling his mission.  He will be marred (chapter 52) but the Lord heals him (chapter 57).  The fact that he is marred, then healed implies that he does not have a lot of power to begin with.  His healing is part of his empowerment.  The fact that the isles wait for his law indicates that, unlike Moses, the Servant’s mission extends to all nations.  He calls them from among the nations to Zion to avoid the destruction that are coming upon the nations.  He does this by teaching them God’s Law.  Then escape destruction by entering into a covenant with the Lord, then they qualify for His protection.  The breaking of the covenant (a spiritual thing) led to a physical exile.  Renewal of the covenant (repentance, spiritual renewal) will lead to a physical return.

This eventual happening surrounding the servant and Israel is yet to happen, another strike for this having been Joseph in the 1800′s as is commonly put.  WE force interpretations as apologists rather than seek understanding as it is written.

There is a point here considering his name.  Indeed Joseph Smith fit this type.  But, just because Moses, Joseph, Jacob and many others fit these types so well in many facets doesn’t mean they are the thing for which the type was given!  Immediately after speaking about his name Lehi elaborates by telling us that the work he performs will bring salvation to that people of Lehi.  Again, Joseph Smiths commencing work will only do this in a 3rd person several generational way.  Indeed, the addition to the scriptures in the Book of Mormon will be the true catalyst for this event, not purely what Brother Joseph has given us.  We’ve discussed this before, and could perhaps another time but its beyond the scope of this writing.

Indeed, noting the mention of the name Joseph, may merely be a tip-off to the house of Israel who are looking for the Messiah Ben-Joseph (or of Ephraim) to regather Israel and reestablish temple worship in Jerusalem.  New scripture and a miraculous revelation could establish this fact to those with eyes to see, that indeed the Name of Joseph is had here in Egypt, and the gathering of Israel is happening here amongst that people.  That a New Jeruasalem is being established and Temple building is a calling card of theirs.

Now when Lehi commences he tells us some details of this event that are most descriptive;

And the Lord hath said: I will raise up a Moses (as we have mentioned); and I will give power unto him in a rod; and I will give judgment unto him in writing. Yet I will not loose his tongue, that he shall speak much, for I will not make him mighty in speaking. But I will ^awrite unto him my law, by the finger of mine own hand; and I will make a ^bspokesman for him.  And the Lord said unto me also: I will raise up unto the fruit of thy loins; and I will make for him a spokesman. And I, behold, I will give unto him that he shall write the writing of the fruit of thy loins, unto the fruit of thy loins; and the spokesman of thy loins shall declare it. And the words which he shall write shall be the words which are expedient in my wisdom should go forth unto the ^afruit of thy loins. And it shall be as if the fruit of thy loins had cried unto them ^bfrom the dust; for I know their faith.”

Luckily Joseph Smith comes to the rescue here with some clarification. The Rod and spokesman idea is interesting.  IT seems that the Law will be written by the servant, but His servant will give it to us through word.  In section 113 Joseph gets an answer about who the Rod in ISaiah 11 is;

“What is the ^arod spoken of in the first verse of the 11th chapter of Isaiah, that should come of the Stem of Jesse? Behold, thus saith the Lord: It is a servant in the hands of Christ, who is partly a descendant of Jesse as well as of ^aEphraim, or of the house of Joseph, on whom there is laid much ^bpower.”

Also, if you recall section 85 which made Josephs bones quake, the OMS comes, “holding the scepter of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth”.  Does this not sound exactly like what Joseph of Egypt and Lehi here are telling us?  The servant will have power in a rod, this rod will be his spokesman, who will declare the Law which THE servant gives.  These writings will ring true as a voice from the dust to those who have ears to hear.  This rod is a servant in the hands of Christ, a Rod. partly of Ephraim and partly of Joseph.  He does the work, in section 85, of restoring the people of God to covenant and united order.  The Lord then tells us that this servant is Joseph Smith, in section 103 and section 101.  Section 101 shows plainly that his first attempt will not result in the redemption of Zion, but that Josephs second coming, this time with the Lord of the Vineyard, will result in that eventuality.

The Servant like unto Moses though, who gives the Law according too Lehi and Joseph and who gathers the people according to Judaism and Isaiah, is described as “a ^adescendant of Jesse, as well as of Joseph, unto whom rightly belongs the ^bpriesthood, and the ^ckeys of the kingdom, for an ^densign, and for the gathering of my people in the ^elast days. (section 113).”

Whereas the OMS is shown to be of Joseph through Ephramite lineage and Jesse, this servant is of Joseph plainly and of Jesse.  He is pure blood.  In fact, Orson pratt and other contemporaries of Joseph smiths time said the same.  IT was even written here in this chapter with a footnote which read, “a Future INDIAN prophet” (see the photocopy on file here).  Plainly up to the 1905 edition of the Book of Mormon the people did not believe this to be the original Joseph.  And as we have shown, it is a future Joseph in every description besides the name, though that Joseph Smith serves as a wonderful type.

BAck to 2 Nephi 3, Lehi continues in verse 21;

“Because of their faith their ^awords shall proceed forth out of my mouth unto their brethren who are the fruit of thy loins; and the weakness of their words will I make strong in their faith, unto the remembering of my covenant which I made unto thy fathers. And now, behold, my son Joseph, after this manner did my father of old ^aprophesy.”

Interesting here that he declares that Their words (Josephs  and Lehis seed) will be declared by MY mouth unto their brethren. And all of it is to bring covenant back to the people. He also refers again to the One Mighty Among them who will bring to pass much restoration.  ITs awesome how all these key words are used in repetitive form, but strictly in the right ssnse of the word to illustrate to us and not confuse.  An imperfect language is made stronger thorugh the use of key words, in aiding the understanding.

Finally in the last verse in closing the Father says to the house of Joseph;

“And now, blessed art thou, Joseph. Behold, thou art little; wherefore hearken unto the words of thy brother, Nephi, and it shall be done unto thee even according to the words which I have spoken.”

This is the same as we explored in the earlier chapters.  Nephi as the Servant, instruction is given here to the house of Joseph to hear that servant and hearken to his words.  They ares specifically called little, which is plain to us who now view them.  But the promise is given that if they here the voice of that Servant in the last days they will indeed be restored and prove to be the Savior of all Israel from out of Egypt.

All of this language and illustration of the Falters children, their tribes and families and their callings, has serves us well in seeing the roles that they will play in the Marvelous work.   Nephis exodus in the coming chapter is proceeded by many types and discussions.  Those who will not listen in that approaching day are given as a type of Laman and Lemuel.  The people of Israel who have not repented, who are still mixed into Babylon, are given as Jacob.  And the house of Joseph who will stay hidden from the world and eventually restore Israel to their covenant status is explained.  The servant who is born at the commencement of the Travail of Gods people is elaborated, as is the Man who will perform his work amongst this people in His name.  A picture is definitely being painted!

Like Isaiah did, Nephi via Lehi, here interjects the whole plan for the salvation of Israel into one short chapter.  He juxtaposes good and evil, yet puts them both into the plan and into God.  And pertinent to our discussion, he tells us of our agency to choose between the two.  He does it though through a peculiar medium, instruction to Jacob, whos name is synonymous in Isaiah with unrepentant Israel.  This is the heart of the revelatory strange act that the Lord performs.  A plan has been presented which allows all men to accept God or not according to their agency.  The plan allows all men the ability to be responsible for their actions.  The Plan allows people to perfectly be able to see and respond to things and to be judged accordingly.

Nephi’s brother Jacob had already been redeemed at this point, he had stood in front of his Savior, he had that personal relationship, so relaying all this VERY basic stuff to Nephi’s little brother seems kind of odd to me.  If it weren’t for the fact that the book is written to us and for our benefit it would be odd.  However, it is written to us and about us, not necessarily Jacob the man.

The message is given to those who are born in the wilderness, as Lehi points out repeatedly to begin and toward the end.  Those who are born in the wilderness, according to the Lord in 2nd and 3rd Nephi are those who are adopted into the house of Israel.  No significance lost here in the idea of being reborn spiritually to be adopted into the House of Israel, qualify for the exodus.  If they come unto him they will be received as his Children.  Their repentance will be accepted and the plan Justified.  This is a message to all that at some point, indeed now, but also at a zenith, there will be a plan presented for all the house of Israel to hear and accept or reject, just as Lehi is now delivering to Jacob as a proxy for the modern day house of Israel.  According to the plan allowance has been made for all men to come unto Him, the Servant of God and God himself (vs 3), to be save and redeemed from the calamity.

The Plan presented here allows men to accept or reject a message on their own terms.  The plan allows for a people to be judged and delivered or not based on the principle of their own choice.   This knowledge and short chapter is integral in relaying the instances of division that exodus imagery relays.  Indeed, the very heart of the ‘plan’ is to divide, exalt and destroy the wheat and the chaff.

The Name Jacob here is very intriguing.  AS we learn from Isaiah, Jacob represents the Group of people, Israel, who have a covenant presented to them and must repent in order to receive the blessings of protection and fellowship with the Lord, according to the plan of God Lehi here illustrated.  That people “Jacob”, to whom 2 Nephi 2 is addressed, are mentioned repeatedly in Isaiah.  Short commentary from Gileadi;

Isaiah 2:5

5 O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the LORD.

***This is a transition verse.  It implores the people of the covenant – house of Jacob – to repent. Walk up to their covenants – follow the light of the Lord.  Isaiah is about to begin to talk about the people’s wickedness again.  The Lord is the “light.”  The Servant is a lesser light.  The Servant is like the light that breaks forth at dawn after a dark night.  The Servant’s job is to establish Justice and Righteousness.  He restores the Law and the word of God.  In that way, he is a light to the nations.  It is his job to bring people into the presence of the Lord himself, who is the greater light. The House of Jacob defines a particular category of people.  All through Isaiah, Jacob and Israel form a single category of people. They represent a particular level of covenant keeping.  Zion and Jerusalem represent a higher level of covenant keeping people.  The level of Jacob is that level that still needs to repent. The level of Zion is that level that has repented and retained a remission of their sins (see 1:27).

Again, lets ask ourselves; why does Lehi here instruct a guy like Jacob, Nephi’s Brother,  with so much literal knowledge, on the basics of the plan?  MY answer is this, he isn’t.  He is instructing those who go into the wildernesss with the modern Nephi, or servant in the latter days, to REpent.  He is telling Jacob, which includes us the mongrel gentiles who need to repent to be of Zion in the wilderness (3 Nephi 16, 20, 21), that if we just make the choice to follow Christ and not a man’s wisdom we too can become Zion.  The Plan is here, its relatively simple and even you Jacob have that arm still held out and even lengthened to take your hand!

So perhaps I’ve waited long enough.  Moving into 2 Nephi and warming up for the exodus, we get some history and description from father Lehi. Lehis starts out by relaying to us the mood or idea of the next book, that of exodus.  He relates the exodus that he had with his people from Jerusalem and prophecies that it was the correct move to avoid destruction and receive inheritance. Looking into these section as a type for our exodus led by the one mighty and strong and one like unto Moses we find some interesting descriptions given to us.  In verse 7 he gives us the promise;

7 Wherefore, this ^aland is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of ^bliberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound ^ccursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever…

9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a ^apromise, that ^binasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall ^cprosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall ^dkeep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their ^einheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.

In light of section 101, where we are told that we have lost our inheritance and are scattered on the face of this land, the above verse 9 is instructive in describing our condition as a people today.  If anyone has any doubt as to whether we remain as a people cursed, condemned and scattered this promise could well concrete that idea.  We have been molested and peresecuted since our inception.  We have never qualified, as a people, to have this land to our saves as a place of inheritance.  As things stand now we are only become more and more a part of that Babylonian melting pot.

That promise is there and that covenant remains.  IT is a part of the covenant originally given to Abraham and eventually Joseph was warned;

And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new ^acovenant, even the ^bBook of Mormon and the ^cformer commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to ^ddo according to that which I have written— That they may bring forth ^afruit meet for their Father’s kingdom; otherwise there remaineth a ^bscourge and judgment to be poured out upon the children of Zion. For shall the children of the kingdom ^apollute my holy land? Verily, I say unto you, Nay (DC 84).

Being familiar with this covenant and promise is important to us, if we want to qualify with that people who will receive this protection and promise.  IF we do so, we will be a separate people, with none to molest us.

Exodus imagery is prevalent throughout the Book of Mormon.  For instance, there are 7 actual unique exoduses in the Book of Mormon time line, as pointed out by Gileadi.  Add to that all of the times that exoduses are referred to, such as Lehi’s and Mose’s moves, and all of the times that exoduses are prophesied, including Nephi, Jacob and Isaiah describing our own future exodus and even the exodus of Columbus and we see that the Book of Mormon is full to the brim of these types.  We have to ponder the question of why?  Why are these things brought to the surface so often, when so much of Nephite history is not included? The editors use exoduses and revolutions in their times as well as those in times past to describe and illustrate our own events as we will soon see.  All these events of exodus under the direction of the Lord are at their hearts a rebellion from the evil and destructive spiritual practice of the cultures the people are then leaving.

It being the new year, I thought it appropriate to discuss a fundamental change that the scriptures refer to, to which the gentiles will be required to conform.  Exodus imagery illustrates this type of change well.  From Isaiah, 1 Nephi 14, 3 Nephi 16, etc, it is apparent that a revolution of the Lords people will be needed.  Revolution. That is quite a word.  The root of the word in Latin is revolutio, meaning to ‘turn around’.  This is fascinating to me as the word repent, or shuv in Hebrew, means to ‘turn around’.  When the Lord finally ‘turns’ the heart of the children to the fathers and turns wholly to His house it will require that some repent (gentiles) and that the rest go with this Israelite revolution.  Using this tie we can begin to see some scriptures in another light.  “Yea, wo be unto the Gentiles except they ^arepent; for it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Father, that I will cut off thy horses out of the midst of thee, and I will destroy thy ^bchariots”.   In my mind, when it is uttered, images of violence and stunning bravery come to mind.  A vision of patriots of one sort or another exhibiting great courage in the face of overwhelming odds is seen.  Though, from a definition in the omniscient Wikipedia, violence may not be needed to perform the change, “it’s a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time.”

The revolution I have in mind, as always, is the one spoken of here by Orson Pratt;

What kind of a revolution would it work among the Latter‑day Saints if the revelation given in March, 1831, were carried out by them, “It is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in s in?”  How much of a revolution would it accomplish in Sa lt Lake City if this order of things should be brought about?  I think it would work a greater revolution among this people than has ever been witnessed amongst them since they had an existence as a Church.  (JD 15:355‑356)

……………………

There must be a reformation.  There will be a reformation among this people, but He will plead with the stronger ones of Zion, He will plead with this people, He will plead with those in high places, He will plead with the priesthood of this church, until Zion shall become clean before him.  I do not know but what it would be an utter impossibility to commence and carry out some principles pertaining to Zion right in the midst of this people.  They have strayed so far that to get a people who would conform to heavenly laws it may be needful to lead some from the midst of this people and commence anew in the regions round about in these mountains.  (JD 15:360)

Interesting choice of words here, ‘reformation’ rather than ‘restoration’.  The gospel is on the earth and the keys remain, in fact the Lord in section 86 tells us that a group of people have retained the priesthood, hidden from the world.  Indeed, it has no need to be restored.  The restoration about to happen will be of the promises to the house of Israel, that they may be gathered and have the protection and guidance of their God.  As yet we have not qualified for this.  But, a restoration of the Gospel will not be needed, a people will be called to repent and gather or repent and return.  A fundamental change of the status quo will happen though.  This is a revolution, the event we are so looking forward too.

I have often been drawn to this idea of revolution in a sort of romantic way.  The movies I love seem to all incorporate this idea of a people willing to give all for a way of life foreign and wierd to the rest of the world.  Those that participate and pull off such a revolution are heros, generally always zealots for the right cause.  In fact, I hope dearly that I may be allowed to play a part in a revolution of our own, when the Lords pleas are finally heard and His people zealous of His cause are given His power and protection.

The first thing that a revolutionary needs to pinpoint is his cause.  We must know and understand what we want to be (Zion) and where we are now (Babylon).  The scriptures provides descriptions for us considering the things the we must rebel from , and those we must adopt.  As we commit to this process it is natural to see some remarkable change in the way we view the world, as well in the way the world views us.  Like the Ugly Duckling, once that one little bird starts to grow and change color so much quicker than the rest, the truth is soon known as to his real identity.  The Lord is trying to tell us that we are ALL swans and the time to change is now, no longer to remain as ducks in muddy water.  An Ugly (marred) Duckling it will take to stand up out of the vomit and ask Israel to crawl out of the mire and reclaim its place in the Lords hand.  A revolutionary person like Moses.

In many ways, Nephi was like unto Moses.  So he knew somewhat what he was talking about considering this future prophet and the event surrounding his calling.  At the end of Nephis first book he is about to commence his second exodus.  He picks up and moves his people, those who will follow the Lord, out of the majority, in order to live the laws of God unfettered.  This event changed the organizational and power hierarchy rather quickly.  It is a revolution performed in a non-violent manner.  All those willing to revolt simply remove themselves.  Prior to leaving, violence had been inflicted on Nephi, being beaten, tied up, ridiculed, etc…  And Nephi was a leader willing to submit to Gods will and rely on Him for power.  He’s a marred servant of sorts who is finally given direction and invited to revolt, to leave again to live another way.

The next post will start an analysis of 1 Nephi22 through 2 Nephi 5.  These are the scriptures and descriptions which Nephi uses to describe his own exodus, being one like unto Moses.  As we will see He and His father go WAY out of their way to give to us a description of our own future events, using this seemingly simple move of a family away from another to show us what we are now seeing today and will soon see in our midst.

This post is in preparation for a post I will make sometime in the future.  Listening to an old Gileadi lecture he begged the question, “why are there 7 exoduses in the Book of Mormon?”   He did not directly answer his own question.  However, in reading the story of Zeniff, Noah and Alma in application it is quickly apparent why anything is included in the Book of Mormon, to tell us something about us.  In that vein, here is a list of scriptures about a people leaving one place to go to another, along with a list of similar church history events.

Isa. 52: 12

12 For ye shall not go out with ^ahaste, nor go by flight: for the Lord will go before you; and the God of Israel will be your ^brereward.

3 Ne. 21: 29

29 And they shall go out from all nations; and they shall ^anot go out in ^bhaste, nor go by flight, for I will go before them, saith the Father, and I will be their rearward.

“And he leadeth away the righteous into precious lands…” (1N 17:38.)

17 And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan. And Enos and the residue of the people of God came out from the land, which was called Shulon, and dwelt in a land of promise, which he called after his own son, whom he had named Cainan. (Moses 6:17.)

3 Now the Lord had said unto me: Abraham, get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will show thee. (Abraham 2:3.)

2 And it came to pass that the Lord commanded my father, even in a dream, that he should take his family and depart into the wilderness. 3 And it came to pass that he was obedient unto the word of the Lord, wherefore he did as the Lord commanded him. 4 And it came to pass that he departed into the wilderness. And he left his house, and the land of his inheritance, and his gold, and his silver, and his precious things, and took nothing with him, save it were his family, and provisions, and tents, and departed into the wilderness. (1 Nephi 2:2-4.)

5 And it came to pass that the Lord did warn me, that I, Nephi, should depart from them and flee into the wilderness, and all those who would go with me. 6 Wherefore, it came to pass that I, Nephi, did take my family, and also Zoram and his family, and Sam, mine elder brother and his family, and Jacob and Joseph, my younger brethren, and also my sisters, and all those who would go with me. And all those who would go with me were those who believed in the warnings and the revelations of God; wherefore, they did hearken unto my words. 7 And we did take our tents and whatsoever things were possible for us, and did journey in the wilderness for the space of many days. And after we had journeyed for the space of many days we did pitch our tents. (2 Nephi 5:5-7.)

12 Behold, I am Amaleki, the son of Abinadom. Behold, I will speak unto you somewhat concerning Mosiah, who was made king over the land of Zarahemla; for behold, he being warned of the Lord that he should flee out of the land of Nephi, and as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord should also depart out of the land with him, into the wilderness— 13 And it came to pass that he did according as the Lord had commanded him. And they departed out of the land into the wilderness, as many as would hearken unto the voice of the Lord; and they were led by many preachings and prophesyings. And they were admonished continually by the word of God; and they were led by the power of his arm, through the wilderness until they came down into the land which is called the land of Zarahemla. (Omni 1:12-13.)

32 But behold, it came to pass that the king, having discovered a movement among the people, sent his servants to watch them. Therefore on the day that they were assembling themselves together to hear the word of the Lord they were discovered unto the king. 33 And now the king said that Alma was stirring up the people to rebellion against him; therefore he sent his army to destroy them. 34 And it came to pass that Alma and the people of the Lord were apprised of the coming of the king’s army; therefore they took their tents and their families and departed into the wilderness. (Mosiah 18:32-34.)

6 Behold the back pass, through the back wall, on the back side of the city. The Lamanites, or the guards of the Lamanites, by night are drunken; therefore let us send a proclamation among all this people that they gather together their flocks and herds, that they may drive them into the wilderness by night. (Mosiah 22:6.)

11 And it came to pass that the people of king Limhi did depart by night into the wilderness with their flocks and their herds, and they went round about the land of Shilom in the wilderness, and bent their course towards the land of Zarahemla, being led by Ammon and his brethren. 12 And they had taken all their gold, and silver, and their precious things, which they could carry, and also their provisions with them, into the wilderness; and they pursued their journey. (Mosiah 22:11-12.)

16 And it came to pass that so great was their faith and their patience that the voice of the Lord came unto them again, saying: Be of good comfort, for on the morrow I will deliver you out of bondage. 17 And he said unto Alma: Thou shalt go before this people, and I will go with thee and deliver this people out of bondage. 18 Now it came to pass that Alma and his people in the night-time gathered their flocks together, and also of their grain; yea, even all the night-time were they gathering the flocks together. 19 And in the morning the Lord caused a deep sleep to come upon the Lamanites, yea, and all their task-masters were in a profound sleep. 20 And Alma and his people departed into the wilderness; and when they had traveled all day they pitched their tents in a valley, and they called the valley Alma, because he led their way in the wilderness. (Mosiah 24:16-20.)

12 Get this people out of this land, that they perish not; for Satan has great hold on the hearts of the Amalekites, who do stir up the Lamanites to anger against their brethren to slay them; therefore get thee out of this land; and blessed are this people in this generation, for I will preserve them. 13 And now it came to pass that Ammon went and told the king all the words which the Lord had said unto him. 14 And they gathered together all their people, yea, all the people of the Lord, and did gather together all their flocks and herds, and departed out of the land, and came into the wilderness which divided the land of Nephi from the land of Zarahemla, and came over near the borders of the land. (Alma 27:12-14.)

12 Now behold, this Lachoneus, the governor, was a just man, and could not be frightened by the demands and the threatenings of a robber; therefore he did not hearken to the epistle of Giddianhi, the governor of the robbers, but he did cause that his people should cry unto the Lord for strength against the time that the robbers should come down against them. 13 Yea, he sent a proclamation among all the people, that they should gather together their women, and their children, their flocks and their herds, and all their substance, save it were their land, unto one place. 14 And he caused that fortifications should be built round about them, and the strength thereof should be exceedingly great. And he caused that armies, both of the Nephites and of the Lamanites, or of all them who were numbered among the Nephites, should be placed as guards round about to watch them, and to guard them from the robbers day and night. (3 Nephi 3:12-14.)

24 And there were a great many thousand people who were called Nephites, who did gather themselves together in this land. Now Lachoneus did cause that they should gather themselves together in the land southward, because of the great curse which was upon the land northward. 25 And they did fortify themselves against their enemies; and they did dwell in one land, and in one body, and they did fear the words which had been spoken by Lachoneus, insomuch that they did repent of all their sins; and they did put up their prayers unto the Lord their God, that he would deliver them in the time that their enemies should come down against them to battle. 26 And they were exceedingly sorrowful because of their enemies. And Gidgiddoni did cause that they should make weapons of war of every kind, and they should be strong with armor, and with shields, and with bucklers, after the manner of his instruction. (3 Nephi 3:24-26.)

4 Therefore, there was no chance for the robbers to plunder and to obtain food, save it were to come up in open battle against the Nephites; and the Nephites being in one body, and having so great a number, and having reserved for themselves provisions, and horses and cattle, and flocks of every kind, that they might subsist for the space of seven years, in the which time they did hope to destroy the robbers from off the face of the land; and thus the eighteenth year did pass away. (3 Nephi 4:4.)

1837: The Prophet and Saints flee from Kirtland, Ohio to Missouri for safety.

1839: The Saints flee from Missouri to Illinois for safety.

1846: The Saints flee from Illinois to Winter Quarters for safety.

1847: Brigham Young leads the Saints from Winter Quarters to the Salt Lake valley for safety.

What does this pattern suggest for our day?

The End

False Traditions – Authority

by Guest Author (Tom)

Mostly posting this because I’m tired at looking at my other post while waiting for Mr. WFZ to update his blog, but also because I think it’s an interesting subject worthy of some study and debate.  In reading a quote recently about the perils of “false traditions” and in reading the scriptures which tell us “false traditions” take away our light and knowledge, I began to think about it in relation to something I’ve been studying and reading in my free time.

D&C 93:39 says it this way, without using the word “false”, though clearly it’s referring to “false” traditions:

39 And that ^awicked one cometh and ^btaketh away light and truth, through ^cdisobedience, from the children of men, and because of the ^dtradition of their fathers.

I think one of the biggest “false traditions”, passed on down through the generations, and one we lean heavily upon is our claims to “authority”.  Whether it be through our blessings, our preachings, missionary work, general conference talks or whatever…we’re taught to rely heavily on the fact that, thanks to Joseph Smith, God’s “authority” had been restored.  That, in turn, serves to imply that our arguments, whatever they may be, are superior and the “right” ones, no matter what.  No matter the logic, it ends with one side of an debate professing to hold “authority” and if that entity holds “authority”, or a person within that entity holds the right “title”, then their argument is correct.  The truth of the matter is the cacophony of our appeals to authority are shooting beyond the mark…

“Well intentioned and devout followers of a false tradition rejected Him [Christ] solely because they trusted in the traditions handed down to them.  They wrongly believed God would never send someone to tell them anything important unless he were to occupy a position of authority among them.  And so they rejected our Lord because He was not in the hierarchy.  With that rejection they also forfeited their own salvation.”

Take, for instance, John 8:9 and Matthew 21:23-27.  These are examples of the way authority was championed and used as a support and buttress used to control and grant support to the scribes and Pharisees in their attempts to control the church of their day.

Today, we’re not much different.  We give more weight to a comment from a general authority than we do a regular, inspired man, and certainly rarely find ourselves quoting from that regular guy…especially because that person will hold much less sway with the person we’re talking with, if only because he/she isn’t a household name.  Instead, we read talks from general authorities and take them as scripture – regardless of a witness from the spirit – and use them to buttress and prove our points.  If something hasn’t been uttered by a prophet or apostle in this dispensation, then, as the argument goes, it’s either something that “isn’t important to your salvation” or something that borders on the fringes of the gospel…an area best avoided at all times…or too mysterious for us to seek after.

If, however, an apostle (a “favorite” apostle is even better) says X or Y, then we automatically accept X or Y and use it – especially if it’s the most recent proclamation on that topic – to prove our points and discussions.  Instead of relying on truth from wherever it comes, we rely on positions, callings and an institution to tell us what truth is.

“(Matt 21:23-27) … ‘by what authority doest thou these things?’ For those who have no connection with heaven, authority is always everything.  Once they establish they have ‘authority’ the debate is over, so far as such people are concerned.  They never learn that the rights of the priestly authority are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven; and when they have no connection to heaven they have no authority.”

To show this point from a scriptural point of view, we have Joseph Smith who described himself as one who “frequently fell into errors, and displayed … the foibles of human nature” (JS-H 1:28), Enoch who described himself as “but a lad, and all the people hate me; for I am slow of speech; wherefore am I thy servant?” (Moses 6:31).  We also have the examples of relative unknowns – Abinadi, Samuel the Lamanite, etc., and many others.  Simple, average men striving individually to find their path of truth, coming from outside the hierarchies of the church to call the people to repentance.

“(Numbers 12:6) … This foreshadowed the many chosen prophets sent between the time of Moses and the coming of Jesus Christ.  During that time very few of the prophets came as presiding authorities, and were often not form the priestly tribe of Levi.  The New Testament account begins with a lone, obscure priest, cycling through his duties at the Temple, and to his surprise, encountering a vision of the Lord’s angel, Gabriel.  It wasn’t Annas, nor Caiaphus, nor any of the Chief Priests or notable scribes or lawyers.  Rather it was an obscure, elderly priest chosen from outside the hierarchy to whom the Lord “made Himself known.”  Mortal man is here to be tested.  The test is not whether they can conform to the expectations of a broad, mainstream, self-congratulating “chosen” people.  The test is far more individual than that.  It is a lonely quest to find the Chosen One of Israel.  Those who really find Him, not an imaginary version of the Living God, but actually meet the Risen Lord, the Savior of mankind, generally do not rely at all upon their chosen status.  Rather they are usually somewhat at odds with the chosen mainstream.”

The more I reflect on the matter, the more I think that we, as a body, are trending towards the same proclivities, weaknesses, traits and personalities of the scribes and Pharisees.  One of their great “false traditions” was assuming that the hierarchy was an end-all – all debates and matters of scriptural, or any for that matter, significance originated from within this hierarchy.  The scribes and Pharisees loved the attention, their high seats in the synagogues, being greeted in the market, the bests seats at the feasts and certainly loved the power they had at being the policy makers and scriptural wizards to whom everyone would come for a doctrinal interpretation…are we really any different than they were (see Luke 11:43; Luke 20:46)?

“They [scribes, Pharisees, etc.] learned to practice fanaticism.  They resented any challenge to their rights and authority.  They learned to defend their claims of righteousness.  … Too many historic indignities had made them resent any trespass onto their remaining turf.  So they resorted to claiming they had “authority” and that was enough.  God “told them” to do what they did.  Their “traditions” were handed down from holy sources and were beyond being subject to any questioning.  However, when a religious leader is one of God’s true messengers, his message will never rely upon a claim of authority as reason to follow him.  Indeed, true messengers always understand that no power or influence can or ought to be asserted because of their authority.  The words of truth alone are sufficient (see D&C 121:41-42).  Their testimony has authority which transcends any institutional trappings.  When there is no Spirit which animates the messenger, then he knows his voice is weak.  Because of an internal recognition of this weakness, these religious leaders always buttress their words with claims to priestly authority.  This claim of priestly authority empowers them to impose their will upon others.  This is one of the reasons it is so abhorrent to “take the name of the Lord, thy God, in vain,” which was included as one of the Ten Commandments.  Whenever someone proclaims their own agenda in the name of the Lord they take His name in vain.  It is not swearing, but rather when one claims to speak from the Lord when they do not, that violates the command against vainly using the Lord’s name.”

This last quote encapsulates this idea…of how our false traditions set up stakes around what we accept as truth and inspiration and revelation.  The current mainstream LDS belief is that if an idea doesn’t originate from within the hierarchy, from a calling that has the title flashed across our TV sets 2x/year of “Elder” or “Apostle” or “President”, then it’s not truth and we are to reject it…which is, if I may submit, a false tradition we hold to with everything we have…all we have to do is go to any LDS oriented forum or blog and 99% of the support for any argument is a statement by someone within the LDS institution and with a title of either Elder or President accompanying his name.

“Christ’s message is his authority.  His words are what distinguish His true ministers from false ones He never sent.  Anyone teaching His truth should be recognized as His messenger.  He taught this to Moroni.  Those who will receive Christ in any generation do so because they hear and recognize His words (see Ether 4:12).  Anyone who will not believe in His words, no matter who He sends to speak them, will not believe in Christ or His Father.  Those who trust only institutional sources of truth, whether they are Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, or Latter-day Saint, believe in an institution, and do not believe in Christ.  The ability to individually recognize His words distinguishes those who are saved from those who are lost.”

As with those who were present during Christ’s ministry, our pathways are intersecting even today and our decision is likewise similar with what they had to choose:

“…darkness can take hold of any people.  When it does they are inevitably led to take offense when the Lord (or any messenger sent by Him) walks in the light.  Darkness and light are always two different paths.  They are incompatible.  The people hearing Christ’s sermon at this time were required to choose between everything they had been taught all their lives and what Christ was teaching.  They were God’s chosen people, led by leaders chosen by God.  They were taught respect for the priestly authorities of their society by reading the scriptures, which assured them they were God’s “chosen people,” and by observing the traditions of their fathers.  They were led by recognized leaders, chosen in an established system of succession, on the one hand, and then this Man from Nazareth, lacking any sort of credentials, on the other, asking them to “come follow” Him.  Even though they had shouted “Hosanna!” at His arrival the day before, this sermon (Matt. 23) demanded they reject the established authorities in order to follow Him.”

You may have noticed that none of these quotes (those italicized and indented) have a name, book or reference and you may have wondered why.  This was done on purpose and certainly not in an attempt to deceive.  It should serve as a reminder of our reliance on titles, quotes and “authority.”  Would these quotes and statements mean more to you – and carry more weight in your mind – if it was your favorite author, your favorite general authority, your favorite apostle/prophet, or even if it was just from someone you respected for that matter?  Is the authority in the name and title, or the message?

Or, conversely, do they stand alone as truth…come from whence it may?

As always, corrections, rebukes, comments are appreciated.

All We Need is Love  by:  Guest Author (Tom)

What is Love, or in other words, what is Charity?

I’ve been engaged in several conversations over the past couple of weeks regarding the state of today’s LDS Church and have been constantly reminded that “all we need is Love”.  The response to inquiries into the state of the church, church policies, doctrines, leadership, etc., all goes back to this euphemism – “all we need is Love.”  Typically, this “love” is related to the differences between the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life.  The tree of life, symbolizing God’s love, is the tree we’re shooting for.  The tree of knowledge of good and evil, the tree we’re hoping to avoid, is the tree which, supposedly, relates to these inquiries, questions and discussions regarding the brethren, different policies and procedures.

The Nature of Criticism

It seems that the critique of a policy or procedure is inexplicably linked to a critique of the brethren (brethren being the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 Apostles).  No longer can we, as this logic flows, question something the church does without it automatically implicating them.  They, as I suppose, are those who send orders down to various levels of an extremely centralized hierarchy and as such purveyors of information, policy and procedure, they are either glorified or vilified for the results.  Never mind that this logic flow doesn’t truly work in other areas and sectors of our lives, it nevertheless is the apparent case within the LDS Church and its members.

Interestingly, in a talk which has granted members supposed justification to persecute others they view as criticizing, or at the very least a justification and need stifle “apostate” behaviors, Dallin H. Oaks differentiated between two kinds of criticism.  One he defined as “the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything”, and stated that this form of criticism is “inherent in the exercise of agency and freedom.”  Today, however, all criticism of church policies, teachings and programs seemingly fall within the other definition Dallin H. Oaks gave, that of “passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding.”  It’s unfortunate that members would persecute other members, and stifle discussion of issues, because of ignorance between these two definitions of criticism.

Indeed, Dallin H. Oaks further added this recommendation, which we’d do well to understand and implement:

“The counsel to avoid destructive personal criticism does not mean that Latter-day Saints need to be docile or indifferent to defective policies, deficient practices, or wrongful conduct … Our religious philosophy poses no obstacle to constructive criticism of such conditions. The gospel message is a continuing constructive criticism of all that is wretched or sordid in society.  … But Christians who are commanded to be charitable and to “[speak] the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15) should avoid personal attacks and shrill denunciations. Our public communications—even those protesting against deficiencies—should be reasoned in content and positive in spirit.” – Dallin H. Oaks

Instead of shying away because of fear of harming the reputation of people – especially when the modern man’s (and woman’s) ego is so fragile and easily harmed – we should engage in constructive criticism to avoid the pitfalls that come through groupthink.  However, within the LDS church today, any tiffs with policy, procedures or the like is automatically tainted because of alleged “evil speaking” or “faultfinding” of the brethren, a bitter fruit of that pesky tree of knowledge of good and evil.  This, to a large extent, serves to smother all discussion of policies, procedures, and matters emanating from the Church Office Building.  It seems to suggest that the teaching from the June 1945 Improvement Era maintains a stronghold on the minds of members at all levels of the hierarchy, especially at the individual level.  This teaching stated:

“…He [Lucifer] wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church to speak against their leaders and to “do their own thinking.”… When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan — it is God’s plan.   When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy…. (June 1945 Ward Teaching Lesson, Improvement Era 48:354)

Never mind that President George Albert Smith, the newly called President of the Church at that time, repudiated this teaching in his response to a letter from an official from another church questioning the message taught:

“…that the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church. Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church, which is that every individual must obtain for himself a testimony of the truth of the Gospel, must, through the redemption of Jesus Christ, work out his own salvation, and is personally responsible to his Maker for his individual acts…. (George Albert Smith Letter to Dr. J. Raymond Cope, Dec. 7,1945)

Yes, in spite of this repudiation and other teachings from the very leaders members sustain as prophets, seers and revelators, this same line of thinking largely exists inside the Church today.  To compound this problem – getting to the heart of this essay – one of the main reasons why we are to forgo our questioning and discussion into questionable policies, procedures and teachings is because we are to be Love.  “All we need is Love” is something that is frequently reiterated in response to anything that appears controversial.  To show love, it seems, we must show mercy, understanding and, unfortunately, acceptance in the face of contradictory information.  Acceptance as used in the previous sentence can either mean personal acceptance (i.e. agreement) or acceptance in that the church and its teachings are how they should be and to speak up is to partake of the bitter fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and the expense of the tree of life.

Personally, I fully agree that we must show mercy and understanding to those who labor for the cause of Zion – wherein they actually labor for that cause and not some other – but I do not agree with the injunction that we must accept and move on from the contradictions as we see them.  The reason why I disagree with this premise is rooted in this very discussion on love and charity.  Both love and charity have many levels of understanding, which magnifies the complexity of the situation.  To say that “all we need is love” is an extremely vague and misleading statement.  What kind of love, one might ask?  Do we show “love” in the permissive sense of the word, letting everyone do what they feel is right, or do we show “love” in the same way which Mormon and Moroni – the last two prophets in the Book of Mormon – and Christ showed love.

In writing this essay, I’m fully cognizant that I’m writing from an extremely flawed perspective and paradigm.  I am but one person and fully hope that my errors in reasoning, judgment and application of the following principles and scriptures will be pointed out to me to prevent further errors down the road.  This I fully accept and realize as truth.  Please correct me in my the rationale I put forth to reach my conclusions.

Mormon & Moroni

Moroni first emerges onto the scene in the Book of Mormon in statements made by his father, Mormon, near he end of the record as he states in a couple of different locations his plan to give some of the plates to his son to finish their writings and seal up the record for a latter day (see Words of Mormon 1:1; Mormon 6:6, 11).  It’s significant, in my flawed opinion, that Moroni’s first words and writings can be found in Mormon 8, a chapter filled with words which are none to pleasant on the ear of those living in the times he described.  Mormon 7 is a record of Mormon’s dying testimony, after which Moroni picks up the record and states, in Mormon 8:1, “I … do finish the record of my father, Mormon.”

Mormon 8 is a chapter that pulls on the heartstrings of anyone wanting to know the truth and willing to understand the context of Moroni’s words.  He, Moroni, is noticeably distraught over the destruction of his people, lamenting that:

“…and I even remain alone to write the sad tale of the destruction of my people.  But behold, they are gone, and I fulfil the commandment of my father.  And whether they will slay me, I know not. … wither I go it mattereth not … for I am alone.  My father hath been slain in battle, and all my kinsfolk, and I have not friends nor wither to go; and how long the Lord will suffer that I may live I know not.” (Mormon 8:3-5, emphasis added)

Moroni and Mormon, like Christ, were men acquainted with grief, sorrow, pain and death.  Their lives were lived in an era of constant war, destruction and death, Moroni even stated that “…the whole face of this land is one continual round of murder and bloodshed; and no one knoweth the end of the war.”  With this information as a pretext, we jump into the meat of Moroni’s teachings, but before doing so I must comment on love and charity.  In spite of all his afflictions, in spite of all that he had seen and lived through, Moroni nevertheless had a firm testimony of love and charity, because he had been gifted that pure love of Christ.

“34 And now I [Moroni] know that this ^alove which thou hast had for the children of men is charity; wherefore, except men shall have charity they cannot inherit that place which thou hast prepared in the mansions of thy Father.

“35 Wherefore, I [Moroni] know by this thing which thou hast said, that if the Gentiles have not ^acharity, because of our weakness, that thou wilt prove them, and ^btake away their ^ctalent, yea, even that which they have received, and give unto them who shall have more abundantly.

“36 And it came to pass that I [Moroni] prayed unto the Lord that he would give unto the Gentiles ^agrace, that they might have charity.

“37 And it came to pass that the Lord said unto me: If they have not charity it mattereth not unto thee, thou hast been faithful; wherefore, thy garments shall be made ^aclean. And because thou hast seen thy ^bweakness thou shalt be made strong, even unto the sitting down in the place which I have prepared in the mansions of my Father. (Ether 12:34-37)

In these verses I see a story of a man fighting within himself, wanting to be filled with charity in spite of all that is going on around him.  He grew up in a world filled with hate, murder, destruction and cynicism.  He grew up and lived a life which saw everything taken from him – his friends, kinsfolk, his father, the disciples who ministered to him and his father, and any semblance of a home.  Yet, in spite of all these struggles, we see a man who nevertheless was blessed with the gift of charity.  A gift he must have desired, a gift he must have asked for.  In pondering over verse 37, I wonder whether his weakness was a lack of charity during a portion of his earlier life.  In verse 36 he’s praying for others that they may receive grace, which would lead to charity.  In verse 37, the Lord tells him it does not matter whether they have charity (at least it did not matter to Moroni), but what did matter was that Moroni did see “[his] weakness” (verse 37), which the Lord, as promised, made into his strength.

It became such a strength to him that he felt, in spite of the lack of room he had on the plates (Mormon 8:5), the need to include a letter from his father on the topic of charity.  Within this letter Mormon states emphatically:

“Behold, I speak with boldness, having authority from God; and I fear not what man can do; for perfect love casteth out all fear…I am filled with charity, which is everlasting love…” (Moroni 8:16-17; emphasis added)

This particular verse is enlightening in how it deals with the discussion of love and charity because these verses immediately follow a stinging rebuke of those who believe in infant baptism, stating that such people are “pervert[ing] the ways of the Lord”, that they shall “perish” absent repentance, that they are in “the gall of bitterness and bonds of iniquity”, and that they neither have “faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go to hell.”  Those are some pretty strong words for a man, a prophet, who is filled with “everlasting love” and “with charity” and takes time to testify of his being filled with it, but only after reproving those who believe in a fallacious doctrine.

This chapter follows the beautiful writings of Mormon in Moroni 7 which discuss the “pure love of Christ.”  Moroni, likewise filled with such charity, stated throughout his short writings the need for charity, faith and hope and that all things will fail, excepting charity, and that “if ye have not charity, ye are nothing.”  These two men, father and son – Moroni and Mormon – knew like few others what it was like to have charity in the face of a life filled with unimaginable pain, suffering and sorrow.  This undoubtedly was one of the main reasons why they felt the need to share those words with us on the last few remaining pages of their written record, to us who may also witness similar sufferings and afflictions.

Later, Moroni, like his father, also issued a rebuke to us in the last days who pollute the holy church of God and prostitute ourselves for that which is of no worth.  His stinking rebuke was, nevertheless, a result of his love and charity towards us, as strange as that may seem.  He wasted no space in writing what he did, precisely and accurately describing what he needed and was inspired to say.  Some of his rebukes included the following language, in describing the time in which his record [the Book of Mormon] would come forth from out of the ground:

“…it shall come forth in a day when … the power of God shall be denied, and churches become defiled and be lifted up in the pride of their hearts…”

“…it shall come forth in a day when … there shall be churches built up that shall say:  Come unto me, and for your money you shall be forgiven of your sins.”

“…ye wicked and perverse and stiffnecked people … why have ye transfigured the word of God?”

“…ye do walk in the pride of your hearts … unto the wearing of very fine apparel, unto envying, and strifes, and malice, and persecutions, and all manner of iniquities; and your churches, yea, even every one, have become polluted because of the pride of your hearts…”

“…ye pollutions, ye hypocrites, ye teachers, who sell yourselves for that which will canker, why have ye polluted the holy church of God?”

“…why do ye build up your secret abominations to get gain, and cause that widows should mourn before the Lord, and also orphans…”  (Mormon 8:28-41).

I would recommend a thorough reading of the entire chapter with the thought in mind of how his charity and love for us, the very people he saw and was writing to, comes through in his words.  Surely, if we look at the words of both Mormon and Moroni we can see that charity and love include a level which can and must be described as either hard, tough, or a rebuking love.  Love is much more than a platitude we add to letters, conversations and discourses about positive messages, it’s also a willingness to say the hard things that sting and cut through the fluff all too present in our current dialogues and conversations.  In writing this they were no doubt partaking of the fruit of the Tree of Life, God’s love, in that they were laboring to bring men unto repentance and laboring to get men, across centuries of time, to turn back to God and Christ.

Truly, these men emulated Christ, and truly received “the pure love of Christ”, which required that they, at times, teach truth which is hard to receive (at least, for those who reject truth because it’s uncomfortable).

Christ

Turning, then, to Christ, who needs neither introduction nor preface, especially from me, and some of the ways he showed charity and love to those around him.  I will not attempt to create an exhaustive list of some of his stinging rebukes, but have selected some which show several different ways he used and taught love and charity to those around him:

“And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness. … Woe unto you, Pharisees! For ye love the uppermost seats in the synagogues, and the greetings in the market.  Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For yea re as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over them are not aware of them. … Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! For ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.  … Woe unto you, lawyers! For ye have taken away the key of knowledge; the fullness of the scriptures; ye enter not in yourselves into the kingdom, and those who were entering in ye hindered” – Luke 11:39-52 (emphasis added)

“And Jesus answering said, O faithless and perverse generation …” – Luke 9:41 (emphasis added)

“And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My ^ahouse shall be called the house of ^bprayer; but ye have made it a ^cden of thieves.” – Matthew 21:12-13 (emphasis added)

“The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from ^aheaven.  He ^aanswered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red.  And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and ^alowring, O ye ^bhypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the ^csigns of the ^dtimes?  A wicked and ^aadulterous generation seeketh after a ^bsign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the ^csign of the prophet ^dJonas. And he left them, and departed.  ¶ Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the ^aleaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.  And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread.  ^aWhich when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread?  Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?  Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?  How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?  Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the ^adoctrine of the Pharisees and of the ^bSadducees. – Matthew 16:1-12

And thus commandeth the Father that I should say unto you: At that day when the Gentiles shall ^asin against my gospel, and shall reject the fulness of my gospel, and shall be ^blifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth, and shall be filled with all manner of lyings, and of deceits, and of mischiefs, and all manner of hypocrisy, and ^cmurders, and ^dpriestcrafts, and whoredoms, and of secret abominations; and if they shall do all those things, and shall ^ereject the fulness of my gospel, behold, saith the Father, I will bring the fulness of my gospel from among them.” – 3 Nephi 16:10 (emphasis added)

“And while they were at variance one with another they became very ^aslothful, and they hearkened not unto the commandments of their lord.  And the enemy came by night, and broke down the ^ahedge; and the servants of the nobleman arose and were affrighted, and fled; and the enemy destroyed their works, and broke down the olive-trees.  Now, behold, the nobleman, the lord of the ^avineyard, called upon his servants, and said unto them, Why! what is the cause of this great evil?  Ought ye not to have done even as I commanded you, and—after ye had planted the vineyard, and built the hedge round about, and set watchmen upon the walls thereof—built the tower also, and set a ^awatchman upon the tower, and watched for my vineyard, and not have fallen asleep, lest the enemy should come upon you?  And behold, the watchman upon the tower would have seen the enemy while he was yet afar off; and then ye could have made ready and kept the enemy from breaking down the hedge thereof, and saved my vineyard from the hands of the destroyer. – D&C 101:43-62 (50-54)

There are likewise hundreds of other scriptures in the same vein, uttered, written or spoken by Christ (or his authorized servants) throughout our standard works.  The number of times that Christ has called us wicked, perverse, faithless, adulterous, hypocrites, murderers, full of priestcrafts and wickedness, materialistic, rotten on the inside, and other names and insinuations is almost without number.  Are his rebukes and criticism examples of his partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, a bitter fruit, an example of him not showing forth the very charity of which He himself is the definition?  Did he ever partake of that bitter fruit?  I think the answer to these questions is self-evident.  In all of this Christ provided the perfect example of one who was all about love, whose every action was motivated by pure love for those around him, including the Pharisees and scribes and including us, perhaps the most perverse and wicked generation yet to live on this green earth.  Indeed, Christ is the very definition of charity, especially when it meant rebuking and calling out those who were preaching false doctrines, following false traditions and professing to know his name and gospel.

Conclusion

In the aforementioned examples of Moroni, Mormon and Christ, we have direct and scriptural examples of both love and charity through the use of words and criticism which we typically associate with partaking of the bitter fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  This association, as we can see, is largely false.  Charity and love occasionally require us to “[reprove] betimes with sharpness” (D&C 121:43).

One of the definitions for “betimes”, according to the Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, is “before it is late” or in “good time”.  In Hebrew, the word for “betimes” is shachar which means to “seek early”, “look early for”, etc.  The reproof needed, then, as directed by the Holy Ghost, must be done before something gets out of hand, while there’s still time to correct the erroneous path and well before the errors take hold within the individual, quorum, class or wherever it’s found.  For those members of the church who hold the priesthood, if they’ve attained the office of teacher or higher (in either the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthoods), then they have a scriptural duty to “teach, expound, exhort, baptize and watch over the church” (D&C 20:42, 53).  To watch over something implies observation, vigilance and providing protection from harm (see Nehemiah 4:7-9; Luke 2:8; D&C 61:38; D&C 82:5; among many others).

To what end do we, or should we, “watch over the church” and how does this relate to charity and love?  I believe that watching over and protecting both flocks and individual sheep (including myself) from harm, error and evil (where we see it and where we are in position to say something) is perhaps the epitome of charity and love that Christ, Mormon and Moroni were showing.  They said and did the things they did because they truly cared for us, were concerned for our spiritual welfare and had special responsibilities and callings to “watch” over us.  Indeed, the Lord is our Shepherd.  His utmost concern is to watch over us and provide us protection from the storms of life where we need it.  If one fails in their watch, as those responsible for building the watchtower in D&C 101, then that person has no charity and must fail.  Christ has charity because he is the very definition of charity and love.  Sometimes that charity and love is soft and meek, sometimes that charity and love is hard and reproves us because of our wickedness.

Questioning a policy, practice or teaching within the church can be, depending on the method, the epitome of love and charity, serving to correct error and lift everyone to higher planes of understanding.  In a world which has grown soft to criticism, where anything relating to “negativity” is viewed as a personal attack or, worse, “evil speaking” and “faultfinding”, and where we in the church are told to avoid all forms of criticism for fear of partaking of that bitter fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, this lesson gets lost in the mud of life and buried deep beneath the surface.

No matter the result, if we deceive ourselves into believing that the only duty we have is to profess allegiance to a form of love which ignores the very love which Jesus and the Lord’s authorized servants have employed since Adam was first on the earth, and if we imply that we have no duty to “watch” over our respective flocks, to speak up and confront error when so impressed by the Holy Ghost, indicates nothing more than the sad fact that we have no understanding of love, nor charity, and must fail.  To suggest that any critique or criticism of policies, practices (false or otherwise), teachings and traditions is partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil at the expense of partaking of God’s love is to promote a perverted version of the truth.  For it is true that at the end of the day all we really do need is love…Christ’s true love, not a misleading definition that promotes both the ignoring and continuation of fallacies wherever they may be found.

Your thoughts, critiques and rebukes are encouraged. 

I wrote this years ago, so I can’t remember all the sources, but this time of year always brings it fresh to my mind.

The Babylonian celebration commences again today (on black friday), as Malls around the world fill up with folks spending money on credit, given them by banks supported by the central banking system…Then put them under trees and marvel at the pile of idols they have accumulated.  Only to tear them open with savage ferocity.    Ah Santa, you do have us smitten don’t you.

• Santa, the anagramatical representation..
• Satan-the chief evil spirit; the great adversary of humanity; the devil
• Sanat-the Hidden word in occult for Satan, GOD, messiah. (also Idol, Art)
• Santa-hmmm…..The spelling isn’t important in occult. Anagram, it has the same meaning, and the same revered letters..

“Lucifer’s True Identity as Satan is Revealed as the Anagram, a Transposition of Letters, To Obscure It. ‘Blinds’, as esoterics call them, include scrambling the letters of a name to hide the true meaning of a word from the uninitiated.”
(Gail Riplinger, New Age Versions, p. 52)

“Gods of the New Age include Sanatan and Sanatsiyata, . . . New Agers say each name is ‘concealed anagrammatically’ ‘and are aliases,’ and are ‘an anagram used for Occult purposes. Santa, the great usurper of Christ’s attention at Christmas, an anagram? “Ole Nick” is listed among the fallen angels or devils in the Dictionary of Fallen Angels. Scholars concur that Christ was born in the fall on the 4th day of the feast of tabernacles. December 25 is actually “the feast in honor of the birth of the son of the Babylonian queen of heaven, later called Saturnaha by the heathen Romans.” (will be dicussed later)
(Gail Riplinger, New Age Versions, p. 52)

• Santa is the name Catholics give to Female saints. hence, Santa Maria
• Santa can be everywhere at any time, delivering presents, Omnipresent
• Santa knows all the sins and misdeeds of boys and girls, Omniscient
• Santa defies natures laws, goes down chimney, flies, etc… Omnipotent
• Santa encourages parents to lie to kids for their enjoyment
• Santa wants all kids to be good for him to bring presents
• Santa wants all children to sit on his knees
• Santa is the bringer of all good gifts
• Santa wears red, Our Blood on his Garments when he comes to give..
• Santa’s hour of arrival is unknown to children
• Santa sits on His throne, invites our Children on His knee, and yells HOHOHO

Thus saith the Lord, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.
3 For the customs of the people are vain; for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.
4 They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. (Jeremiah 10:2)
Children everywhere look forward to the return of Santa Annually, how cunning. A history lesson…The scripture above refers to a Pagan Holiday, Babylonian, celebrated annually on Dec. 25 as the birth of the Nimrod, long before the birth of Christ. He is that great dictator who created the tower of Babel and established the competitive enterprise system of buying and selling to attain wealth. He married His Mother, and was a great leader, establishing such places as Ninevah. Nimrod, from Egypt, was the grandson of Ham. Upon his Death his mother claimed that an evergreen tree grew overnight, which showed that Nimrod would live forever in their lives. She claimed that he would return to give good gifts to all of babylon and place gifts on the trees they erected in his honor. Through her scheming she became the diven Queen, and He the Divine Son. Images of the Madonna and child were seen throughout Babylon long before the birth of Christ. These Pagan beliefs eventually filtered into the Christian world. Saint Nicklaus, a Saint who gave good gifts and served men, became the hero, as someone to look toward for an example of a Christ like life. The fictional character Santa Claus (Male with the female name of a saint) replaced Him. Now santa with her opulent belly white beard and long hair, our sins on her robe, Sits on her throne in malls, judging the children, and bringing them good gifts. The pagan tree in the honor of Nimrod erected in all homes.
There is no doubt that Jesus wasn’t borne in the dead of Winter on the 25th of December. There is no doubt who is worshiped with frenzied buying and selling in the marketplace, and the giving of gifts to show our love.
Are we doing it unto the Lord? As we sit in front of our Christmas tree idol, opening the things of this world in joy, let us be reminded of someone else who built an Idol unto the Lord as a day of Worship…
2 And Aaron said unto them, Break off the agolden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me. 3 And all the people brake off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron.
4 And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a amolten calf: and they said, bThese be thycgods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
5 And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, Tomorrow is a feast to the LORD.

If we love Christ we will keep His commandments. The Gift we will give is our whole selves, and all of our mind and will, on the Alter made in worship and prayer. We are God’s people ISRAEL! Yes, we’re IN BABYLON, as Bible and Modern prophecy foretold, and we don’t know it! Come OUT of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her SINS, and that ye receive not of HER PLAGUES” — now soon to fall — is the warning of Rev. 18:4. Touch not their Unclean things. Come ye out, be ye separate.

Perhaps this season we can worship God and His son Jesus Christ with all the gusto we generally give to this Christmas celebration. Perhaps we can seek Him, and eagerly await His coming, not shooting past the mark. The Savior lives, of this I bear testimony. Let us worship at His feet, as the Mediator to God.

This is Part I of a multi-part series, being an invited and inferior guest.  There will be at least two parts to this series, and possibly more, though that is up in the air at this point.

I have been pondering a few things over the past couple of days related to several Book of Mormon characters, prominent characters in some of the stories contained therein.  I’ve been wondering what it would be like if we could transplant them into our modern day world and church.  Take them, and all their experiences, and thrust them into today and see the reaction.  Not so much their reaction as ours.  Would they be the wellspring of faith they were then, or would we cast them aside because of our traditions and cultural assumptions?  It’s a question I feel is worth discussion.

Alma the Younger

The first character that’s been occupying my thoughts is Alma the Younger and, more specifically, his experiences in and around his father establishing a new church after being the only priest in King Noah’s court who both heard and felt the message of Abinadi.  This blog’s original six-part series on Abinadi has helped immensely in my thoughts and is worth reading.  From part I of that series I borrow the following statement, which is basically where I pick up at:

“Zeniff calls and consecrates, with proper priesthood, twelve high priests and serves as the president of that high priesthood, as evidenced by Noah removing all of his father’s high priests (Mos. 11:5).”

That is the opening salvo of this entry.  Alma the Younger and his father present an intriguing idea.  Alma the Younger’s father was a member of King Noah’s court, though possibly the youngest member of that court.  He was described as being a “young man” (Mosiah 17:2) and was personally selected to serve as a priest over the church in their day, Alma himself apparently “lifted up in the pride of [his] heart”, “idolatrous”, and more than willing to be supported in his “laziness” and “whoredoms” (Mosiah 11:5-6).  As this story plays out, it truly becomes a “like father, like son” event, the father and son playing quite similar roles and experiencing quite similar conversions over the span of a few dozen years.  Abinadi comes and preaches the words the Lord tells him (Mosiah 11), and then disappears for a space of two full years.  After this two year window, he returns.  There’s little doubt that Alma, the father, knew of Abinadi and what he was preaching.  Being a member of the twelve priests set to watch over the church, he was likely privy to many discussions on what to do with and to this man, prior to his disappearance, who was claiming to speak on an errand from the Lord.  Actions like Abinadi’s, which directly undermined the both church’s and the priests authority, simply couldn’t be tolerated and Alma would have been part of those who would be judge, jury and executioner of this “false prophet” among their mainstream church.

Two years later, and under a cloak of disguise, Abinadi returns on command from the Lord to preach to the same people, with the same leaders in place, the same message – that of repentance.  It appears (Mosiah 12:9) that the people do not recognize or remember Abinadi, calling him merely “a man.”  This time, however, he’s not delivered and is taken before King Noah’s court and his priests.  At that point, both the people and priests pander to King Noah, as they hold a “council” (Mosiah 12:17) to determine Abinadi’s fate.

Rather than belabor that part of the story and what happened, Abinadi is brought before the council, questioned, cross-examined and ridiculed.  King Noah decides it’s time to slay him, but all of the priests and King Noah are witnesses to a divine intervention where they cannot seize hold of Abinadi and he is protected by God (Mosiah 13:1-3).  Alma would obviously have been a witness to this event and one begins to wonder where his thoughts are at, especially if he remembers anything from the previous encounter with Abinadai.  Alma was no doubt prepared for this event during the previous two years while Abinadi was away.  During that lag in time, he seems to have changed from an “idolatrous” man, to one who “knew concerning the iniquity which Abinadi had testified of” (Mosiah 17:2).  Perhaps during that two year window Alma had tried to speak up about some of the things going on, though with likely much difficulty because he was but a “young man” amongst older priests.  Perhaps he had spoken on other occasions to King Noah and the priests about the things they were doing – if only because he, as a priest of the church, was thrown out upon having said those words.  Alma’s moments of preparation brought him to where he was, and provided him with a jumping off point…

…

Now we fast forward a few years.  Alma’s remnant group broke off from the main church body taking, baptizing and re-baptizing all those who wanted to come (204 souls in total – a very small minority no doubt, see Mosiah 18:16), was forced to hide in the wilderness and move from place to place due to the persecutions at the hands of the remaining priests of King Noah and King Noah himself.  The group grows, is described as a “movement” which King Noah both discovered and knew all about (Mosiah 18:32) and reaches a total of 450 members.  In the space of a few short days/months, the church more than doubles in size, though still, no doubt, miniscule in comparison to the larger, “mainstream” church.  For sake of length, there is a lot that happens between this point and Mosiah 23, where the story of Alma picks up again.

Then, once the story resumes, in a strange twist of fate, Alma and his followers get persecuted by a man named Amulon, who was the leader of King Noah’s priests who had fled into the wilderness, seduced the Lamanites and now found themselves, once again, in power over Alma’s remnant group (Mosiah 24:8).  Interestingly enough, it appears that Amulon was the priest who either replaced Alma when his spot was vacated, or another spot shortly thereafter.  Mosiah 24:8-9 reads:

8 And now it came to pass that ^aAmulon began to exercise ^bauthority over Alma and his brethren, and began to persecute him, and cause that his children should persecute their children.

9 For Amulon knew Alma, that he had been ^aone of the king’s priests, and that it was he that believed the words of Abinadi and was driven out before the king, and therefore he was wroth with him; for he was subject to king Laman, yet he exercised authority over them, and put ^btasks upon them, and put ^ctask-masters over them.

Verse 9, by itself is especially enlightening in this context.  Amulon knew Alma, knew that Alma was that priest who “believed the words of Abinadi” and the priest who was driven out from “before the king”, though it’s important to point out that there’s no reference to them knowing each other as priests.  Verse 8 seems to indicate the likely seeds of the eventual tension between Alma and his son, Alma the Younger.  It seems that Alma the Younger was singled out and persecuted by Amulon’s children, singled out for being Alma’s son, the son of that priest who ruined the perfect, flourishing society of King Noah.  It was Alma who brought the great problems onto the people – not knowing who else to blame and already having killed Abinadi – and so it begins with Alma the Younger.  It is at this point or sometime near this point that I believe that Alma the Younger begins to instructed and taught about what his father did, though with a decidedly negative twist.  It is at this point no doubt that Alma the Younger begins to hear of the “true, mainstream church” from a different perspective, one which was likely apologetic to both King Noah, his priests and their deeds.  The seeds of doubt are planted in a young Alma’s mind, seeds which sprout in apparently fertile ground.

It is also at this point that the people of Alma are forbidden from any sort of prayer, except those which cannot be seen (from the heart) – Amulon exercising his authority over them.  It is also likely that this is the point when Alma the Younger is being persecuted, a point when he is most vulnerable (being young and forbidden from praying).  Alma the Younger also grew up in a period of unbelief generally, not just because of the prayer issue though that certainly played a dominant role in the time period.  There were some, likely contemporaries of Alma the Younger, who were present for King Benjamin’s discourse, but too young, at the time, to understand and now old enough to choose not follow the traditions of their fathers.  (Mosiah 26:1-4).  These unbelievers were gifted with some of the same gifts Alma the Younger possessed, namely flattery and the ability to flatter (Mosiah 26:6).  These unbelievers did “deceive many” because of their flattering words.

The link we see here, is that later these are the very same descriptions used to describe Alma the Younger as he sought to destroy the church.  Alma, the father, apparently “did not know concerning [these unbelievers]” (Mosiah 26:9), but nevertheless petitioned both King Mosiah and the Lord to find out what to do with them, not wanting to “do wrong in the sight of God” (Mosiah 26:13).  He receives a miraculous answer which includes his calling and election, as well as a revelation to do nothing to the unbelievers other than “blot” out the names of these unbelievers from the records of the church (Mosiah 26:15-32), a purging of the records of the church if you will.

We don’t read it here in chapter 26, but what I find even more enlightening and thought provoking about this purging of the records of the church is that it almost certainly included the purging of the records of four of the sons of Mosiah, as well as at least one of the sons of Alma, Alma the Younger.  Alma most certainly didn’t want to do wrong “in the sight of the Lord” with respect to his immediate family any more than he did the general populous, though he was undoubtedly more afflicted by what he’d eventually do to his son.  Mosiah 27:8 describes the sons of Mosiah and Alma the Younger as being “numbered among the unbelievers”, numbered among the “idolatrous” and among those who deceived members of the church using “flattery”, numbered among the “unbelievers” because their names had been removed from the Church’s records and rolls.  In this same revelation, Alma learns of his calling and election and assurance of eternal life.  The dichotomy is striking.  On the one hand, Alma the elder is assured of eternal life, while on the other he’s expressly told to excommunicate and blot out the names of the unbelievers, his son being one of them.  This blotting out has definite application to the possibility of eternal life for those unbelievers.  Having their names “blotted” out was no doubt painful for Alma, he having risked his life, occupation and all means for providing his family to establish the very church his son was now not only kicked out of, but also seeking to destroy.

Returning, if only briefly, to the description of Alma the Younger, we do know is that he was an “idolatrous” man (Mosiah 27:8), a definition that very easily could be interpreted as a man very taken by materialism (both Hugh Nibley’s and Avraham Gileadi’s interpretations of Idolatry fits here), as he was an “unbeliever”, this seems the most likely application of the word.  Hugh Nibley’s definition of idolatry was not that “things” were gods in the sense they were literally worshiped, but rather in the sense that their manufacture, promotion and sale provided the people with a living an d a means of sustenance.

As Avraham Gileadi put it:

“Economic factors determined social behavior – the law of supply. Manufacturing the works of men’s hands yielded income but constituted idolatry, because what so many people worked at, oriented their lives to, was ultimately unproductive. … It enslaved to a false idea not merely those directly involved with it but also those who produced foodstuffs and raw materials. The latter labored to provide for all the rest. … In short, the works of men’s hands on which people set their hearts, on which they spend Natural and human resources, are by definition “idols” (Isa. 2:8, Jer. 10:1-5). As the prophets describe them, these are idols that people invent, design, sketch, carve, forge, molten, cast, weld, plate, fit, hammer, rivet, and mass produce.  Manufactured, promoted, and sold for gold and silver (Isa. 44:9; 46:6), the idols are the fruits of technology of well-nigh magical dimensions (Isa. 47:10, 12). They follow trends and engage the whole of society (Isa. 44:11,47:13). Depending on the kinds of idols, people both carry them about and set them in place in their homes (Isa. 45:20; 46:7).  The entire production of idols, however, is erroneous and vain (Jer. 51:17-18).  It causes people to become like the idols themselves, sightless and mindless of things spiritual, unaware and insensible to impending disaster (Isa. 42:17-20; 44:9, 45:16).  It constitutes a “wine” that Makes people drunk and made the wine of Babylon (Jer. 51:7 and Rev. 18:3).” (Last Days Types and Shadows).

King Noah, during his reign, established a very materialistic society and church…preferring the works of their hands (temples, buildings, etc) over the works of the spirit (probably because they couldn’t feel or recognize the spirit).  Soon after taking his position at the head of the church, he instituted a flat tax of one-fifth of everything (a likely combination of tithing to the church and taxes to the government (10% for each)).  The reason for instituting this “flat tax” was to create a superficial feeling of growth amongst the people, to create a superficial feeling of righteousness.  The taxes and tithing funded the growth and expansion from both a spiritual (renovation of the temple) and secular (palaces, buildings, etc).

He then, with the help of the yes-men priests he selected, including Alma, set about to complete a work of construction and building which may have been unrivaled in Nephite history up to that point.  Mosiah 11:6-15 discusses the work that was completed, namely elegant and spacious buildings, ornamentations of all kinds, a spacious palace, a renovation of the temple, new seats for the high priests, a new pulpit, new towers to look out for danger, as well as vineyards and winepresses.  In short, a mass stimulus plan was passed, thanks to the new flat tithing tax, which funded the building of a society. Truly they were a “prosperous” people – an immense period of building, progress and growth – and they took their prosperity to be a direct indication of their righteousness (Mosiah 12:15).  This prosperity, no doubt, created a feeling of “all is well in Zion” and a feeling, no doubt, that people like Amulon and the other “idolatrous” unbelievers were trying to recreate the best they could.  Amulon then passed that belief down to his children and followers.

Under these circumstances it’s very likely, almost certain, that Alma the Younger knew of the “prosperity”, the growth, the construction, the work, the lifestyle that was happened in and around King Noah’s people even though he was likely born in the wilderness, and it’s likely he too yearned for that lifestyle after finding the sons of Mosiah.

Thus, amidst a convergence of events, Alma the Younger seeks to destroy the church his father was inspired to establish, a church which he was excommunicated and blotted out from.  He may have viewed his father’s church as “apostate”, given that it was a remnant of the mainstream church and likely persecuted the members of the church based on this information and he may have even meant well, and he may have been upset given the ease with which the other people lived (riches, etc).  We read he, along with the sons of Mosiah, caused much “dissension” (Mosiah 27:9) as they went about secretly teaching the members of the church what they believed, and it isn’t too much of a stretch to suggest that the dissension may well have come from one comparing the two churches and explaining why the one was wrong and the other right.  If Alma the Younger believed they were all wrong, I see no reason for him going about secretly to members houses.  There is a plethora of examples of people who believe nothing and who are more than willing to stand up on their soap box and claim that there’s no Messiah, no God, no church to which one must go.

And these “flatterers” likely would have had a compelling case…especially if there were statements and writings at the time (and there probably were) saying that the authority remained with King Noah and/or the priests after Zeniff passed it on to King Noah and after King Noah died, and to reject that authority was to reject the word of God.  I can see the persuasiveness in that argument, we see it today, and it’s certainly a type and shadow of today.  Alma the Younger was probably very much attracted to the tradition and history of the “mainstream” church of his day, yearning for the materialism, success and ease and freedom from the persecution he felt as a child.  He, in that respect, was a mirror image of his father sitting among the priests of King Noah.

The only reason he was converted was due to a vision, a miraculous divine intervention, an intervention that mirrors his father’s “about face” as he sat watching and listening to Abinadi.  Both of them were spending their lives as idolatrous, lazy and participating in all sorts of wickedness, only to change due to a miraculous intervention in their lives, witnesses to intense and divine pivot points.  It was probably quite the experience for Alma the Younger, just as it was for his father.  His whole world and belief system tipped upside down.  The angel of the Lord told him that the church he was trying to destroy was His church (perhaps because Alma the Younger very much thought that it was an apostate form of the “true” church, thus worthy of destruction) (Mosiah 27:13).

Then, after Alma the Younger was dumbfounded, on question comes to mind, that of why would his father bring his son before the body of the remnant church in an effort to show them the power of God?  Perhaps, just perhaps, it was to show the remnant (who may have been wavering because of the persecution they were receiving) that their prayers were answered and that they were on the track God wanted them to be on, they weren’t just some “apostate” branch which had wrongfully broken off from the mainstream church.  Mosiah 27:33 speaks of how, after the vision and after their change of hearts, Alma the Younger and the sons of Mosiah went about preaching to the unbelievers – the very people they spent their time with prior to their conversion – and how their preaching and miraculous conversion “confirm[ed] their [the remnants] faith” and brought “much consolation” to the new church.  It appears that this fledgling church was experiencing a significant identity crisis.

The verses immediately before and after verse 33 read as follows:

32 And now it came to pass that Alma began from this time forward to teach the people, and those who were with Alma at the time the angel appeared unto them, traveling round about through all the land, publishing to all the people the things which they had heard and seen, and preaching the word of God in much tribulation, being greatly persecuted by those who were unbelievers, being smitten by many of them.

33 But notwithstanding all this, they did impart much consolation to the church, confirming their faith, and exhorting them with long-suffering and much travail to keep the commandments of God.

34 And four of them were the ^asons of Mosiah; and their names were Ammon, and Aaron, and Omner, and Himni; these were the names of the sons of Mosiah.

35 And they traveled throughout all the land of Zarahemla, and among all the ^apeople who were under the reign of king Mosiah, ^bzealously striving to repair all the injuries which they had done to the church, ^cconfessing all their sins, and publishing all the things which they had seen, and explaining the prophecies and the scriptures to all who desired to hear them.

36 And thus they were instruments in the hands of God in bringing many to the knowledge of the truth, yea, to the knowledge of their Redeemer.

It is interesting to note, in this particular light, that these four sons of Mosiah and Alma the Younger went about “zealously striving to repair all the injuries which they had done to the church” (Mosiah 27:35), striving to teach the same “unbelievers” who they themselves were building up and supporting only a few days/weeks prior.  Is it plausible that they were striving to repair injuries associated within the context of a fallen, worldly church (whose members were numbered among the “unbelievers” the scriptures mention, and as Abinadi testified, see Mosiah 11-16) versus a remnant branch, they having ridiculed the remnant branch prior to their conversion?  Now, those who had heard these men ridicule the remnants, were now hearing a new story that they had a miraculous change of heart, a conversion.  That would be a tough sell for even the softest of unbelievers.

…

This ended up being a lot longer than I imagined, so I apologize, but each verse led to more thoughts and more insights into (a) how Alma the Younger came to persecute his father’s remnant branch, (b) the similarities between Alma the Younger and his father, and (c) the incredible depth of this story as it teaches lessons for our day.

So, in conclusion, how would Alma the Younger and the sons of Mosiah be viewed in our Church today?  Would they be “forgiven” by men who witnessed their attacks on the church, among both the believers and unbelievers?  Would they be allowed to re-enter the church and hold callings?  Would they be allowed to even stand up at the pulpit and preach of their conversion?  Or, because of their “visibility” within the church and the destruction they had caused, would they be ridiculed, mocked and ostracized?  Clearly the people of that time were relieved and welcomed the conversion, undoubtedly giving thanks for their preaching to the “unbelievers”, but would we as a church today grant the same forgiveness and grace?  Would their priesthood leaders be as willing to forgive, let alone believe their account of an angel appearing to them?

For Modern dimensions, these are the dimension that Brigham used.

“The altar is 2 1/2 feet long X 2 1/2 feet high X (one) foot wide rising from a platform about 8 or 9 inches high and extending out on all sides about afoot forming a convenient place to kneel upon. The top of the altar and the platform for kneeling upon are covered with cushions of scarlet damask cloth; the sides of the upright part or body of the altar are covered with white linen.” (Mss. Hist. of Brigham Young; By J. Watson, p.

However, from looking scripturally, I doubt it matters who or what.  There were altars of stone “uncut by man”, seemingly for animal sacrifice, and altars of earth, perhaps for the offering of the fruits of the field and here we have mention of a wooed one…   The type might only be of importance as to the care it took to offering that prayer.  However, an altar is needed, what type I am not sure is significant.

That he may act in concert also with my servant Joseph; and that he shall receive council from my servant Joseph, who shall show unto him the keys whereby he may ask and receive, and be crowned with the same blessings, and glory, and honor and priesthood, and gifts of the priesthood, that once were put upon him that was my servant Oliver Cowdery. (D&C 124:94-95.)

“The Lord has promised to reveal his mysteries to those who serve him in faithfulness. . . .There are no mysteries pertaining to the Gospel, only as we, in our weakness, fail to comprehend Gospel truth, . . . The simple principles of the Gospel, such as baptism, the atonement, are mysteries to those who do not have the guidance of the Spirit of the Lord.” (Church History and Modern Revelation, 1:43.)

I preached on the keys of the Kingdom. . . The keys are certain signs and words by which false spirits and personages may be detected from true, which cannot be revealed to the Elders till the Temple is completed. . . . There are sign in heaven, earth and hell, the Elders must know them all to be endowed with power, to finish their work and prevent imposition. The devil knows many signs but does not know the sign of the Son of Man, or Jesus . No one can truly say he knows God until he has handled something, and this can only be in the Holiest of Holies. (Ehat and Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith, p. 119-120)

“Let me ask of you, when did you ever, any of you, humble yourselves before God, when did you in secret call upon him in the name of Jesus and ask him for his Holy Spirit and the blessings thereof, and fail to receive an answer to your prayers? If there are any Latter-day Saints in this condition then there is something wrong with them. God has made promises unto us that if we will do certain things, if we will obey certain commandments and ordinances He will bestow his blessings and He will answer the prayers of those who take this course. But how many are there of us who go on day to day and week to week and month to month careless upon these points, failing to live so as to receive the blessings that He has promised, until it would seem when they bow down to call upon Him that their prayers scarcely ascend higher than the tops of their heads. (George Q. Cannon, Journal of Discourses, Vol 21:74.)

Then, as ministers of righteousness, I want you to go to work at home. Why? Simply because home is the place where you should live your religion. … seek to make your own home the dwelling place of God; seek to make it a sanctuary where the richest blessings of God shall be enjoyed where the truth shall be kept in rich stores to bless you and yours. … But the foundation of purity should be at our homes: there God should dwell; there God should reign in all the greatness of his glory, and in all the perfection’s of his attributes. (Amasa Lyman, Journal of Discourses 7:303-304)

…let the light of eternal truth be kindled in every heart, let the fire that will consume the dross of our errors be lighted up in every soul, in every household, until every household becomes a sanctuary of the Most High, and until every family becomes a worshipping assembly such as will be acceptable to God – a people whom he will delight to own, to honor and to bless, and then, … home will be a happy one, it will be a little heaven below. (Amasa Lyman, Journal of Discourses, Vol 10:185-186)

“The focal point of religious worship throughout the ages, and in most cultures, has been the altar — a natural or man-made elevation used for prayer, sacrifice, and related purposes. . . .The altar was built that people might kneel by it to communicate and make covenants with their God.” (Encyclopedia of Mormonism p. 36-37.)

And it is not alone the duty of High Councils and Presidents of Stakes, and of Bishops and their Councilors to labor to correct the errors of the people, but it is the duty of every Elder, High Priest, and Seventy – and especially the Priests, Teachers, and Deacons that are appointed and called to be standing ministers in the Church, to visit the house of each member and become familiar with every family, and every individual member of the family and their daily walk and life and conversation; and ascertain whether they are living as Saints should live; whether the heads of families preside in righteousness in their houses; whether their houses are set in order; whether they have an altar erected whereon are offered up their daily, morning and evening devotions; whether every member is taught to reverence and respect that altar; whether each individual prays in secret as well as responds to the calls made upon him to pray in the family circle and in public… (Erastus Snow, Journal of Discourses, Vol 24:70-71.)

Do your duty, and you will make every house and every place a palace, and your homes will be as the gate of heaven, and a source of joy to your husbands. Of course you must have a heaven of that which you have made. Why, I would go to work and make an altar and a heaven, and I never would take any other course than that which is honorable before God; and how can you live your religion without this? (Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 5, p. 221)

August 9, 1857 Sunday I attended the Prayer Circle there being 24 in the Circle. We occupied President Young’s new upper Room in his new House for the first time. (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal Vol 5. p. 73.)

Take ten men whose hearts, when they pray, are upon one sentence and upon one idea at a time, when they ask God for anything, or to bring this or that to pass, do you think that the powers of hell can hinder what they ask for ? No. It is as true as the heavens – as firm as the mountains that rest upon these valleys – as sure as eternity, that nothing can fail which they agree upon; for God will grant it. What is our difficulty? When I go to my prayer-room, among men who have been with me for years, there is too great a diversity of feelings and desire to be in accordance with the Gospel. There is too much of Babylon in that. When that is the case, and when I am praying for one thing and others for another, our faith comes in contact and we do not receive what we ask for. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol 6:45.)

I am standing on what to me is sacred ground. My grandparents and my parents and many other relatives lived here in Provo and some still live here. My father as young man came near losing his life in the Provo river, not far from where we are now. His father, who was in Salt Lake City, felt impressed to go into a room that had been set apart for prayer. He clothed himself in Temple robes, knelt down at the altar and said: “Heavenly Father, I feel that there is something seriously wrong with my family in Provo. Thou knowest that I can not be with them there and be here. Heavenly Father, wilt thou preserve and safeguard them, and I will be grateful to thee and honor thee.” (George A. Smith, Sharing the Gospel With Others, p. 83-84.)

THIS ONE IS FUNNY

And I think, if we all remember our prayers in the season thereof, in sincerity and truth, that our light would shine before us according to our needs and wants. It is too often the case this important duty is neglected. . . . So our prayers in private and family circle are secret and retired from the public, but they keep the fire burning upon the altar of our hearts. And it is not often that persons who faithfully attend to this duty walk in darkness, it is seldom that they apostatize and turn away from the faith, especially when we couple our solemn prayers with a short sermon or lecture of comfort and of peace to our wives and children, sanctifying our prayers by words of consolation, and then we have a little heaven on earth. (Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 19:57.)

But read the annuals of the trying years covered by this volume of the History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and you have in hand the world’s finest example of faith and trust in the God of prayer. Was one sick, the others prayed; was some group wayward, and rebellious, a circle met in prayer; did influential men in high places meet to conspire against them, the brethren sought to thwart their plans by and appeal to God through prayer; was one or more unjustly hauled into the courts before unjust judges, prayer softened their hearts or confused their judgments; did mobs assail, did hell rage–prayer was both sword and shield. (D.H.C. Vol. 7 Intro. page xxvi)

Soon after the sacrament meeting we (Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Willard Richards, Orson Pratt, George A. Smith, Wilford Woodruff, Amasa M. Lyman, Ezra T. Benson, Phinehas H. Young, John Pack, Charles Shumway, Shadrach Roundy, Albert P. Rockwood, Erastus Snow, William Clayton, Albert Carrington and Orrin P. Rockwell) went on the bluffs and selecting a small circular level spot, surrounded by bluffs and out of sight, we clothed ourselves in our Priestly garments and offered up prayers to God for ourselves, this camp and all pertaining to it, the brethren in the army, our families and all the Saints, President Young being mouth. Albert Carrington and O.P. Rockwell, not having any clothing with them, stood guard at a distance from us to prevent interruption. . . . (Journal of William Clayton, as quoted in Andrew Jenson, Historical Record, Vol. 9, p. 43 note.)

At Mt. Pisgah, after two and a half months of Iowa mud, domestic problems, and the strain of leadership, Heber lost his customary good nature. . . . The people tried to do better, and their leader sought divine help in a special manner. They withdrew to the isolation of the limitless prairie, clothed themselves in temple robes, formed a prayer circle, and invoked God for the good people and the success of the venture. All along the trek such special group prayers were held. (Heber C. Kimball Mormon Patriarch and Pioneer. Stanley B. Kimball, p. 136-137.)

Soon after the sacrament meeting we (Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Willard Richards, Orson Pratt, George A. Smith, Wilford Woodruff, Amasa M. Lyman, Ezra T. Benson, Phinehas H. Young, John Pack, Charles Shumway, Shadrach Roundy, Albert P. Rockwood, Erastus Snow, William Clayton, Albert Carrington and Orrin P. Rockwell) went on the bluffs and selecting a small circular level spot, surrounded by bluffs and out of sight, we clothed ourselves in our Priestly garments and offered up prayers to God for ourselves, this camp and all pertaining to it, the brethren in the army, our families and all the Saints, President Young being mouth. Albert Carrington and O.P. Rockwell, not having any clothing with them, stood guard at a distance from us to prevent interruption. . . . (Journal of William Clayton, as quoted in Andrew Jenson, Historical Record, Vol. 9, p. 43 note.)

At Mt. Pisgah, after two and a half months of Iowa mud, domestic problems, and the strain of leadership, Heber lost his customary good nature. . . . The people tried to do better, and their leader sought divine help in a special manner. They withdrew to the isolation of the limitless prairie, clothed themselves in temple robes, formed a prayer circle, and invoked God for the good people and the success of the venture. All along the trek such special group prayers were held. (Heber C. Kimball Mormon Patriarch and Pioneer. Stanley B. Kimball, p. 136-137.)

The “keys of the kingdom” that enable the possessor to “detect everything false” are the keys given in the endowment ordinances. Six days after this discourse to the Relief Society, he gave the endowment for the first time in this dispensation (History of the Church, 5:1-2)

When we pray to the Lord we ought to come together clad in proper garments, and when we do so, and unite our hearts and hands together, and act as one mind, the Lord hears us and will answer our prayers. Our garments should be properly marked and we should understand these marks and we should wear these garments continually, by night and by day, in prison or free . . .If we have the garments upon us at all times we can at anytime offer up the signs. He then related and instance of some children being healed and cured of the whooping cough in one night, through the prayers of himself and elder Woodruff in Michigan while they were there on a mission, before the Martyrdom of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Said that whenever they [George A. Smith and Wilford Woodruff] could get and opportunity they retired to the wilderness or to and upper room — they did so and offered up the signs, and were always answered. It would be a good thing for us to put on our garments every day and pray to God, and in private circles, when we can do so in safety. (Journal of Heber C. Kimball, Sunday Dec. 21, 1845.)

Reading and studying this doctrine lately has made my heart burn, in a good way.  I have been impressed with how regularly the saints, beginning with Joseph, felt it necessary to enter the waters and be confirmed, renewing covenants to God, to have sins remitted.  Also, it is intriguing to note that baptisms were performed to prepare for missions and marriages, plural or not.  Baptism, as a means of purifying, was also attended to as a means of aiding a person in recovering from illness!  Every saint who entered the Salt Lake valley was required to be re-baptized upon entering, in order to cleanse them and renew their enthusiasm to live the laws.  When the United Order was again attempted in 1872, re-baptism was required to enter it.  This of course makes me believe that we will be re-baptized when committing to Israeland Zion in days soon to come.  All that being said, I have some quotes here for you to read on the doctrine.  This is only a very small smattering of the doctrine recorded, since literally hundreds of people and journals recorded re-baptisms, some many times for various reasons.  in 1897 the practice was stopped altogether.

I know that in my traveling and preaching, many a time I have stopped by
beautiful streams of clear, pure water, and have said to myself, “How
delightful it would be to me to go into this, to be baptized for the
remission of my sins.” When I got home, Joseph told me it was my
privilege. At this time, came a revelation, that the Saints could be
baptized and re-baptized when they chose, and then that we could be
baptized for our dear friends. (Brigham Young, J.D. 18:241)

In the first place, if you were re-baptized for the remission of sins,
peradventure you may receive again the Spirit of the Gospel in its glory,
light and beauty; but if your hearts are so engrossed in the things of
this world, that you do not know whether you want to be re-baptized or
not, you had better shut yourselves up in some canyon or closet, to
repent of your sins, and call upon the name of the Lord, until you get
His spirit. (Brigham Young, J.D. 1:324)

Sat. 17, 1875–Pres. Brigham Young (SEVENTH TIME!), his counselors and others renewed
their covenants by baptism at Ephraim, Sanpete Co. This. example was
subsequently followed by the Saints generally. (Church Chronology, p. 94)

The battalion brethren moved their wagons and formed a corral between the
forks of City Creek. Brigham exhorted the brethren to be re-baptized,
himself setting the example, and reconfirming the Elders. On the 8th of
August three hundred were immersed, the services commencing at six
o’clock in the morning. (History of Utah, 1840-86, Bancroft, p. 265.)

The authorities decided that all that came to the valleys should renew
their covenants by baptism. So all the Bushman family were re-baptized,
and the saints did enjoy a rest from their enemies for ten years….
(John Bushman Diary, MSS 1935, p. 11)
Jedediah’s message was heeded; people by the hundreds flocked to him for
re-baptism, but in the strenuous life he led–many times attending three
meetings during the same afternoon and evening–he exhausted his physical
strength and collapsed. A brief and severe illness, from which he never
recovered, attacked him and on December 1st, 1856, he died. (Jedediah M.
Grant, p. 139)

Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize thee for the
remission of thy sins, for the renewal of the covenant with God and thy
brethren and for the observance of the rules that have been said in thy
hearing, in the name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Ghost,
Amen. (Ceremony of baptism into the United Order; obtained this copy from
among the papers of Apostle C. C. Rich, Sept. 4, 1886. The copy from
which the above was taken is in the handwriting of George Q. Cannon.)
(Unpublished Diary of Milando Pratt)

I was baptized first in 1832, and I was baptized the next time when I
came out here to Utah. I was baptized first for the remission of sins.
Was baptized the second time for the same thing. I came out here in 1847
and was re-baptized then. When I came out here I was baptized again
renewing my covenants and also for the remission of sins that I might
have committed in taking this long and tedious journey through all these
mountains and canyons. (Joseph C. Kingsbury, Temple Lot Case, p. 340)

Be humble, and seek unto the Lord as children; put away your vain
philosophies and strip yourself for the Kingdom. Preach Christ, and him
crucified–preach life and salvation unto the Elders; the Saints [38]
first, and then unto the people. Begin at home in the office–purify and
regenerate them; get the fulness of the Spirit, and the power of the
Highest to rest down upon you and then go forth to the people, and let a
reformation be stirred up among the Saints; fire up each other, and then
all the Saints; let all participate, and when they have sufficiently
cleansed the inside of the platter, let them cleanse the outside, and
renew their covenants in the waters of baptism, and abide in the truth,
and be alive in the Church and Kingdom of God. (Letter of Brigham Young
to Orson Pratt in England, Mill. Star, 19:97)

They teach re-baptism here in Utah as a doctrine. The authorities in the
church here in Utah have taught it and insisted that everyone who came
here should be baptized, and have baptized them the third time since
coming here. It did not make any difference whether or not they belonged
to the church when they came here, they were re-baptized when they came
here. (Temple Lot Case, p. 341; Joseph C. Kingsbury)
…The proposition was joyfully and very generally accepted by the
saints. This procedure, however, must not be regarded as casting any
doubt upon the validity of their original baptisms, or repudiation of it
as a sacrament. It was only to make more solemn the renewal of covenants’
with God. (C.H.C., B. H. Roberts, 2:286-287)

This is a representation of the feelings of some who have crossed the
plains this season. My advice to you is, go and be baptized for the
remission of sins, and start afresh, that temptation may not overcome you
again; pause and reflect, that you be not overcome by the evil one
unawares. (Brigham Young, J.D. 1:324)

My counsel to them today is, as it has been on former occasions to all
who have [58] come into these valleys, Go and be baptized for the
remission of sins, repenting of all your wanderings from the path of
righteousness, believing firmly in the name of Jesus Christ, that all
your sins will be washed away. If any of you inquire what is the
necessity of your being baptized, as you have not committed any sins, I
answer, it is necessary to fulfill all righteousness.

I have heard some of you cursing and swearing, even some of the Elders of
Israel. I would be baptized seven times, were I in your place; I would
not stop teasing some good Elder to baptize me again and again, until I
could think my sins forgiven. I would not live over another night until I
was baptized enough to satisfy me that my sins were forgiven. Then go and
be confirmed, as you were when you first embraced the religion of Jesus.
That is my counsel. (Brigham Young, J.D. 2:8, 9)

Elder Zera Pulsipher transcended the bounds of the Priesthood in the
ordinance of sealing, for which he was cited to appear before the First
Presidency of the Church, April 12, 1862. It was there voted that he be
re-baptized, reconfirmed and ordained to the office of a High Priest, or
go into the ranks of the Seventies. (Church Chronology, Introductory
XIII)

Nov. 27th, 1889 (at Fillmore) –two young unmarried people have committed
fornication. Bro. Kelly (1st counselor in Stake [61] Pres.) was told that
on asking forgiveness, they should be permitted to receive re-baptism and
not be cut off; but where persons thus sin who have received their
endowments, they must be excommunicated. (Abraham Cannon Journal, p. 197)

When Brother Brigham predicts that certain things will happen if the
people persist in a certain course, that prediction will be fulfilled,
except the people [63] make a retraction and an atonement sufficient to
satisfy the demands of justice; for that is what God requires. When that
is done, the sins of the people will be remitted. I speak of this, that
you may understand that your re-baptisms must be agreeable to the order
laid down. It is not simply a man’s saying, “Having been commissioned by
Jesus Christ, I baptize you for the renewal of your covenant and
remission of your sins,” but you must be subject to your brethren and
fulfill the law of God.

Supposing you have sinned against your brethren, or in some way offended
them, will your sins be remitted, unless you go and make the proper
acknowledgments? No, they will not. You have got to pay the debt; and sin
cannot be remitted until you confess it and make satisfaction to the
party aggrieved. (Heber C. Kimball J.D. 5:202)

One of the most enlightening articles I read on the subject is by Ogden Kraut.  I have included below two small section from his book that may be of interest.  One discusses scriptural precedents, I included the Book of Mormon portion here.  The other discusses baptism as a means of physical healing, which I had never heard of before, though it make perfect sense in light of baptisms ability to remove impurity.  It should be noted that the individuals re-baptized also generally noted being confirmed at waters edge too, it being the other half of baptism.

The Book of Mormon also contains specific references to re-baptism.
Nephi, it is written, baptized many believers and “ordained men unto this
ministry,” and “there were many in the commencement of this year that were
baptized unto repentance.” (A.D. 32: see 3 Nephi 7:26) However, a few years
later, after the destruction of his nation, it is written that Nephi again
“went down into the water and was baptized.” (3 Nephi 19:11) Thus Nephi
complied with the principle of re-baptism; and being a leader among his
people, he established the precedent for that practice and they followed his
example. Nephi proceeded to baptize the others and “it came to pass when they
were ALL baptized and had come up out of the water, the Holy Ghost did fall
upon them.” (3 Nephi 19:13)

Alma also participated in the principle of re-baptism. After he received
the authority and had been converted, then he preached the principles of
faith, repentance, and baptism, and baptized a “goodly number” of the
believers. Then on a later occasion, while baptizing a man by the name of
Helam, he became so influenced with the beauty and blessings of baptism, that
[16] he also was “buried” in the waters of baptism. Alma, therefore, certainly
experienced a re-baptism, and he “came forth out of the water rejoicing, being
filled with the Spirit.” (Mos. 18:13-14)

At the final eclipse of the great Nephite empire, the nation had grown
cold in the principles of righteousness. The last plea for a return to the
gospel was being made by Moroni who wrote:

And now I speak concerning baptism. Behold, elders, priests, and
teachers were baptized; and they were not baptized save they brought
forth fruit meet that they were worthy of it. (Moroni 6:1)

The “elders, priests, and teachers” were of course members and offices of
the Church of Jesus Christ, and yet they were baptized. To become members of
the Church and hold the offices of elders and priests, they must be baptized;
therefore, these members were again baptized after they had repented by
bringing forth the “fruit” of repentance.

Thus the doctrine of re-baptism, like the doctrine of baptism for the
dead, has a few substantiating scriptural references. Even one is enough to
establish it as a doctrine and practice of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

BAPTISM FOR THE SICK

One of the requests for re-baptism was for healing of the sick. Strange
as this may appear, history has proved this practice to be very beneficial in
many of the cases where it has been performed. One of the first accounts of
baptism for the sick is recorded by the Prophet Joseph. He baptized his wife
Emma for her illness.

Tues. 4, 1842, Emma is very sick again. I attended with her all the day,
being somewhat poorly myself.

Wed. 5. My dear Emma was worse. Many fears were entertained that she
would not recover. She was baptized twice in the river, which evidently
did her much good. She grew worse again at night, and continued very sick
indeed. I was unwell, and much troubled on account of Emma’s sickness.
(History of Church, J. Smith, Vol. 5; p. 167-168)

Emma had been baptized in Coalville in 1830. This re-baptism was 12 years
later. Even previous to this account, the baptisms for healing were quite
common. They were performed in the Nauvoo Temple, along with other baptisms.

Baptisms for the dead, and for the healing of the body must be in the
font, and those coming into the Church and those re-baptized may be
baptized in the river. (D.H.C. 4:586)

However, these baptism for the sick were not restricted to the temples,
as the case of [52] Emma illustrates. Others were baptized in streams and
rivers. Another similar example comes from the life of Lorenzo Snow:

Upon arriving at Pisgah, Lorenzo and members of his family remained for a
season. “At this place,” Lorenzo said, “I was taken seriously and
dangerously ill with a burning fever, which so affected my brain that I
was delirious many days, lying at the point of death. While in this
condition, Elder Phineas Richards, the father of Apostle F. D. Richards,
assisted by other kind brethren, took me from my bed, wrapped in a sheet
placed me in a carriage, drove to a stream of water, and baptized me in
the name of the Lord, for my recovery. The fever immediately abated, and
through the kind unwearied nursing and attention by my faithful, loving
wives, and my dear sister, E.R.S. Smith, aided and sanctified through the
power and blessing of God, I was delivered from suffering and restored to
health. The sickness was the result of extreme hardships and exposures
consequent on the journey. (Life of L. Snow, 1846, Romney, p. 80-81)

Two other examples may serve to illustrate the beneficial powers of this
ordinance.

F. D. Richards, who had been sick for several months, was baptized,
anointed, and confirmed; immediately after which he was restored to
health.

Mrs. Richards was taken by her brother from a sick bed to a lake from the
surface of which ice more than a foot thick [53] had been removed, and
there baptized, whereupon she immediately recovered. Similar cases might
be given by the score. (Bancroft’s History of Utah, p. 337)

Baptism for the sick was never an established order for healing the sick,
because the Lord had already established administration by the laying on of
hands and the use of olive oil for such healings. Baptism was a means of
remitting sins; and if the devil was afflicting someone with sickness, it may
have been through their weakness or sins that he could accomplish it.
Nevertheless, these baptisms were a means of controlling or abating the
afflictions of the Saints, even though it had its limitations.

I spoke of baptism for health in my examination in chief: it was never
considered a prominent feature or any doctrine of the original church,
any mere than it is of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints. It was never considered essential in either church. It
was simply taught as a doctrine that was beneficial; I never heard an
elder or anybody else preach it in either church. I never heard it taught
as a present duty, but I have heard it advocated as beneficial, and in
that sense it was practiced. (Jason Briggs, Temple Lot Case, p. 404)

One of the latest records of baptism for health is found in the year of
1884:

Sunday, November 16th, 1884–This morning reconfirmed Elder L. Harris who
has been baptized for his health. (Diary of Elder J. H. Standifird)

[54]    This would indicate that re-baptisms, for health purposes, were practiced
for at least 42 years. It is doubtful if they continued for very many years
after that time.

The first thing we are commanded to do, as we enter the lone and dreary world, being respectively Adam and Eve, is to build and Altar and offer prayers unto God. The authority seems to have been given in the Form of a commandment to all.

” How is it in families? How many men are there that can take their families, and gather round the family altar. And all of them bow before the Lord without a jar of feeling, with one perfect unity, everyone willing to submit with the most perfect submission to the will of the Lord, as clay in the hands of the potter? How many families, I say, are there in Israel where this union exists in this style, in all it’s purity and power? How many men would be permitted to rear a family altar of this kind even in his own house?” – GA Smith, JD 2:366-

“Let the principles of union and faith be observed at your homes; and if you are men having families, let there be a daily incense arise from your family altar.” -John Taylor- JD 9:13

“Let there be an altar in every house, and let the sacred fire burn on that altar. Seek to implant in the heart of your youth principles that will be calculated to make them honorable, highminded, intelligent, virtuous modest, pure men and women, full of integrity and truth, who will represent you correctly, and if not, that will represent, at any rate, the principles pf truth which you profess to believe in, that they with you may have an inheritance in the kingdom of God, and inherit the earth for Jesus says it is the meek that will inherit the earth.” -John Taylor. JD 15:275

“…have been full of hope, expectation and desire, and their constant prayer has been, before the family altar and in the public congregations, that the redemption of Zion might be brought about soon.” -Orson Pratt. JD 17:292.

“It is a duty, it is the word of the Lord to the Saints, that they should meet with their families morning and evening, and call upon God in His name. This principle is part of the Gospel, it was taught by the Savior on the eastern, and also on the western continent: and, simple as it may appear, it is absolutely necessary that the Latter-day Saints should come together in the family capacity, and kneeling around the family altar, call upon God for his blessings morning and evening. And they need not confine themselves to morning and evening prayer, for it is their privilege to enter into their closets and call upon Him in secret, that He might reward them openly.” -Joseph F. Smith. JD 22:47

“Now, I am sanguine that there are many who call themselves Latter-day Saints, who have neglected their duty in this respect, and many a son is permitted to grow to manhood, whose father has never asked him to bow with them at the family altar. This is a serious neglect upon the part of those who have named the name of Jesus, who have come up to these mountains to taught in the ways of the Lord. It is a sad neglect, and those who have done it in the past should guard against it in the future. ” John Henry Smith (apostle) JD 22:273

“God will not hold us faultless if we do. He requires us as Elders, as Apostles, and Presidents, as Bishops, as Seventies, as parents, to teach (wherever it is our prerogative and duty,) correct principles, and observe them ourselves and seek to enforce them upon others. And it is not alone the duty of High Councils and Presidents of Stakes, and of bishops and their Counselors to labor to correct the errors of the people, but it is the duty of every Elder, High Priest and Seventy- and especially the Priests, Teachers and Deacons that are appointed and called to be standing ministers in the Church, to visit the house of each member and become familiar with every family, and every individual member of the family, and their daily walk and life and conversation; and ascertain whether they are living as Saints should live; whether the heads of families preside in righteousness in their houses; whether their houses are set in order; whether they have an altar erected whereon are offered up their daily, morning and evening devotions; whether every member is taught to reverence and respect that altar; whether each individual prays in secret as well as responds to the calls made upon him to pray in the family circle and in public; whether…” Erastus Snow (apostle) JD 24:72

“We want to put ourselves and our families in order, And then let us learn to acknowledge the hand of God in all things and obey His law and keep His commandments in everything; not in one thing only, but in everything, that the Spirit and blessing of God and the power of God may be with us, that we may be the sons of God without rebuke in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; that we may be full of joy, peace and thanksgiving to God our Heavenly Father that we may be true to our devotions at the family altar, and every morning and every evening bow before the Lord with our family and all that pertains to us.” -John Taylor JD 23:326

” I would like our children when they go from the family altar to go into a school where they would hear the same God addressed, the same blessings sought, the hand of the Eternal acknowledged in their education, as well as to ask that His blessing might be upon them when they surround the family altar…And when your husbands are away gather them around your family altar.” George Teasdale (apostle) JD 24:326

By way of commandment, we are told to build one, gather around at least twice daily, and bow to the Lord.

The Essential Orson Pratt

The Seer, Vol.1, No.7, p.102-p.103
p.284

Secondly. Whence originated these capacities? When we speak of
capacities we mean the original elementary capacities of the mind. We are
well aware that metaphysicians consider many of the qualities named to be of
a secondary or compound nature, growing out of the combinations of qualities
still more original. All this we are willing to admit; but these secondary
qualities, if analyzed, will be found in all instances to be the result of
the combination of simple, elementary, original capacities. The question is,
whence originated these elementary qualities of the mind? We answer, they
are eternal. The capacities of all spiritual substance are eternal as the
substance to which they belong. There is no substance in the universe which
feels and thinks now, but what has eternally possessed that capacity. These
capacities may be suspended for a season, but never can be annihilated. A
substance which has not these capacities now, must eternally remain without
them. The amount of matter in space can never be increased nor diminished,
neither can there be a new elementary capacity added to this matter. For the
arguments sustaining the eternity of matter and its capacities, see our
treatise, referred to in the preceding paragraph. Admitting the eternity of
the capacities, then the materials of which our spirits are composed, must
have been capable of thinking, moving, willing, &c., before they were
organized in the womb of the celestial female. Preceding that period there
was an endless duration, and each particle of our spirits had an eternal
existence, and was in possession of eternal capacities. Now can it be
supposed, for one moment, that these particles were inactive and dormant
from all eternity until they received their organization in the form of the
infant spirit? Can we suppose that particles, possessed of the power to move
themselves, would not have exerted that power, during the endless duration
preceding their organization? If they were once organized in the vegetable
kingdom, and then disorganized by becoming the food of celestial animals,
and then again re-organized in the form of the spirits of animals which is a
higher sphere of being, then, is it unreasonable to suppose that the seine
particles have, from all eternity, been passing through an endless chain of
unions and disunions, organizations and disorganizations, until at length
they are permitted to enter into the highest and most exalted sphere of
organization in the image and likeness of God? A transmigration of the same
particles of spirits from a lower to a higher organization, is demonstrated
from the fact that the same particles exist in a diffused scattered state,
mingled with other matter; next, they exist in a united form, growing out of
the earth in the shape of grass, herbs, and trees; and after this, these
vegetables become food for celestial animals, and these same particles are
organized into their offspring, and thus form the spirits of animals. Here,
then, is apparently a transmigration of the same particles of spirit from an
inferior to a superior organization, wherein their condition is improved,
and their sphere of action enlarged. Who shall set any bounds to this upward
tendency of spirit? Who shall prescribe limits to its progression? If it
abide the laws and conditions of its several states of existence, who shall
say that it will not progress until it shall gain the very summit of
perfection, and exist in all the glorious beauty of the image of God?

Again, from my flawed paradigm to yours…

The Word “Jehovah” is really a misnomer in and of itself.  The Scriptures (hebrew) never use that term.  The term “YHWH” was the name of God, no vowels in the Hebrew.  They didn’t use that word though, it being Holy, instead they said “Adonai”, since it is somehow better.      Since they didn’t use the real word for God out loud (“YHWH”), it’s true pronunciation was eventually not passed down.    Than, like many other things, the Catholics mixed human ideas with Gods name;

The misreading of the text to form the word “Jehovah” is usually traced to Petrus Galatinus, confessor to Pope Leo X, who in 1518 AD transliterated the four Hebrew letters with the Latin letters JHWH together with the vowels of Adonai, producing the artificial form “Jehovah.” (This confused usage may, however, have begun as early as 1100 AD). (“Yahweh,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 6, 1011)

We use it so much because the Translators of the Kings James version translated the Word “YHWH”, the Name of God the father, into Jehovah, or into LORD all caps.  This was an error in and of itself, but it’ll do.

But the point is, “YHWH” to Israel was the God of the Earth, God the Father.  YHWH was and is the God of Israel.  The Holy one of Israel, the Lord of Hosts, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  But, YHWH to them is God the Father, the God of heaven and earth, not the Son.  They worshipped and prayed to God the Father.  If we say that their God was Jesus (in a sense yes, but meaning the president of the earth), than they worshiped a different God than us!  Even Christ commanded us to pray to the Father, in Jesus Name.

But, using a correct reading of the Hebrew we get this verse:

The LORD (YHWH or Jehovah) said unto my Lord (Jesus Christ the Mediator of the covenant), Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. (Psalms 110:1)

The argument doesn’t stop there, as the Leaders of the early church understood this mistake.  They knew and worshipped Jehovah and bowed at the feet of His son.  They taught openly who the God of the Old testament was:

“They will come up tribe by tribe, and the Ancient of Days, He who led Abraham and talked to Noah, Enoch, Isaac, and Jacob, that very Being will come and judge the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Brigham Young, J of D. 11:327)

“President Brigham Young yet another time said, “Who commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? who is that God? He is my Father . . . your Father. We are His offspring.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8:236)

In 1841 with Joseph at the Helm of the church the First presidency released a statement of belief to the public in the times and Seasons.  The first line of the statement read, “We believe in God the Father, who is the Great Jehovah and head of all things, and that Christ is the Son of God, co-eternal with the Father.”(Times & Seasons 3:358).  Several years later in another official release Brigham stated, ““Jehovah God,Thou Eloheim-Thy Son Jesus Christ (BYA, 4 Aug 1867)“.  After that John Taylor, then president of the church in hiding for his beliefs, penned a hymn for the church to sing, in it was the line, “Jehovah, God the Father is one / Another His Eternal Son (Sacred Hymns #262)“.  Even well into this century the doctrine remained as David O. McKay declared, “Jehovah and his Son, Jesus.(1 July 1961, Church News)“, though by that time confused.

I find it intriguing that the one person who was closest to the Savior, to the veil and God himself (Joseph) never once identified Jesus as Jehovah, though he did several times speak of him as the God the father of heaven and earth.

In some 256 references to Elohim and Jehovah and the God of the Old Testament, in the Journal of Discourses (representing sermons of many of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve), the title Jehovah is only specifically applied to Jesus once. This occurred in 1885, when the new doctrine identifying Jesus as Jehovah was just beginning to be developed, and then by Franklin D. Richards, not the president or prophet at the time.  All other times it referred to Jehovah as the great eternal god, The father of humanity.

Another interesting evidence which shows that the early Saints didn’t relate Jehovah as being Christ, is the first doctrinal compendium on Mormon belief, entitled “A Compendium of the Faith and Doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.” This was compiled by Apostle Frederick D. Richards in 1857 (intriguingly the same guy who many years later gave Jesus the term Jehovah). It has a section within it, on page 150, that is entitled “The Names, Titles and Characters Given to Jesus.” and it lists some 50 titles that apply to Jesus. The name “Jehovah” is not found within those titles. The Millennial Star, Orson and Parley Pratt, Daniel Wells, and many others all made the same distinction… evidence enough to show that in the eyes of the leaders of the Church, many of whom testified to having met the Savior, Jehovah is not Jesus Christ, but is in fact one and the same person as our Heavenly Father.

Even the contemporaries of Jesus, in several instances, referred the God of the Old Testament talking about His Son, Jesus.  For instance, in psalms 2:7 we read, “ I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.“  Lest we think this is talking of the author of Psalms, Paul Identifies this Begotten Son as Christ in Hebrew 1:5, showing that He was the Lord’s (YHWH) Son.

Joseph in reading Exodus redid a verse to make it read like this, “For thou shalt worship no other god; for the Lord, whose name is Jehovah, is a jealous God. (JST Exodus 34:14)“   Again, the original version uses the word YHWH in the place of Lord here, meaning God the Father of all Israel.  And that God is the only God whom we worship.

The Old testament refers to God in this fashion through out.  The scriptures speak for themselves on this issue. They talk of “the LORD [Jehovah], the God of the spirits of all flesh,†(Numbers 27:16) that we “are the children of the LORD [Jehovah]†(Deuteronomy 14:1) and that He “giveth breath unto the people†upon the earth “and spirit to them that walketh therein†(Isaiah 42:5) as He “formeth the spirit of man within Him.†(Zechariah 12:1)

“Most Latter-Day Saints do not realize how often the names Elohim and Jehovah
appear in the Old Testament because they have been translated from Hebrew into
English. Elohim occurs 2,570 times and is closely related to El, which occurs
some 238 times. Jehovah (YHWH) is by far the most frequently used Hebrew name for God
in the Old Testament, occurring some 6,823 times. King James translators
translated Elohim and El as “God” and Jehovah as “LORD,” (all caps) and used
“Lord” for the Hebrew Adonai, which Hebrew biblical editors often substituted
for Jehovah in the prophetic books out of respect for the divine name…
…Depending upon the intentions of the author, God may be referred to as
Elohim, Jehovah, or Jehovah-Elohim… Jehovah is the personal name of Israel’s
God as revealed to Moses and hence is never used in a plural sense or ever
designates anyone but Israel’s God. (Boyd Kirkland. Elohim and Jehovah in
Mormonism and the Bible. Dialogue. Vol.19, No.1. p.79)

Sticking with that theme of Moses’ God, Joseph uttered this prayer;

“…O Thou, who seest and knowest the hearts of all men – Thou eternal,
omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent Jehovah – God – Thou Eloheim, that
sittest, as saith the Psalmist, “enthroned in heaven,” look down upon Thy
servant Joseph at this time; and let faith on the name of Thy Son Jesus Christ,
to a greater degree than Thy servant ever yet has enjoyed, be conferred upon
him…”(Joseph Smith. History of the Church. Vol.5. p.127)

Though President McConkie stated the above remark he also said, “True religion consists in worshiping the Father, in the name of the Son, by the power of the Holy Ghost. Such was the case with Israel of old in the days of their enlightenment.” (Bruce R. McConkie. The Millenial Messiah.p.196) Again, if we are going to say that we worship the same God as Israel, we cannot say that they worshipped Christ and we worship His father.

For anybody interested in seeing the intricacies of the biblical texts in more depth, “Elohim and Jehovah in Mormonism and the  Bible” by Boyd Kirtland (Dialogue 19:1) is a must!  As a conclusion to that HUGE study he wrote;

“Whatever argument is possible for the current LDS definitions of Elohim and
Jehovah from Mormon sources, it must be admitted that these definitions do not
accord with the biblical usage of those terms. Apologists aware of this problem
have been forced to conclude that the entire biblical record as we now have it
has been so systematically corrupted and edited through the centuries, that all
indications of a theology more in conformity with current Mormon definitions has
been obliterated.” (Dialogue 19:1)

People may think that by compiling and writing this I am doing our Savior a disservice, discrediting Him if you will.  On the contrary.  The hope for eternal life is to know God the Eternal Father and Jesus Christ whom he has sent.  If that be the case, it is essential that we not confuse their roles.  That we ascribe the things to the Father and the Son that are theirs.  Otherwise there is no understanding, there is no knowledge, only distraction from the true course.  Jesus Christ is My Lord and my Savior.  He lived and died to pay the debt required, so that I might be cleansed through His holy calling and return to see the Father.  HE is the Mediator of the Covenant.  He came to Joseph and Moses to announce that covenant.  However, he did so as the foremost Servant of YHWH.  He speaks in the Name of Jehovah, with the voice of Jehovah.

Jehovah (the Father of our spirits-Michael) to us had a Father, who was His Jehovah, and the LORD of the creation.

Shalom!  Dan