Priesthood Archives - FAIR

View Details

Jennifer Roach Lees holds a Master in Divinity as well as a Masters in Counseling Psychology. She is a licensed mental health therapist and lives in Utah.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Esther – Jennifer Roach Lees appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

What Does it Mean to be a Prophetess?by Autumn Dickson

In a day and age where many are curious as to why women can’t hold specific positions in the church or be ordained to priesthood offices, reading about Deborah the prophetess can be confusing. Here is a verse that describes her as a prophetess.

Judges 4:4 And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.

If Deborah can be a prophetess, can we have a prophetess in our day? What does it even mean that she was a prophetess and what are the implications for women in the latter days?

I think it’s important to note that I’m not an official representative of the church. However, I’d like to share some of my own perspectives and interpretations surrounding Deborah and what it means as a female Latter-day Saint.

But first, some context.

Judges is a book of scripture that describes the time period when Israel had no king. Joshua, the prophet after Moses, died, and there was no prophet that directly succeeded him. We don’t know exactly how long it took before the Lord called another centralized prophet (Samuel), but educated guesses suggest 300-450 years.

As a society, they had the Law of Moses, and the government could be described as a tribal confederation. Despite having a law given unto them from God, they often fell in with Canaanites and found themselves in varying levels of apostasy.

Sometimes, in response to the Israelites finding themselves in trouble, the Lord would send a “judge.” The way that we define “judge” is not necessarily accurate in this particular book of scripture. In this context, a judge was a charismatic military leader that would help Israel. There were some major judges such as Samson; there were other minor judges that would help regions rather than the entire nation of Israel.

So who was Deborah?

Deborah was one of the major judges sent by God to help Israel. She was a judge in every sense of the word. She was a military leader, but people also literally went to her for guidance to settle their problems. She was also a spiritual leader over the nation of Israel.

Was she a prophet? The scriptures describe her as a prophetess, and she led all of Israel politically and spiritually. But was she a prophet in the way that we define “prophet” in our day?

At this point, I think it’s important to clarify what it means to have a prophet.

Definition One. The way that we usually define “prophet” in our church in the Latter-days is unique. It’s not just someone who studies the scriptures and knows them really well. It’s not just someone who receives revelation. When Latter-day Saints speak of prophets, we are often describing the man who has the authority to speak for God on behalf of the entire church. He is the only one with spiritual jurisdiction to lead (under Christ) the church. He holds all of the priesthood keys.

And yes, he is a male.

We don’t know if that will ever change. I don’t know if it’s doctrine that means this particular role will always be male, or if someday the Lord will use His unchanging love and wisdom to adapt His church according to circumstances as He has throughout the course of history.

But there is also a broader definition of this term, “prophet.”

Definition two. Anyone can have the spirit of prophecy which is defined as a “testimony of Christ.” We know that Jerusalem had centralized prophets in ancient times as well as lesser “prophets” who would also be sent by the Lord to teach and call upon people to repent. I am not a prophet in the sense that I hold all the priesthood keys or can define doctrine on behalf of the Lord for the entire church. However, I have come to view myself as a prophetess within my own family. Beside my husband, I lead our home. I receive revelation on behalf of our kids and what we need to do. I learn the will of the Lord for our family. I fulfill so many of the “prophetic” responsibilities often associated with prophets; I simply do it within the context of my own family. Most importantly, I am a witness of Christ to my family.

What kind of prophetess was Deborah? With the information we’ve been given, I feel pretty safe assuming she was the second kind of prophet. The Lord had declared that priesthood responsibilities would go through male descendants of Aaron and the tribe of Levi. Deborah was not ordained nor did she hold any keys.

So Deborah was a prophetess but not necessarily how we often define it in our day.

Perhaps there are some who are disappointed by this news. Perhaps there are some who hoped that because Deborah was a prophetess, we could have one in our day. Perhaps there are some who cling to the idea that things will change and long for the day to see a prophetess lead the church. I don’t know whether that will be a thing. If anyone has any insight into that particular doctrine, feel free to comment. But as far as I know, we don’t know.

Here’s what I do know.

Deborah doesn’t need to be disappointing. In fact, if we understand her properly, we should be exultant. If we understand what the Lord would like to bestow upon His daughters and His sons, then we would hold no fear. Deborah is excellent proof of what the Lord would have all of us do.

Deborah may not have been a prophetess in the modern sense of the word, but guys! She was still a prophetess! She was a national leader, and people followed her. She changed Israel. She made a difference. She has been regarded with respect by millions who learned about her generation after generation.

And she didn’t need the priesthood keys to do it.

The Lord is wonderful and wise and set up a priesthood organization with offices and keys. I know that can be a painful sticking point for some. I understand that. I’m personally grateful for this organization, but I can simultaneously understand why it’s painful. But that’s not really my point today.

My point is that you have all that you need to become everything God wants you to become, and He has much more in mind for you than you have for yourself. This has implications for men too. About 3-5% of men will hold priesthood keys at any given time in the church. That number jumps to 10-20% of men who will hold priesthood keys at some point in their lifetime.

BUT YOU DON’T NEED KEYS TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND CHANGE THE WORLD.

No one came to Deborah and ordained her as a prophetess. The bible doesn’t tell us how she rose to that role, but I have my guesses as to how it happened.

It happened because she was a faithful daughter of God who chose to follow the Lord wherever He chose to lead her.

Following the Lord and handing your life over to Him in faith (female or male) does not mean you will be recorded for people to pore over your life story for generations to come. It doesn’t mean you’ll be famous or even particularly loud. But if that’s what you’re looking for, then you’re in the wrong place anyway.

I love the example of Deborah, if for no other reason than her story means that I can be a powerful tool for the Lord regardless of what mankind recognizes in me. Regardless of whatever official roles I’ve been given, I could part seas or change lives. Really what it comes down to is what the Lord wants for me and what He’s trying to teach me. Having enough power to change the world isn’t really the question here; the Lord will give me everything I need. The true question is whether I will give my life over to Him in whatever capacity He asks.

I have as well as I can, and I love my life.

I testify that we have everything we need to do everything the Lord wants us to do and become everything He wants us to become. I likewise testify that He has much more in mind for you than you have for yourself. If you (female or male) feel left out because you can’t be or aren’t a bishop, then hold tight. The Lord has much bigger plans for you. He loves you so much. You are so important to Him. It would be silly to ask more from Him when He already plans on giving you everything that He has.

Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Judges 2–4; 6–8; 13–16 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

TL:DR TL:DRThis talk teaches that to effectively address concerns about race and priesthood in the Church, members must be honest about history, understand African-American perspectives, and rely on scripture rather than speculation.

It emphasizes that past priesthood restrictions were policy—not doctrine—clarified through the 1978 revelation and later scriptural updates. Passages about “skin” and “darkness” should be understood spiritually, not physically.

By teaching these principles clearly and compassionately, members can strengthen faith, improve missionary efforts, and help more people feel welcome in the Church.

Summary SummaryThe speaker begins by explaining that questions surrounding race and priesthood nearly prevented him from joining the Church, motivating years of personal study. He outlines a missionary-focused approach: understanding the language and culture of African-Americans, particularly the perception that the Church has a racist past.

He stresses the importance of acknowledging historical realities rather than denying them. Using statements from leaders such as David O. McKay, Dallin H. Oaks, and Bruce R. McConkie, he distinguishes between policy and doctrine and cautions against relying on speculative explanations for past restrictions.

The talk centers on the 1978 priesthood revelation as a turning point, accompanied by a “flood of light and knowledge” that reshaped understanding. The speaker points to 1981 scriptural updates—especially footnotes and wording changes—as key tools in clarifying previously misunderstood passages.

Focusing on scriptures such as 2 Nephi 5:21, 2 Nephi 30:6, and Jacob 3:8, he explains that references to “skin” and “darkness” should be understood spiritually rather than physically. This interpretation is reinforced through scriptural cross-references and teachings like 1 Samuel 16:7, emphasizing that God judges the heart, not outward appearance.

The talk concludes with practical outcomes: improved missionary efforts, increased retention, strengthened members, and greater inclusivity. The speaker testifies that teaching from scripture, combined with honesty and cultural understanding, can help bring more people—especially African-Americans—into and back to the Church.

Introduction IntroductionScott Gordon:

As a convert to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Marvin came to the Church after searching every religion he could find for over five years for what he called “the real Church.” Born and raised in Niagara Falls, New York, just 90 miles west of Palmyra, he had never heard of the Church or Mormons.

When one of his business associates wanted to see him perform, that desire set off the missionary experience that would lead to his baptism into the Church three months later.

Marvin, an MJM Records recording artist, has been singing professionally for over 18 years. He started as a studio vocalist, background and weather artist.

While doing a small showcase in Los Angeles in 1996, he launched his debut album, I’m So Glad. After many concerts, firesides, and conferences sharing the gospel, he slowed down long enough to put together a second musical project in 1997 entitled Hymns to Him, which was recently released.

As Director of African-American Relations on the Southern California Public Affairs Council, Marvin works closely with other religious leaders to bring service and support to those in need.

He was just recently called to serve as co-chair for Genesis Public Affairs, his responsibilities very similar to the calling of Director of African-American Relations on the national level. The Genesis Group is the branch of the Church designed to meet the unique needs of African-Americans.

He has also served as Gospel Doctrine and Seminary instructor and is well versed in the scriptures.

And we’re very, very pleased to have Marvin Perkins come and speak to us.

Opening RemarksGood morning. (faint “good morning” echoed back from the audience) You guys learned a little bit from yesterday, President Darius’ talk. Good morning! (Good morning echoed back stronger.) There you go! I want to make sure you’re awake here. Aloha. Buenos dias and all that other stuff. O genkidesu-ka, for anybody Japanese.

I am grateful to be here today, especially to speak on this topic. This topic is one that actually almost kept me from joining the church. And I wanted to make sure that no one else left the church, would not join the church, or struggled in the church as a result of not having the information that I was seeking.

And so I thought, let me study this thing. So, I’ve been studying this subject for 17 years now. I am not by any means an expert on it. I just know what I know and what the Lord has guided me and directed me.

Purpose of the StudyI found that if we keep this talk to the scriptures, you get less people trying to refute what you’re saying. But the biggest reason that I study this is to help others into the gospel. There are many who won’t take the time to learn this information, and that’s all right for them.

But I want to help those who do want to have some of this information, and the church has given us plenty of guidance. So again, I’m no expert: I’m no scholar, I’m no scriptorian. I’m just a man who loves the Lord and will do anything he wants me to do.

And sometimes that finds me in trouble. But I’m willing to take it.

So, how do we reach African-Americans in and outside of the church? You have the formula down already, and you’re already doing it.

Understanding Culture and LanguageYou just have to apply it to this group of people. See, because when you go into the MTC, what do you do? You learn the language and the culture of the people you are going to serve. You learn Spanish. You learn a little bit about the Spanish culture.

You learn Japanese, a little bit about the Japanese culture. You go to an American or English-speaking mission, no language to learn, but you learn a little bit about the communication skills so that you don’t offend and turn people off from the church.

Well, that’s the exact same way that you would actually reach African-Americans. You need to learn and understand the language and the culture of the people. So, what is the language of African-Americans in regards to Latter-day Saints? Okay.

The Reality to AddressNow, the language—this is reality. This is what African-Americans feel and know. Most African-Americans believe:

that Mormons are racist
that they have a long history of racism
that they even have it built in the doctrine.

That’s what African-Americans feel.

If you want to reach them, you have to deal with that reality. You’ve got to get to the point where you can hear that. That’s what we feel.

What is the culture? Well, the culture is every African-American, regardless, is going to have to deal with this issue at some point.

Some of us deal with it before discussions,
some during the discussions, and
some after baptism,
sometimes many years after baptism.

But we do have to deal with it.

Real-Life ImpactI’m just working with a brother now who has been a member of the church for seven years and is just now dealing with it. He’s been inactive for the last year over this issue. And now since we’ve shared with him what I’m going to share with you today, he is back in the church.

So the fruits—by the fruits you shall know them. First of all, be honest. We know the first thing we can do with this issue is admit—we try to deny the history that we have.

We have a history in this country of inequality, of racism, of prejudice – and that includes the church members as well. Church members, church leaders—we have that.

Being Honest About the PastUntil 1964 and The Civil Rights Act, the law of the land was discrimination. So, we only varied in our degree of it. So, be honest.

No one is going to believe you have the truth if you can’t be honest about the past or your involvement.

Scriptural ParallelIt reminds me of the children of Israel. They were in bondage for 400 years.

And when they got out of bondage – when Moses and Aaron freed them, the instruments of the Lord to free them out of bondage – the Lord wanted them to get to know Him. To start serving Him more.

And it was so difficult for them to do that. So they had this law of Moses given to them, this simple law to help them to be able to abide the entire law.

And it would take them many years to be able to do it before Christ would come and fulfill and give them a new way of doing things.

The Great CommissionAlso, we see this with the resurrected Savior, with the last command recorded in Matthew. The resurrected Savior stood before them. Ate with them, met with them, and said, “Take the gospel to all the world.” Okay.

Early Priesthood HistorySo, let’s talk a bit about priesthood. Many don’t know that when the church was first restored that anybody could hold the priesthood. And there were Black men holding the priesthood.

Joseph Smith gave it to Elijah Abel in 1836. Walker Lewis was ordained in 1844. William McCary. (Some people don’t like to mention William McCary because he didn’t do good things, but I’ll mention him.) William McCary got it in 1846.

William McCary might be the reason why Blacks didn’t hold the priesthood—and if you want to know about that, you go study it. William McCary or Black Pete. Enoch Abel received it in 1900. And that’s something.

And Elijah Abel, grandson of the first Elijah Abel, received it in 1934.

When Did the Issue Begin?As a matter of fact, until about 1954, many people didn’t know there was an official policy on priesthood. I mean, many Blacks didn’t mix with the church, and it just wasn’t that much of an issue.

If Blacks are holding the priesthood, why was that? There wasn’t an issue. When did the issue begin? Well, let’s hear a few statements on priesthood that we have from our church leaders.

Statements from Church LeadersDavid McKay. In 1954, David McKay is quoted as saying:

“There is not now and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse.There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro.”

I’m going to repeat that. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro.

“We believe that we have a scriptural precedence for withholding the priesthood from the negroes. It is a practice, not a doctrine. And the practice will someday be changed. And that’s all there is to it.”

President George Albert Smith is also quoted as having said the same thing.

On Reasons and RevelationElder Dallin H. Oaks said in an interview,

“It is not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reasons to the commandments.”

“When we do, we are on our own. Some people put reasons to the ban and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that… I am referring to reasons given by general authorities and elaborated on by others.”

“The whole set of reasons seem to be unnecessary risk taking… Let’s not make the mistake that’s been made in the past …here and in other areas trying to put reasons to revelations. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent.”

A New Day — 1978 RevelationElder Bruce R. McConkie, one of my favorite statements here:

“Forget everything that I’ve said or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in the days past that is contrary to today’s revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that is now coming to the world. We get our light and truth line upon line, precept upon precept. And we have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all of the darkness and all of the views and all of the thoughts of the past. They just don’t matter anymore.”

So if you’re going to study this issue, you’ve got to forget everything you’ve heard and start from scratch. And where is the best place to start? Forget the philosophies of men and go straight to the scriptures.

Scripture Updates and UnderstandingThere’s enough guidance in the scriptures for you to understand this—for us to understand this.

“It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody has ever said about the negro matter before the first day of June of this year (1978). It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given revelation to shed light into the world on this particular subject.”

Now, we’re going to talk a great deal more about that light. Because with that light and that knowledge – that flood – it wasn’t just a revelation that reversed the priesthood. But it was a flood of intelligence that came, as Elder McConkie said, that helped correct the views and the thoughts of the past.

Continuing Revelation in ScriptureAnd the brethren actually did something with that flood. They actually updated our scriptures in 1981.

So if you look at an older version of your scriptures and then go to 1981, you’ve got a newer version with footnotes and word changes to help us to understand the issues that were misunderstood before, give us new guidance.

And every single scripture that I could find in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants that we misunderstood regarding this issue, has a footnote. Giving clarification and new understanding.

Scriptural FoundationLet’s consider D&C 36:4-5.

“And now this calling and commandment give I unto you…”

Concerning who?

“concerning all men (emphasis added) that as many as shall come before my servants Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith Jr. embracing this calling and commandment shall be ordained and sent forth to preach the everlasting gospel among the nations.”

D&C 36:7

“And this commandment shall be given unto the elders of my church, that every man which will embrace it with singleness of heart may be ordained and sent forth, even as I have spoken.”

D&C 63:57

“And again, verily I say unto you, those who desire in their hearts in meekness to warn sinners to repentance, let them be ordained unto this power.”

The Inclusive Nature of PriesthoodD&C 84:33–35

“And whoso is faithful unto obtaining these two priesthoods…

I mean, the Lord has plenty of time to give us a restriction, a division, but he doesn’t do it. He’s—it’s all inclusive. All right.

“And whoso is faithful unto obtaining these two priesthoods of which I’ve spoken and the magnifying their calling are sanctified by the spirit unto the renewing of their bodies.

“They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, with rights to the priesthood and the church and the kingdom and the elect of God.

“And also all they who receive this priesthood receive me.

Accountability and Scripture ConcernsWe believe that men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam’s transgressions.

2 Nephi 5:21 is a big one because that’s when most blacks, African-Americans, and a lot of other cultures stop reading the Book of Mormon. Like, “okay, what? You can’t believe this.” Because it looks like it’s right in the doctrine.

Understanding “Skin” and “Darkness”And again, we’ll go back to Elder McConkie’s statement—that flow of light and intelligence on the subject. It’s going to help us to understand. They put new footnotes in here to help us to get past that.

Second Nephi 5:21.

“And he had caused a cursing to come upon them…”

Now, we understand the cursing—a separation from God because they were sinners, they wouldn’t live the law of God—

“…to come upon them, yeah, even a sore cursing, because their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint. Wherefore, as they were white and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

Now, before 1981, there was no footnote on the word skin. The brethren put one in there. What do they want us to understand about skin? They directed us to 2 Nephi 30:6.

Clarifying Through Footnotes2 Nephi 30:6 reads,

“And then shall they rejoice, for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God, and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes, and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they be a pure and a delightsome people.”

And so what do they want us to know from skin? Well, some of us can get an impression that they’re talking about more of a spiritual darkness. But if you follow the footnote—you don’t even have to guess at it. They made it crystal clear.

If you follow the footnote for “scales” down to the bottom of the page, it says clearly “topical guide darkness—spiritual, spiritual blindness.”

Changes in Language and MeaningSo this is the direction that they are giving us. And notice the word pure. Before 1981, that word read white. And they changed it to pure, saying that it actually closer fit the meaning of the phrase.

All right. So, let’s get a little more scriptural support. Now, every scripture in the Book of Mormon that made you think that the Lamanites had a darker skin than the Nephites, it actually has a new footnote on it.

Now, I don’t know anything about the DNA and what color they were when they got here. I don’t know anything about that. Okay.

Judging by the HeartAll I know—and this is all I preach when we’re helping people in the church stay in the church—I just point to what the brethren have given us.

And in Jacob 3:8, you’ve got,

“O my brethren, I fear that unless you repent of your sins, that their skins,”

speaking of the Lamanites,

“will be whiter than yours when ye are brought before the throne of God.”

Brought before the throne of God to be judged. Here I am. What is he going to judge me on? Is he going to judge me on my physical appearance, my outer skin? Does that represent my righteousness? No. You know better than that.

The Lord Looks on the HeartThe Lord gave us, in 1 Samuel 16:7, direction on that.

“But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not unto his countenance, or the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for the man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.”

So if the Lord is going to judge us based on whiter and darker skins, it must be something other than a physical or literal skin.

And the guidance that the brethren have given us clearly in the scriptures is that they’re talking about a spiritual darkness.

Applying the TeachingHow do we reach African-Americans? We’ve got to understand the language and the culture of African-Americans regarding our LDS culture.

Number two, we need to understand that this is a culture of highly highly persecuted people that have plenty of written documentation that we need to explain somehow. We just can’t wish it away.

Teaching with Honesty and ScriptureWe need to be honest and stop denying what everybody knows to be true. It’s like walking in with a milk mustache. “I didn’t have milk. I didn’t have any milk.”

Learn to teach what the Lord and the brethren have given us. You don’t need the philosophies of men on this issue.

You can go to the scriptures, study them out. I recommend that you don’t take my word for anything, but that you actually go to the scriptures and get on your knees for everything that you don’t understand. He’ll give it to us. He really will.

The Results of This ApproachAnd as a result of learning this information, what happens? Well, this is what we’ve seen when we’ve taught from the scriptures this new direction that the brethren have given us.

The discussions continue resulting in baptism.

Brothers and sisters of color—of all colors—come back into the church as a result of now feeling more comfortable.

Strengthening the ChurchMembers are strengthened and more active participants in their stakes and their wards.

Missionaries are armed and members are armed. They go out with knowledge on how to deal with these issues, and now they can actually help someone.

And finally, you are able to keep your covenant to feed the Lord’s sheep.

Final Warning and TestimonyWoe unto the shepherds who feed not the sheep. How do you think the Lord would feel if we as a church ignored these people?

Especially when we have the pattern—we have the pattern of studying the language and the culture of people before we go out to try to reach them—but yet putting no effort forth for this group of people, I think that he would be very displeased with us.

But I know that if we do this, if we study these things and just only study the language and the culture of the people and what the brethren have given us, that we will see a flood of African-Americans come in the church.

And I leave these things with you in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Download Marvin Perkin's Paper on this Subject Search topics Race; Priesthood; African Americans; Race and the Priesthood; Priesthood restriction; 1978 Revelation; Continuing revelation; Elijah Abel; David O. McKay; Dallin H. Oaks; Bruce R. McConkie; LDS doctrine vs policy; Scripture interpretation; Book of Mormon skin of blackness; 2 Nephi 5:21; 2 Nephi 30:6; Jacob 3:8; 1 Samuel 16:7; Spiritual vs physical skin; Church history race; Inclusion; Missionary work; Cultural understanding CES Letter; Mormon racism; Mormon Church racism; LDS racism history; Black members LDS Church; Priesthood ban controversy; Race criticism LDS; Faith crisis race issues; Church reputation race; LDS Church criticism raceThe post How to Reach African-Americans appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Jennifer Roach Lees holds a Master in Divinity as well as a Masters in Counseling Psychology. She is a licensed mental health therapist and lives in Utah.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Genesis 5; Moses 6 – Jennifer Roach Lees appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

If God is so Powerful, Why Didn’t He Just Stop Their Enemies?by Autumn Dickson

I want to share something from the Official Declaration 1, the declaration that ended the practice of polygamy in the latter-days. This post isn’t specifically about polygamy, but the principle I want to teach is being taught through the polygamy example.

The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.

He then proceeds to ask the people what would be better: to comply with the law of the land and cease the practice of polygamy or continue to practice polygamy and lose the priesthood organization and temples and be forced to stop polygamy anyway?

I’ve heard people express the idea that the church supposedly believes in revelation but fold the second they receive outside pressure. I’ve heard it conveyed that it was so convenient for the Lord to stop the practice of polygamy when things got too difficult for the people to live it. Even as a teenager, I believed in the church but remember thinking, “Isn’t there a third option? Can’t the Lord enable them to continue practicing polygamy without losing all of the men and the temples?”

Though polygamy is unique in many ways, there is not really any new argument against God. These specific questions boil down to a question that is as old as religion, “If your God is truly so powerful, why doesn’t He enable you?”

The answer to that specific question varies because the circumstances of mankind vary, but I’ll do my best to teach the overarching principles by referring to this specific example of polygamy.

According to President Woodruff, the Saints were facing some pretty dire circumstances. He had a vision of everything that the Saints would lose if they continued the practice of polygamy. To put it shortly, they would lose everything that mattered. I don’t think Satan was worried about stopping polygamy as he was about utilizing polygamy to stop the work in general. If the Saints continued on, this would surely stop the work. They would lose temples and the men; if they lost these, apostasy would reign and Satan would have won (especially since the Lord has promised that we will not fall into a Great Apostasy again).

When we face dire circumstances, the Lord can react in a number of ways and He makes wise decisions based on what will bring about His purposes.

The Lord’s potential reaction #1:

Sometimes He asks us to continue on through difficulty and lose everything. I think of Abinadi. Abinadi was asked to continue preaching despite the fact that it put his life in danger. Abinadi died. Sometimes the Lord asks for the ultimate sacrifice. He could have asked the Saints to make the ultimate sacrifice, but He didn’t.

The Lord’s potential reaction #2:

The Lord can tell His people to keep going and then remove the difficulty. There are a million examples of this, the most obvious being Moses parting the Red Sea.

When it came to polygamy, the Lord could have responded in this way. He could have “parted the sea” and removed the difficulty. The Lord could have enabled His Saints to continue practicing polygamy. He could have wiped out the entire earth other than the Saints if that’s what it took, but He didn’t.

The Lord’s potential reaction #3:

Sometimes the Lord tells us to stop. I think of Alma and his people. They were threatened with death if they prayed, and so they only prayed in their hearts. The Lord could have commanded them to keep praying, but it wasn’t their time and so He didn’t. Technically they kept praying, but there are other instances. For example, there was Zion’s camp. An “army” of members left Kirtland to go win back Missouri for the Saints, but the Lord told them to turn around after they got there. I did a whole video on why the Lord might have chosen after this manner. There was also the time when the Lord excused His people from building the temple in Zion for a time.

Sometimes the Lord does tell us we can stop. People love to act like this is because our God isn’t real or that He isn’t powerful. The answer is neither.

Sometimes the Lord tells us to stop because He is wise.

Despite the fact that the Lord could ask His Saints to sacrifice everything and despite the fact that the Lord could have removed the obstacles they were facing, He chose not to. I emphasize the point that we do not always know why the Lord makes specific choices unless He tells us directly, but let’s think for a bit about why the Lord would have made this decision.

Despite the fact that the Lord reigns over all and despite the fact that He is tremendously powerful, sometimes He chooses to act in a certain way with mankind because of His purposes. The “limitations” are not true limitations; they are self-imposed limitations that enable Him to push His purposes along.

His purpose is to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man and because of His chosen purpose, He often works within the constraints of mankind so He doesn’t ruin His own plan. Let’s look at this principle in the context of polygamy.

The Lord’s potential reaction #1:

The Lord could have asked them to continue on in difficulty and sacrifice. They would have lost the temples and priesthood organization that kept His restored church on the earth. That doesn’t really fit His purposes so He’s not going to choose this option.

The Lord’s potential reaction #2:

The Lord could have asked them to continue on and then removed the difficulty for them. This answers the question that I’ve heard posed more than once in my life. Believe it or not, this would have also frustrated His purposes. He COULD have destroyed everyone except the Saints, but that doesn’t contribute to His purposes. He COULD have sent down miracles to stop the rest of America from being able to infiltrate Utah and take the temples and arrest the men, but it would have taken some large-scale miracles in order to keep the work moving forward.

In the history of the world, the Lord has performed some incredible large-scale miracles. We read about these miracles, and we rejoice in them.

However, the Lord does not often choose to work after this manner. He just doesn’t. Why? Because faith is an essential ingredient in His plan. I have studied the purpose of faith over and over and over. You can’t bring about the Plan of Redemption if you wipe out the principle of faith, and large-scale miracles run the risk of doing just that.

The Lord could perform large-scale miracle after large-scale miracle and fix everything, but He doesn’t. Why? Because removing faith from the mortal experience has far dire consequences than anything we could potentially face on earth.

So the Lord COULD have chosen potential reaction #1 or #2, but He didn’t because they don’t contribute to His purposes.

The Lord’s potential reaction #3:

He stops it.

And honestly, this makes sense. Temple work and the priesthood organization were more important. Faith was more important.

I believe that polygamy was a policy laid down by God. I do. I also believe that polygamy doesn’t make logistical sense on a grand scale so it was the wisest choice the Lord could have made.

There are a million arguments made against the church. One of them is the idea of, “If your God is so powerful, why doesn’t He enable you to xyz?”

I testify that God is real and powerful, and I testify that He is in this work. I also testify that God is wise and because He is wise, He has self-imposed limitations in order to bring about His purposes. He could easily interfere with evil on a daily basis, but He knows the cost would be too high. I testify that the Lord is wise enough to make the decisions necessary to bring about our eternal life.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – The Articles of Faith and Official Declarations 1 and 2 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

An Underrated Section: How to Become Zion…and Heavenby Autumn Dickson

With Joseph and Hyrum martyred, Brigham Young was now the prophet. After the Saints were expelled from Nauvoo, Brigham was in charge of finding them a permanent home in the mountains of the west. Though the westward movement of the Saints was among the most impressive immigrations of Americans, it did not start out that way.

The Saints were starving and freezing along the trail. Muddy quagmires kept the Saints from reaching their goal to plant crops ahead of everyone coming. Brigham described feeling like he was dragging around a 25 ton weight. He felt like he had a large family with no way of taking care of them. At Winter Quarters in Nebraska, he turned to the Lord for guidance.

The Lord told Brigham how to organize the company, but He taught Brigham much more important things that would turn the tide for the Saints’ ability to make it to their destination.

Here is the verse that introduces the important concept that turned things around.

Doctrine and Covenants 136:2

Let all the people of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and those who journey with them, be organized into companies, with a covenant and promise to keep all the commandments and statutes of the Lord our God.

The Saints were to be organized into companies that would stick together, and they entered into those companies by making covenants to keep the commandments and statutes of the Lord.

There were two major principles at work here that changed the game.

Principle one. When people normally made their way across towards the west (Saints and non-Saints alike), it was done very loosely with every man vying for his own family. They often travelled together for safety, but companies broke apart and came together with different members more than once. That is the first principle: Brigham Young organized them into companies with leadership at different levels, and each company was expected to stick together throughout the entire journey. If one made it, they were all going to make it.

The second principle was to focus on spirituality again. Not only were they to focus on the eternal nature of their work, but they were to focus on the fact that they believed in the same God who helped many groups of people travel to new destinations, the God of Israel.

This becomes even more significant when you recognize what the Lord was preparing Brigham for.

In 1877, Brigham Young organized the priesthood structure of the church. After travelling around Utah, he found that there were many people scattered and not enrolled in wards. There were overlapping authorities where spiritual jurisdictions were confusing, and it was unclear who would have the responsibility of showing their stewardship to the Lord. There were bishops who had never been ordained, and this was setting the stage for people to become more vulnerable as they were travelling the covenant path.

The Saints had now grown large enough that they needed to be organized or two things would happen: losing people and losing the doctrine that had been restored with such difficulty.

So that’s what Brigham did. Under the direction of the apostles, Saints scattered across Utah were better organized into stakes and wards. Bishops were set apart. Every member found themselves in a ward with a leader who would watch over them. Priesthood roles were clarified so that everyone understood what they were in charge of. This would lessen the gaps in which people could fall through with no one to watch over them, and it would also serve to help the Lord speak to His entire church when He revealed something rather than sending word out and hoping everyone was able to receive it.

It’s hard to overstate the unglamorous importance of what Brigham did.

Let’s tie it back to what we talked about in the beginning, and let’s talk about it from the perspective of an imaginary Saint who could have lived it

A widow is trying to get her kids across the plains to gather with the Saints. Her oldest child is 10 years old and he helps, but he is still only 10. She started out with one company as she began her journey across the plains only to have fallen behind and found herself in a new company. As she tries to nurse her sick baby back to health, they fall behind again as the 10 year old can only get the wagon going so far. She finds herself in a new company once again. At this point, she is simply hoping that she gets to their destination before she reaches the end of the line of companies.

Organizing the Saints into companies that cared for each other changed the game. No one got left behind. This is powerful for the widow, but it’s also powerful for the ones who are watching out for the widow. It’s powerful for the entire company who works together, mourns together, lifts one another. If you can cry with someone, you are very likely to rejoice with each other as well. Everything changes when you’re not alone.

The widow cries as she holds her baby and a 16 year old from another family has stepped up to drive her wagon along. Her 10 year old looks up at the 16 year old with something akin to hero-worship. This is the beginning of hope. The widow finds renewed faith in her ability to make it, and the 16 year old is changed too.

This doesn’t even mention the fact that all of this hope and change invites the Lord to rain down manna on the heads of the Saints.

Now let’s fast forward. The Saints are in the valley, and it is now 1877. There is a young family whose father has broken his leg in a wagon accident. Mother and teenage daughter are doing everything they can to keep the farm and home running, but it’s not going well. What will winter look like if they can’t finish the work?

But then a man shows up and knocks on their door. He sees the ragged family and introduces himself as their bishop. Over the course of the next few weeks, there are rotations of brethren coming in to harvest the family’s crop. There are young women who come in and help mother prepare the crop to last through the winter.

This is all good and beautiful and inspiring, but I want to fast-forward again.

We are accustomed to living in wards and stakes with leadership that enables lightning fast communication from our beloved prophet to each member. If there is a change wanted by the Lord, it is implemented overnight if that’s what He wants. We are organized, and we enter into a covenant in order to become part of the organization.

It changes the game when this kind of organization is used effectively. It didn’t do much good if the companies that were travelling the plains stayed in the same geographical area but still found themselves laboring alone.

When was the last time you looked around your ward and saw a family? When was the last time you made a valiant attempt to make it a ward family? When was the last time you ministered to make sure no one was lost out on the plains, physically or spiritually? When it comes to the Lord’s work, it’s not just about the widow who is being served. It’s about how we change when we forget our own problems, and we all work together towards common purposes.

Picture the vast difference between the beginning of the Saints journey towards Utah and the end of it. That’s the difference we will find in our own lives if we recognize what the Lord has given us in His organization of the church.

I testify that wards and stakes and leadership and priesthood organization are gifts from the Lord. I don’t believe we recognize the full power of what we’ve been given. I worry that we won’t recognize the full power until we’re ready to bring everyone along the covenant path together. Zion is available everywhere; we do not have to wait. The Lord wants us to experience those blessings today, but He can’t force us to find them. He can simply offer the opportunity and wait for us to step into those blessings. I testify that He loves us and gave us organizations to protect us and lift us.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 135–136 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Martyrdom of Joseph & Hyrum Smith; Brigham Young led the Saints west (D&C 135–136)by Mike Parker

(Mike Parker is a long-time FAIR member who has graciously allowed us to use materials he originally prepared for the Hurricane Utah Adult Religion Class. The scripture passages covered in his lessons don’t conform exactly to the Come, Follow Me reading schedule, so they will be shared here where they fit best.)

Class Notes

Additional Reading and Videos

Alexander L. Baugh and Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, “‘I Roll the Burthen and Responsibility of Leading This Church Off from My Shoulders on to Yours’: The 1844/1845 Declaration of the Quorum of the Twelve Regarding Apostolic Succession,” BYU Studies 49, no. 3 (2010): 4–19.
Dallin H. Oaks, “The Suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor,” Utah Law Review 9, no. 4 (Winter 1965): 862–903. Oaks argued that the Nauvoo city council’s action to destroy the Expositor press was legal within the understanding of the law in Joseph’s time. (This article was published twenty years before he became an apostle.)
Joseph L. Lyon and David W. Lyon, “Physical Evidence at Carthage Jail and What It Reveals about the Assassination of Joseph and Hyrum Smith,” BYU Studies 47, no. 4 (2008): 4–50.
Mark Lyman Staker and LaJean Purcell Carruth, “John Taylor’s June 27, 1854, Account of the Martyrdom,” BYU Studies 50, no. 3 (2011): 25–62.
D. Michael Quinn, “The Mormon Succession Crisis of 1844,” BYU Studies 16, no. 2 (Winter 1976): 187–233. Quinn argued that Joseph did not leave clear directions on who should succeed him and this spurred a crisis that was resolved only when the majority of the Saints threw their support behind Brigham Young and the Twelve.
Ronald K. Esplin, “Joseph, Brigham and the Twelve: A Succession of Continuity,” BYU Studies 21, no. 3 (Summer 1981): 301–41. Esplin countered Quinn’s article by arguing that the path of succession was clear from Joseph’s statements and the canonized revelations.
Russel R. Rich, “Nineteenth-Century Break-offs,” Ensign, September 1979, 68–71. Rich described some of the schismatic groups that broke away from the restored Church during the Prophet Joseph’s life and after his death.
R. Jean Addams, “Aftermath of the Martyrdom: Aspirants to the Mantle of the Prophet Joseph Smith,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 62 (2024): 335–402. Addams examines the individuals who claimed the mantle of the Joseph Smith, their motives, and the churches or organizations they founded in the decade following the death of the Prophet.
Road to Carthage: A Joseph Smith Papers Podcast is an eight-part documentary miniseries that explores the history of the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith in 1844. The episodes focus on the historical events that led to the assassination of the Prophet and his brother by a mob, as well as the aftermath of that tragic event. Series host Spencer W. McBride interviewed historians and Church leaders for this podcast.
LaJean Carruth, “Brigham Young on Brigham Young: His Life, Conversion, and Faith, in his Own Words,” 2024 FAIR Conference.
Daniel C. Peterson, “Appreciating Brother Brigham,” 2024 FAIR Conference.

Mike Parker is a business and marketing analyst with over twenty years’ experience in the financial services and cellular telephone industries. He holds a bachelor’s degree in Business Administration with an emphasis in Management Information Systems from Dixie State University (now Utah Tech University) of St George, Utah. He also has eight years’ experience in corporate training and currently teaches an adult religion class in southern Utah. Mike and his wife, Denise, have three children.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 135–136 – Mike Parker appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Eternal marriage & plural marriage (D&C 132; Official Declaration 1)by Mike Parker

Class Notes

Additional Reading and Videos

Gospel Topics Essays on plural marriage. These articles, published by the Church with the help of Latter-day Saint scholars, review the history and practice of plural marriage in nineteenth century:

“Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (an introductory essay).
“Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo” (on polygamy as revealed and practiced by Joseph Smith).
“Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah” (how polygamy was practiced in the Utah period).
“The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage” (how the practice was discontinued).

Joseph Smith’s Polygamy is the website for Brian and Laura Hales’ book series on Joseph Smith and the establishment and practice of plural marriage in Nauvoo. The Hales are the most thorough and reliable scholars working on this subject. Works in the series include Brian’s three-volume scholarly examination of Joseph’s practice of plural marriage and Brian and Laura’s brief, one-volume book that summarizes his work for a lay audience.

Brian Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, Volume 1: History (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2013)
Brian Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, Volume 2: History (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2013)
Brian Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, Volume 3: Theology (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2013)
Brian Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy: Toward a Better Understanding (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2015)

Gregory L. Smith, “Polygamy, Prophets, and Prevarication: Frequently and Rarely Asked Questions about the Initiation, Practice, and Cessation of Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” FAIR (2005). Smith explores some of the difficult issues surrounding plural marriage, including Joseph Smith’s public denials that he was practicing it. * Brian Hales, “Controversies in Joseph Smith’s Polygamy.” Presentation given at the 2010 FAIR Conference. * Brittany Chapman Nash, “Let’s Talk About Polygamy.” Presentation given at the 2021 FAIR Conference. * Gordon Irving, “The Law of Adoption: One Phase of the Development of the Mormon Concept of Salvation, 1830–1900,” BYU Studies 14, no. 3 (Spring 1974): 291–314. Irving’s article reviews the early Mormon practice of being sealed as a son or daughter to a prominent Church leader, a practice President Wilford Woodruff did away with by revelation in 1894. Mike Parker is a business and marketing analyst with over twenty years’ experience in the financial services and cellular telephone industries. He holds a bachelor’s degree in Business Administration with an emphasis in Management Information Systems from Dixie State University (now Utah Tech University) of St George, Utah. He also has eight years’ experience in corporate training and currently teaches an adult religion class in southern Utah. Mike and his wife, Denise, have three children.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 132 – Mike Parker appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Doctrinal Developments in Nauvooby Mike Parker

Class Notes

Additional Reading

This week’s lesson notes include a comparison of the sources used to compile section 130. (See notes, pp. 15–32.)
Joseph Smith’s teachings about the Holy Ghost in D&C 130:22 were emended in 1854 under the direction of Brigham Young. For an explanation of what happened and why, see Ronald E. Bartholomew, “The Textual Development of D&C 130:22 and the Embodiment of the Holy Ghost,” BYU Studies Quarterly 52, no. 3 (2013): 4–24.
Stan Larson, “The King Follett Discourse: A Newly Amalgamated Text,” BYU Studies 18, no. 2 (Winter 1978): 193–208. Joseph’s 7 April 1844 sermon, delivered at the funeral of his friend, Elder King Follett, is arguably the most important of his published discourses. In it, Joseph explained his understanding of the nature of God, including the doctrine that God the Father is an exalted Man who once had a mortal existence. Four different individuals took notes during Joseph’s sermon. Their accounts were synthesized into a single text in 1855 by Church scribe Jonathan Grimshaw; Grimshaw’s version was published by B. H. Roberts in his seven-volume History of the Church (6:302–17) and in many other Church publications. Stan Larson’s 1978 amalgamated text attempted to remove Grimshaw’s textual emendations and provide proper weight and balance to the various accounts.
On 16 June 1844, only eleven days before his death, Joseph gave his “Sermon in the Grove” that expanded on the nature of God and other ideas he had presented in the King Follett Discourse. The most complete account of his sermon was made by Thomas Bullock; you can read his handwritten notes on the website of the Joseph Smith Papers or a parallel comparison of his and two other accounts on the archived website of the Book of Abraham Project.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 129–131 – Mike Parker appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

The “Mormon War” of 1838; Joseph Smith’s letter from Liberty Jailby Mike Parker

Class Notes

Additional Reading

FAIR has an article on The Danites with links to several other resources.
R. Scott Lloyd, “Hawn’s Mill Massacre: ‘New Insights and Interpretations’,” Church News, 9 November 2013. Recent research indicates that the name of the Mormon settlement was spelled Hawn’s Mill, rather than Haun’s, and that the Saints there were not aware of Joseph Smith’s counsel to move closer to Far West to avoid violence.
Transcript and photograph of Governor Lilburn W. Boggs’ “Extermination Order,” Missouri Executive Order 44, issued 27 October 1838.
Emma Smith’s letter to Joseph Smith, Jr. in Liberty Jail, 7 March 1839. In her letter, Emma updated her incarcerated husband on her status and the the welfare of their children: “Was it not for conscious innocence, and the direct interposition of divine mercy, I am very sure I never should have been able to have endured the scenes of suffering that I have passed through…but I still live and am yet willing to suffer more if it is the will of kind Heaven, that I should for your sake.”
Sections 121, 122, and 123 of the Doctrine and Covenants are extracts from a letter written by Joseph Smith and other Church leaders from Liberty Jail on 20 and (c.) 22 March 1839. Images of the original letter, along with an uncorrected transcript, are available on the Joseph Smith Papers website: Part 1 (20 March 1839); Part 2 (ca. 22 March 1839).
Kent P. Jackson and Robert D. Hunt, “Reprove, Betimes, and Sharpness in the Vocabulary of Joseph Smith,” The Religious Educator 6, no. 2 (2005): 97–104. Jackson and Hunt explain what these words meant in 1839 and the context in which they were used in D&C 121:43.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 121–123 – Mike Parker appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

What This MeansUpon the passing of a prophet, the First Presidency is dissolved. The senior Apostle—currently Dallin H. Oaks—is called as President. Two Apostles are chosen by revelation to serve with him as counselors, forming the First Presidency.

This sacred reorganization ensures continuity, divine direction, and stability in the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Meet the Prophet and CounselorsPresident Dallin H. OaksPresident Oaks, the 18th President of the Church, has served as an Apostle since 1984. A former justice of the Utah Supreme Court and accomplished scholar, he is known for his clarity on doctrine, defense of religious freedom, and emphasis on covenant discipleship.

First Counselor: Henry B. EyringPresident Henry B. Eyring served as a counselor to President Russell M. Nelson from 2018 to 2025, to President Thomas S. Monson from 2008 to 2018, and to President Gordon B. Hinckley from 2007 to 2008. He was sustained as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles on April 1, 1995. Prior to full-time Church service, President Eyring was president of Ricks College in Rexburg, Idaho, from 1971 to 1977. He was on the faculty at the Graduate School of Business at Stanford University from 1962 to 1971.

Second Counselor: D. Todd ChristoffersonPresident D. Todd Christofferson was called to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles on April 5, 2008, and previously served in the Presidency of the Seventy. Before full-time Church service, he was associate general counsel of NationsBank Corporation (now Bank of America) in Charlotte, North Carolina. Previously he was senior vice president and general counsel for Commerce Union Bank of Tennessee in Nashville, where he was also active in community affairs and interfaith organizations. From 1975 to 1980, Elder Christofferson practiced law in Washington, D.C.

CONTINUED HERE

The post A New First Presidency: Called by Revelation appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

End of the Kirtland period; revelations in Missouri, 1838by Mike Parker

Class Notes

Additional Reading

BMC Team, “Why Was Martin Harris Cut Off from the Church?”, Book of Mormon Central, 1 June 2021. This brief article explains why Martin Harris, one of the Three Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, was excommunicated from the Church in late 1837 during a period of mass apostasy.
Stephen C. Harper, “The Tithing of My People,” Church History: Revelations in Context, last modified 13 January 2016. Harper, a historian for the Church History Department, explains how the Saints in Missouri understood how to calculate “one-tenth of all their interest annually” as tithing. (D&C 119:4)
Dennis B. Horne, “Reexamining Lorenzo Snow’s 1899 Tithing Revelation,” Mormon Historical Studies – Fall 2013, Vol. 14, No. 2. President Lorenzo Snow did not prophesy an end to the southern Utah drought at the time he received his famous tithing revelation in St. George in 1899 (as portrayed in the church-produced movie “The Windows of Heaven”). The tithing manifestation was indeed true and real, but President Snow’s son LeRoi C. later created an accompanying fiction of a prophecy that if the locals paid their full tithing it would yet rain that very season and save their livestock and crops. President Snow uttered no such prophecy and there was no end to the drought for two years.
Elder Boyd K. Packer, “The Least of These,” General Conference, October 2004. “I remember my servant Oliver Granger; behold, verily I say unto him that his name shall be had in sacred remembrance from generation to generation, forever and ever, saith the Lord.” (D&C 117:12)
Elizabeth Kuehn, “Finances and Faith in the Kirtland Crisis of 1837,” 2017 FAIR Conference.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 111–112, 114–115, 117–120 – Mike Parker appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

This book review was originally published here on December 12, 2021. It is being reposted now to help people get to know President Oaks better. It also contains information about the origin of the Proclamation on the Family, which is currently having its 30th anniversary celebrated.

Available from the FAIR BookstoreThis biography of Dallin H. Oaks was written by Richard E. Turley, Jr., who has been associated with Oaks throughout most of his (Turley’s) professional life. Turley has served as the Director of the Church History Department (originally selected to work for the department by Oaks), Assistant Church Historian, and Director of Public Affairs. He has previously written or co-written several other books, including Victims: The LDS Church and the Mark Hoffman Case and Massacre at Mountain Meadows: An American Tragedy.

The Beginning of Dallin H. Oak’s LifeDallin Harris Oaks was born August 12, 1932 in Provo, Utah. “Harris” comes from his mom’s side of the family, who was descended from a brother of Martin Harris. He grew up in Provo; Twin Falls, Idaho; Payson (where he stayed with his grandparents at times due to the death of his father when he was 7); and Vernal. As a child, he came close to dying several, beginning with his birth, with miraculous preservation of his life occurring each time.

Education, Marriage and MilitaryOaks eventually made it to Brigham Young University, where he met his first wife, June Dixon, and married her in his junior year. He was in the Utah National Guard, and the Korean War was going on, so he was unable to serve a mission. After BYU, he graduated cum laude from the University of Chicago Law School, worked as a clerk for the Supreme Court, and then began working at a law practice. During this time he also served as a stake missionary.

He then returned to the University of Chicago Law School as a professor (also serving in the stake presidency) until he was chosen to be the president of Brigham Young University. From there he went on to become a justice of the Utah Supreme Court. He was a potential candidate twice for the United States Supreme Court, but both times felt it wasn’t right. When asked about it once, he said: “That job is like being called to be a General Authority. Only a fool would aspire to it, but no one would turn it down” (page 168).

Called to the ApostleshipIn 1984 he received a surprise phone call from President Gordon B. Hinckley of the First Presidency, and he was called as an apostle, which he found to be shocking. “‘I feel so unworthy and so unprepared for this sacred calling,’ he confessed, ‘Yet I do know that there is nothing I cannot do if I am worthy of the help of our Heavenly Father. My challenge is to be worthy and to be in tune’” (page 180).

During his time as an apostle, he had many assignments and took very seriously his role as a special witness of the name of Christ. He became known for his doctrinal addresses. “He felt the heavy responsibility of spiritually feeding those who came–or tuned in–to hear him, and he wanted to align his will with God’s in selecting, developing, and addressing topics of importance in advancing the Lord’s purposes” (page 322).

Powerful Priesthood WitnessOne of his talks that is among my favorites was “Healing the Sick,” given in the April 2010 General Conference. Oaks gained faith in the power of the priesthood early in his life. His father was a doctor and someone once “asked him if he was going to grow up to be a doctor like his father and heal people. ‘No,’ he answered. He was going to be a ‘high priest like my father and bless babies’” (page 7).

Later, when he was ten years old, he had an experience that “has been a significant influence on my faith in the power of the priesthood” (page 15). When he was staying with his grandfather, his younger cousin fell unnoticed into an irrigation ditch and wasn’t found for 20 or 30 minutes. He had been floating facedown and was dead. His grandfather gave him a blessing and he was revived. “‘He suffered no after-effects, filling a mission to Australia, marrying a lovely girl, and living an exemplary life as a Latter-day Saint husband and father. I am witness,’ Dallin concluded, ‘to the miracle of his childhood death and restoration’” (page 17).

The Mark Hoffman CaseOne of his assignments was with Public Affairs, and this was when the Mark Hofmann case occurred. He was involved in responding to the media and encouraged transparency from the First Presidency in their dealings with Hofmann. After Hofmann was arrested and pleaded guilty, he wrote: “The outcome vindicates the Church in every particular! How blessed are we! The Lord truly looks after His work and His servants. We are buffeted by the world and afflicted with the consequences of our own mistakes, but when the stakes are large and the survival or significant momentum of the work is on the line, we are saved as by a miracle” (page 208).

When later reviewing the manuscript of Turley’s Victims, he wrote: “The facts are there, and his effort will set the record straight for purposes of history. Those who want to believe the worst about the Church and its leaders will do so, but those who want the truth and have ears to hear and hearts to understand will at last have the complete facts on the Church…involvement in the Hofmann affair” (page 209).

Travel AssignmentsThere were many travel assignments, including time spent as the Philippines Area President. As he got older, this became harder, and in 2006 during a trip to Africa, he wrote: “As I reflect on what I have been doing on this trip…I have been impressed with the fact that I am working so hard that I would not possibly do this for money. I love doing this for the Lord, and I love the people with whom I work and those I meet on these trips” (page 292).

The Family: A Proclamation to the WorldThe book gives us some information about the creation of “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” and Oaks’ role:

During the fall of 1994, at the urging of its Acting President, Boyd K. Packer, the Quorum of the Twelve discussed the need for a scripture-based proclamation to set forth the Church’s doctrinal position on the family. A committee consisting of Elders Faust, Nelson, and Oaks was assigned to prepare a draft. Their work, for which Elder Nelson was the principal draftsman, was completed over the Christmas holidays. After being approved by the Quorum of the Twelve, the draft was submitted to the First Presidency on January 9, 1995, and warmly received.

Over the next several months, the First Presidency took the proposed proclamation under advisement and made needed amendments. Then on September 23, 1995, in the general Relief Society meeting held in the Salt Lake Tabernacle and broadcast throughout the world, Church President Gordon B. Hinckley read “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” publicly for the first time.

During the period that the proclamation was being drafted, Church leaders grew concerned about efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in the state of Hawaii. As that movement gained momentum, a group of Church authorities and Latter-day Saint legal scholars, including Elder Oaks, recommended that the Church oppose the Hawaii efforts…. (Page 215.)

There has been a theory that the Proclamation began as a response to the legalization efforts in Hawaii, and was written by a team of lawyers, but this clearly shows that not to be the case. If it sounds like it might have been written by legal experts, it’s probably because two of its co-writers were Oaks (a former Utah Supreme Court Justice) and Faust (a former lawyer).

Widower and Second MarriageDallin’s wife, June, died in 1998. He later had an experience in the temple where he felt her presence and heard her voice in his mind. She told him “(1) she is busy and happy, and (2) she knows why she died at this time. I was comforted.”

Four months after she had died, he was in the temple again. This time he didn’t feel her presence, but “I did feel a thought she had left for me, somewhat like a written message: ‘Your needs are not so great now, so I will not visit you on a regular basis, but from time to time as you need.’…Elder Oaks wrote that he ‘went away strengthened for a new era in my life’” (pages 235-236).

After that, he began thinking of remarriage and received advice and help from Elder L. Tom Perry, who introduced him to Kristen McMain. After a brief courtship and with the consent of his children, they were married.

Written CorrespondenceAs an apostle, Oaks responded to many letters. There are portions of some of his responses in the book. Here are some excerpts from those that I found interesting:

On another occasion…Elder Oaks offered four suggestions. The first was about reading from varied sources in searching for truth. Sometimes, Elder Oaks observed, those who say they read broadly exclude reading sources “that will sustain and nourish faith.” Second, he explained, “while doubt can be a virtue when it moves people to seek knowledge, it is also an eternal principle that faith precedes the receipt of knowledge from above.” Third, knowing the Church is true does not require “the kind of transcendental experience the Prophet Joseph Smith had.” That knowledge can come from simply keeping the Lord’s commandments. Fourth, we must avoid judging godly things “according to what seems ‘godly’ according to our standards or culture or experience.” Instead, “we are to learn from Him, not teach Him or confine Him within our criteria.” Finally, Elder Oaks wrote, no one can pass the responsibility for personal conversion to another. “The whole case is in your hands…and its resolution is between you and your Heavenly Father.”

…To a man who wrote on reconciling science and religion, Elder Oaks responded, “Because our knowledge of the truths of the gospel is still evolving with continuing revelation, and because the ‘truths’ of science are also very dynamic, I am skeptical about bringing them together at present, though I know that they will each be gloriously consistent when all truths are known.”

A man wrote asking whether he should refrain from promoting new concepts that came to him about Christ’s Atonement. “The Lord has given us a prophet and his two counselors,” Elder Oaks replied, “and they are the ones to whom we look for ‘new concepts’ on our doctrine. The rest of us should refrain.”

…One correspondent was bothered that a family member talked openly about purported spiritual manifestations… “Have you noticed,” Elder Oaks asked in response, “that General Authorities, fifteen of whom are sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators, rarely speak about personal and sacred spiritual experiences?

“That cannot be a coincidence,” he taught. “It is also true that there are many miracles and sacred spiritual experiences among the Latter-day Saints, and we rarely hear of them across the pulpit or in classes. That cannot be a coincidence either.

“True,” Elder Oaks agreed, “some individuals speak of their personal and sacred spiritual experiences, but I have noticed that those individuals are cautioned not to do so, and if they persist, they are generally released from their Church positions or requested not to speak in Church meetings.

“What explains all of this?” Elder Oaks inquired of the writer. “A person has only to read the directions in the Doctrine and Covenants to see that the Lord has told us that our sacred experiences are personal and are not to be shown before the world.” He concluded, “If every person would be careful to limit the use of their spiritual experiences to their own personal benefit, instead of using them for other purposes, the adversary would have less occasion to mislead us by counterfeit spiritual experiences.” (Pages 336-341.)

Called to the First PresidencyIn 2018, Elder Oaks became President Oaks as he was called to be a counselor in the First Presidency. At this time, I observed that there were some that felt that the counselor under President Monson that he was effectively replacing (Dieter F. Uchtdorf) was being demoted. However, when Uchtdorf “met with President Nelson, he recommended two other men to be counselors in the First Presidency. ‘Elder Oaks was one of my recommendations,’ he later explained.

‘Through the course of those interviews,’ President Nelson recounted, ‘it became very clear to me, as I prayed about it, that Dallin should be First Counselor because, upon my demise, he’s the next President of the Church. That’s the kindest thing I could do to the Church and for him…to give that exposure” (page 345).

As a member of the First Presidency,

“My understanding of the power of the Atonement of Jesus Christ has increased enormously. As a judge, I applied mortal laws and penalties. In contrast, as I have reviewed the cases of persons who have sinned previously and now seek renewal in the Church, I have been awed by the love of God and His merciful forgiveness of those who repent and return to Him…. I have greatly increased in knowledge of and appreciation for the inspired service of the members of the Twelve, the Seventy, the Presiding Bishopric, our General Officers, and our local leaders…. I have grown in my testimony of the reality of revelation to our living prophet, President Russell M. Nelson” (page 368).

Describing the First Presidency meetings, he said they

“continue to be very revelatory for all three of us: open discussion of different points of view followed by sweet coming together in unity” (page 356).

On another occasion he wrote that

“The Lord is in charge, and with His direction we can make big changes” (pages 358-359).

Later he wrote, “President Nelson is receiving…inspiration, and it is always confirmed to President Eyring and me. Thrilling!” (page 359).

Changes in the ChurchSpeaking of the many changes that have been made by the First Presidency since it was formed, Oaks said to members in Arizona:

“Change is almost always exciting… But as I have thought about the many recent changes in the Church, I have felt some caution. The changes we have experienced in our Church meetings and policies should help us, but by themselves they won’t get our members to where our Heavenly Father wants us to be. The changes that make a difference to our position on the covenant path are not changes in Church policies or practices, but the changes we make in our own desires and actions” (page 361).

How the Book is OrganizedThe book goes through Oaks’ life chronologically until his calling as an apostle. At that point, it shifts into being arranged thematically. This includes a chapter devoted to his first wife. It’s followed by a chapter about his courtship and marriage to his second wife. The last three chapters cover his calling to the First Presidency and events leading up until the publishing of the book. A summary of the book can be found in the final chapter.

I would have preferred as much detail of his later life as there is of earlier parts of his life. But it’s understandable that many aspects of being an apostle and member of the First Presidency require confidentiality. (The author does explain this problem in the introduction.) The details that we are given are extremely interesting. I can see the value of arranging his apostolic ministry into themes. Many things would have been interwoven throughout multiple years otherwise.

I enjoyed this book so much that I gave a copy to my dad for his birthday. He read it and then bought a copy for his sister. President Oaks has truly lived a remarkable life. This book has inspired me to be a better person and increased my testimony of living prophets and apostles.

AuthorTrevor Holyoak is the Vice President of FAIR. He joined FAIR in 1997 and received the John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award in 2014. Trevor graduated magna cum laude from Weber State University with a BS in computer science and now works as a programmer and systems administrator. Currently, he is currently serving as a young mens advisor in his ward. In his spare time, Trevor is also involved in the leadership of the Utah Valley Amateur Radio Club. He and his wife have five children and live in Cedar Hills, Utah.

The post Book Review: “In the Hands of the Lord: The Life of Dallin H. Oaks” appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Priesthood Privilegeby Autumn Dickson

Disclaimer. I want to talk about the priesthood this week, but the more I dive into it, the more I realize that I know hardly anything about it. There is so much; it’s rather overwhelming. I have done my research. I have tried very hard to understand, but it’s also important to note that I’m imperfect. If I have made any mistakes about principles surrounding the priesthood or even policies, I apologize. Please feel free to correct; I’d much rather learn truth in comparison to standing in ignorance.

Another disclaimer. Elder Neil L. Anderson teaches, “There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many.”

There are quotes that I’m sharing today that are doctrine, taught over and over through inspired church leaders. I also want to declare that I am sharing personal interpretations, as well as ideas that have not been taught frequently or been canonized. Why do I share them if they are not official doctrine?

I share them for a lot of reasons. They inspire questions, revelation, and for me, they inspire wonder. How much do we not know yet? It’s mind boggling and beautiful. I don’t think there’s anything objectively wrong with exploring doctrine and learning and wondering and asking questions and forming theories as long as we keep a healthy understanding that the Lord reveals official doctrine through a prophet to the whole church.

So without further ado.

Section 107 helps to explain the idea of different aspects of the priesthood. One of the clarifications we receive about the priesthood is as follows:

Doctrine and Covenants 107:18, 5 (why yes, I’m sharing them out of order)

18 The power and authority of the higher, or Melchizedek Priesthood, is to hold the keys of all the spiritual blessings of the church-

5 All other authorities or offices in the church are appendages to this priesthood (Melchizedek Priesthood).

Before I continue on, I want to give a quick tangent here that will help me clarify what I’m talking about as I go through my post. The Melchizedek Priesthood is the power we’ve been given on earth from God. It holds all the spiritual blessings of the church. There are many powers we have not been given in the church. God’s power extends far beyond what we currently have the ability to utilize. In other words, there is Melchizedek Priesthood and then there is priesthood.

But for this post, I may use Melchizedek Priesthood and the general term “priesthood” interchangeably. This is not because they are synonymous; it is because it’s much shorter to just say priesthood. So, when I use the word Melchizedek Priesthood or just the general term priesthood, I am referring to the power that is currently given to the church to bring about the salvation of mankind on the earth.

Phew. Lot’s of groundwork today. Back to the verses.

The Melchizedek Priesthood is the power and authority of God given to us today; all of the other permissions and powers we structurally recognize in the church have grown out of that one priesthood. If you continue reading on in Section 107, we learn that even the Aaronic priesthood is an appendage to the Melchizedek Priesthood. The Melchizedek Priesthood stands independent of all these other offices and authorities.

In the institute manual, we read a quote by Joseph Fielding Smith that teaches this.

“There is no office growing out of this priesthood that is or can be greater than the priesthood itself. It is from the priesthood that the office derives its authority and power. No office gives authority to the priesthood. No office adds to the power of the priesthood. But all offices in the Church derive their power, their virtue, their authority from the priesthood.”

This is actually a critical understanding. The Melchizedek Priesthood is the power and authority of God. Here is another quote from Joseph F. Smith; “Priesthood is the power of God, delegated to man (as in mankind, humanity), to act in the earth for the salvation of the human family.” That’s it. It’s the power of God given so that we can help people return home to Him. We often limit the Melchizedek Priesthood to the specific offices of Elder, High Priest, Patriarch, Seventy, and Apostle. Those are offices within the Melchizedek Priesthood, but if the verse we read earlier is correct, then those offices are literally just appendages. The Melchizedek Priesthood is actually so much more.

All of the other stuff we read in relation to the priesthood (performing ordinances, men getting ordained to the priesthood, etc.) are actually just appendages. They utilize priesthood, but they are not THE priesthood.

Here is my perspective on what that actually means. Once again, gospel according to Autumn.

The Melchizedek Power is just a fancy way of saying that God is supplying the power behind our actions in order to bring His children home. This is doctrine. So much of what we interpret as the Melchizedek Power is actually just policy.

For example, when a boy turns 12, he gets ordained as a deacon. When he is 14, he becomes a teacher. When he is 16, he becomes a priest (This is why it was able to change! Boys went from passing the sacrament when they turn 12 to passing the sacrament at the beginning of the year in which they turn 12). This list goes on and on. All of this structure is actually just policy that is meant to help us along. It is a structure that the Lord has put into place. Think of it like a calling. The actual priesthood acts independently of the calling. You don’t need callings for the Melchizedek Priesthood to exist. Rather, the Lord organizes everything so that it’s easier to come back home to Him. The priesthood structure that was given by the Lord (from deacon to prophet) were all put in place to help us, but are they necessary?

That’s an extremely complicated question. It’s like asking whether a prophet is necessary. In an ideal world where we were all tremendously righteous, no, a prophet would not be necessary. We could all be prophets unto ourselves. Unfortunately, most of us need more of a support system than pure intelligence coming into our minds through the power of the Spirit. In that manner, YES, we need a prophet.

It’s the same with the priesthood organization. If we were all righteous enough, I wonder if we would still be operating on the patriarchal form of priesthood in Abraham’s day where the dad was the presiding officer and took care of his family. There wasn’t a more complicated structure than that.

The point I’m trying to make boils down to this: the Melchizedek Priesthood is the power of God, and it extends far beyond the priesthood structure that God put into place. The structure is helpful, and because of that, it’s necessary. However, the priesthood structure is not the priesthood.

So I’ve made my point. Why the heck does it matter?

BECAUSE IT PUSHES US TO LIVE UP TO OUR PRIESTHOOD PRIVILEGES.

Example.

I was reading a message delivered by Wendy Ulrich, a member of the Relief Society Advisory Council Member. She said this.

“…when women give birth within the new and everlasting covenant, they are in essence performing for themselves for their child that sealing function that cannot otherwise be done except by a sealer in the temple.”

Um. What?!

I love being a mother. I appreciate pregnancy (as much as I hate being pregnant), childbirth, all of it. I have a deep reverence for the female body I’ve been given, and I am in awe that God has trusted me with this divine calling that embodies all the most important aspects of my Heavenly Mother.

In a world that increasingly diminishes and detests motherhood, I declare that I am utilizing the most powerful force in existence: the Melchizedek Priesthood. The childbirth process that I participate in seals my child in the new and everlasting covenant by the power of God, by His Melchizedek Priesthood.

Let’s extend this further. Let me bring two ideas together.

Idea 1. I’m repeating a quote from earlier. Joseph F. Smith said, “Priesthood is the power of God, delegated to man (as in mankind, humanity), to act in the earth for the salvation of the human family.”

Idea 2. Childbirth somehow creates a soul. We know that a woman’s body creates a physical vessel, a body. But somewhere in that process, a spirit is placed into that body.

Creating physical vessels for the spirit children of our Heavenly Parents is absolutely essential for the salvation of the human family. Does that mean pregnancy and childbirth (independent of the sealing power) are also acting by the Melchizedek Priesthood?

Honestly, I’m not sure. There are so many things that have not been revealed to us. We don’t know when the spirit enters the body. We don’t know how that process occurs. But this I do know. When a man baptizes his child, it is said that he is acting with the priesthood to further their salvation even though it’s not really the man’s power. He is merely the vessel in which God is furthering the salvation of that child. Is it really so different from bringing a child into the world? I didn’t design this body to do this miraculous process. I don’t even have to think about it. Like a man who baptizes his child, I am merely the vessel in which this sacred process is occurring.

Once again, I don’t know for sure. All of that was just a long-winded way of saying something I do know.

The Melchizedek Priesthood is available for all of us to utilize. The very power that shaped the universe is the same power that God extends to you regardless of whether you’re a deacon, bishop, prophet, or mother. It’s not about being a leader in a priesthood structure. It’s about serving. And as we serve in the way that Christ served, we change the world.

I testify that God’s power is available to all who are willing to follow Him and try to serve His children. I testify that women can hold as much power as any man. I testify that the power God is willing to extend to any person is proportionate to how willing we are to follow the Lord. That is the only qualifier for how much priesthood power we are capable of wielding.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 106-108 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

What are Priesthood Keys?by Autumn Dickson

The Lord restored the priesthood to mankind some time ago, and yet, He did not reveal the structure in which He wanted everything to be organized. There were many who had received callings and knew their responsibilities, but putting it together in a structural whole would serve to provide organization so that the Lord’s house could be a house of order.

One of the organizational tools for the Lord’s priesthood is that of keys.

Doctrine and Covenants 107:8-9

8 The Melchizedek Priesthood holds the right of presidency, and has power and authority over all the offices in the church in all ages of the world, to administer in spiritual things.

9 The Presidency of the High Priesthood, after the order of Melchizedek, have a right to officiate in all the offices in the church.

These verses are talking about rights. Verse 8 explains that the Melchizedek Priesthood holds the right of presidency, and the Presidency of the High Priesthood (or in our day, the First Presidency) has a right to officiate in any capacity in the church.

Here is a quote that connects the idea of rights to keys. Joseph Fielding Smith taught, “While all men hold the priesthood who are ordained to any office, yet there are special, or directing, authorities, bestowed upon those who are called to preside. These authorities are called keys.”

I’m going to zoom out a bit so that we can attempt to understand different aspects of the priesthood and organize it all.

First, we have the priesthood. The priesthood, in its simplest definition, is the power of God. It is the power by which He created. It is the power by which rules.

Second, there is the Melchizedek Priesthood. As stated in my previous video from this week, the Melchizedek Priesthood stands independent of any office or calling. In its simplest definition, it is the power of God that is given to man to further the work of salvation on the earth. In other words, it’s a portion of the priesthood power that is held by our Heavenly Father. He only gave us a portion of the power that we needed for this life.

Third, there is the Aaronic Priesthood. This is actually not a separate priesthood from the Melchizedek Priesthood. It is an appendage of the Melchizedek Priesthood. It was another way of organizing the priesthood and delegating responsibilities.

Fourth, there are priesthood ordinations and offices. When men come of age, they are ordained to the priesthood and progress through priesthood offices. Different priesthood offices delegate different priesthood responsibilities. Quick tangent. Only men are ordained to the priesthood, but women can utilize the priesthood without being ordained. The Lord has still not answered why He has chosen this path or whether it’s doctrine or policy. There are plenty of theories, but the Lord has not chosen to explain it.

And the last thing I want to talk about today: priesthood keys. Priesthood keys take priesthood offices just a tiny step further. Priesthood keys are the right to govern. You can hold a priesthood office without holding any keys. You can hold the office of Elder or High Priest but not have any keys with which to direct the work. You simply have responsibilities to function underneath those keys. The church website teaches us which offices and leaders hold keys.

Members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles hold all the keys necessary for governing the Church. Only the President of the Church has the right to exercise all of those keys. He delegates these keys to others who preside in the Church—temple presidents, mission presidents, stake presidents, district presidents, bishops, branch presidents, and quorum presidents, including deacons and teachers quorum presidents.

Oftentimes these keys are to overlook specific responsibilities and geographical jurisdictions. They eventually trace back to the prophet, and ultimately, to the Savior, Himself.

When I think of keys, I think of unlocking rooms. Let’s pretend that God’s various works (including those not directly associated with the earth) are a giant castle. Different rooms hold different responsibilities and powers that the Lord governs.

The Lord has given a grouping of rooms to the President of the Church on earth, or the prophet. When the Lord gave the prophet the keys, a couple of things happened. He gave the prophet a stewardship. The prophet is now in charge of making sure that what occurs in those rooms are in alignment with what the Lord would have occurring in those rooms.

But as the church grew bigger, it became very difficult for one prophet to oversee so many rooms and consequent responsibilities so he started delegating keys. The prophet can still access any of these rooms and perform responsibilities associated with those rooms, but he often chooses, delegates, and allows other leaders to perform their responsibilities without too much interference.

A mission president is over a room of missionaries found within a geographical area. If a mission president is called over the Salt Lake City North mission, he has no jurisdiction over any other missionaries than the one in his mission. He also doesn’t hold authority over the members. His specific room is for the missionaries.

The same idea goes to temple presidents, stake presidents, bishops, and quorum leaders. Eventually these men get released from their callings and they hand their keys back to be given to a new leader.

As I said previously, the person who holds the key for a specific room is in charge of making sure that everything that occurs in that room aligns with the Lord. Are ordinances being performed correctly? Is the doctrine kept pure from apostasy? Keeping a massive, worldwide church on track is no easy task. Keys help to make sure that the Lord’s church is the same everywhere.

It is also important to note that you don’t need keys to help push the work further along. Though a leader is chosen to hold the keys, all of us have access to God’s priesthood power to make a difference. We can’t get caught up in the idea of leadership. Christ’s example of leadership should give us a real taste of what it means to govern. You don’t have to be a leader to access power or even change the world.

Interestingly enough, I don’t know if priesthood keys are doctrine or policy. If anyone does know, please feel free to comment. I don’t know if keys exist independently or if the Lord created the priesthood organizational system, and the keys were part of the system that He created. I don’t know if keys were just meant to help create a house of order or if they belong to the category of doctrine in which they don’t really get changed.

This post definitely was definitely more informational than some of my other posts, but being able to zoom out and understand some of the basic organizations of God’s priesthood has also helped me better understand my own priesthood responsibilities. It helps me understand the access I have to priesthood power, not just in the form of receiving blessings but also the power I am capable of wielding to further the work of salvation.

There is beauty in the fact that the Lord knows what He’s doing. There is beauty in knowing that there is truth, and I can trust that truth to remain pure no matter where I go and attend church services. The Lord has achieved an incredible amount of unity and continuity in a worldwide church that many world leaders only dream of.

As we come closer and closer to a knowledge of Christ’s character, we receive more and more salvation. We experience more happiness. That’s why the keys are so essential. It keeps our knowledge of Christ accurate and enables us to remain close to Him through the ordinances that He put forth.

I am grateful for a Lord who is wise enough to set up His church as He did. I’m grateful that despite all the imperfections of mankind, He has done a phenomenal job of keeping His truths and ordinances pure so that we can draw as close to Him as possible. I testify that the priesthood is ultimately His to delegate, and that He offers His power to anyone who is worthy and willing. I also testify that He set up a priesthood organization in which He delegated certain responsibilities to push us to become better and keep things as close to the truth as humanly possible.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 106-108 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Renewalby Autumn Dickson

There is a promise found in Section 84. And though it is specifically in relation to priesthood ordinations, I believe the promises we find there can apply to all of us. Here it is.

Doctrine and Covenants 84:33 For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies.

There’s a lot of good stuff here. Sanctification by the Spirit is a huge part of receiving and magnifying a calling. Some might even say it’s the entire purpose of receiving and magnifying a calling. However, the specific portion I want to speak about is the “renewing of their bodies.” I find this to be a very unique promise that coincides with something I’ve been thinking a lot about lately.

Namely, the widow of Zarephath found in 1 Kings in the Old Testament. It is one of my absolute favorite scripture stories of all time which is probably why I’ve spoken about it on more than one occasion. The gist of the story is this.

There is a great famine in the land, and the widow of Zarephath only has enough food for one more meal with her son before they starve. The prophet Elijah is led to her door, and he promises her that her food will never run out if she feeds him first and then feeds herself and her son.

I think about that widow a lot. She didn’t have much to lose since they were already facing starvation. I think about how she chose to give out of what she didn’t really have. I think about how she must have felt when she looked at her son and made the decision to feed Elijah.

I also think about what happened after she fed Elijah. What happened right after? What happened the next day? What did this miracle look like?

Did she wake up to a full barrel? Or in the days that followed, was her barrel always full? Would it get replenished the second she took from it?

Or perhaps the miracle looked different. Maybe she opened that barrel the next morning, and it was full. Perhaps she emptied that barrel all the way to the bottom over time and when she arose the morning after emptying it, she found that barrel filled again.

Or maybe it looked even different than that. Maybe there was always just enough for the next meal. I think this option would have felt the scariest. Did it feel scary to open the lid every day and find an almost-empty barrel? Did she still feel adrift and worried? Or did she see the miracle and recognize that whether the barrel was completely filled up or not, it would never be empty?

This is a story that teaches a great many things. One of the things that it teaches is renewal.

When it comes to priesthood ordination or any kind of service you choose to do in the name of the Lord, there will be enough in the barrel. Because of the atonement of Jesus Christ, there can enough energy, time, resources, and love when you are magnifying your calling in His name. You can be renewed to do what needs to be done, what the Lord wants you to do.That doesn’t mean He will enable you to do everything, but there will be enough in the barrel for what He needs you to do. He will renew you for what you need done.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 84 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

The priesthood & its quorums (D&C sections 84, 107; Official Declaration 2)by Mike Parker

Class Notes

Additional Reading

Ronald K. Esplin and Sharon E. Nielsen, “The Record of the Twelve, 1835: The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles’ Call and the 1835 Mission,” BYU Studies 51, no. 1 (2012): 4–52. This document, made available through the Joseph Smith Papers Project, is the earliest extant record of the activities of the modern Quorum of the Twelve.
Elder L. Aldin Porter, “A History of the Latter-day Seventy,” Ensign, August 2000, 15–20. Elder Porter reviews the organization and growth of the modern office of the Seventy.
“Race and the Priesthood,” Gospel Topics Essays. This scholarly article on the Church’s website explores the origins of the ban on ordaining men of African descent to the priesthood.
Edward L. Kimball, “Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood,” BYU Studies 47, no. 2 (Spring 2008): 4–78. Edward L. Kimball discusses the chain of events that led his father, President Spencer W. Kimball, to seek revelation regarding changing the Church’s ban on ordaining black men to the priesthood. The article describes how President Kimball went about obtaining the revelation, how the revelation was spiritually confirmed to other leaders, and members’ reactions when the change was announced.
Lester E. Bush Jr., “Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 8, no. 1 (Spring 1973): 11–68. This seminal article—which appeared before the 1978 revelation that reversed the Church’s ban on ordaining men of African descent to the priesthood—examines when the policy began and developed, and what scriptures were employed to explain it.
Elder Bruce R. McConkie, “All Are Alike unto God,” address in the Second Annual CES Symposium, 18 August 1978. Elder McConkie’s address came just two months after the 1978 revelation that extended the priesthood to men of African descent.
The Priesthood Restored: A Joseph Smith Papers Podcast is a six-part miniseries that explores the events and circumstances that played a role in the restoration of the priesthood. Series host Spencer W. McBride interviewed historians and Church leaders for this podcast.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – D&C sections 84, 107; Official Declaration 2 – Mike Parker appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

The office of high priest; the United Firm (D&C sections 78, 80–83, 85, 92, 104)by Mike Parker

Class Notes

Additional Reading

Max H. Parkin, “Joseph Smith and the United Firm: The Growth and Decline of the Church’s First Master Plan of Business and Finance, Ohio and Missouri, 1832–1834,” BYU Studies 46, no. 3 (2007): 5–66. Parkin sheds light on how the United Firm was organized and operated and the role it played in early Church history.
David J. Whittaker, “Substituted Names in the Published Revelations of Joseph Smith,” BYU Studies 23, no. 1 (Winter 1983): 103–12. Whittaker explains Joseph Smith’s use of code names when he published the revelations related to the United Firm.
D. Michael Quinn, “Jesse Gause: Joseph Smith’s Little-Known Counselor,” BYU Studies 23, no. 4 (Fall 1983): 487–93.
Joseph Smith’s 27 November 1832 letter to William W. Phelps, an extract of which was canonized in 1876 as section 85.
Bill Shepard, “‘To Set in Order the House of God’: The Search for the Elusive ‘One Mighty and Strong’,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 39, no. 3 (Fall 2006): 18–45. Shepard traces the various interpretations of and claimants to the “one mighty and strong” mentioned in D&C 85:7.
First Presidency statement on the “One Mighty and Strong,” Improvement Era 10, no. 12 (October 1907): 929–43. This statement—written and signed by Presidents Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund—suggests two possible interpretations of D&C 85:7.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 78, 80–83, 85, 92, 104 – Mike Parker appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Receiving Eternity’s Gifts Through Christ

Have you ever felt that no matter how much you believe in Christ, His promises feel just out of reach—like peace, healing, or wholeness belong to someone holier, stronger, or more deserving?

In his Easter message Eternity’s Great Gifts: Jesus Christ’s Atonement, Resurrection, Restoration, Elder Gerrit W. Gong of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles offers a sweeping and tender reminder: God’s eternal gifts are not reserved for the perfect—they are extended to all. What matters most is not whether the gift is offered (it is!) but whether we are willing to receive.

Drawing from Isaiah’s vision of “beauty for ashes” and the Savior’s declaration in the synagogue that He came to “heal the brokenhearted,” Elder Gong teaches that the Atonement, the Resurrection, and the Restoration are not distant doctrines—but deeply personal invitations. Through Jesus Christ, each of us—poor, brokenhearted, captive, blind, bruised—can be made whole.

As we study Doctrine and Covenants 67–70, Elder Gong’s message resonates with striking power. What does it mean to receive what Christ offers? And how does our willingness, not our worthiness, shape our eternal destiny?

Apologetic Issues: Receiving Salvation & Blaming the ChurchCriticism: If God truly loves all His children, why doesn’t He just save everyone—regardless of their beliefs, choices, or covenants?

Response: While Christ’s Atonement, Resurrection, and the Restoration are extended to all, the Atonement and Restoration must be received. Elder Gong teaches that God “saves all the works of his hands” except those who willfully reject Him after receiving knowledge (D&C 76:43). This is not a restriction—it is a recognition of divine love that honors our agency. Salvation is offered freely, but God will not force it upon the unwilling.

In Elder Gong’s words:

Jesus declared His mission to bless us each with all we are willing to receive.

Receiving salvation requires a willing heart, not a flawless record. The gospel is not about earning heaven but accepting Christ’s gifts and following Him with purpose and intent.

Common Fallacy: Straw Man – misrepresents or oversimplifies another person’s argument in order to make it easier to attack or refuteThis critique creates a Straw Man Fallacy by misrepresenting the doctrine of salvation as either universal or cruelly exclusive. In reality, Latter-day Saint doctrine teaches that God desires to save all, but will not violate our agency or override the natural consequences of our choices.
Solution: Recognizing that agency is instrumental to grace helps us appreciate both the justice and mercy of God.

Social Issue: Blaming the Church for Spiritual DiscontentMisconception: “I left the Church because the Church failed me. I didn’t feel seen, heard, or spiritually fulfilled.”Response: It is deeply painful when people feel hurt, neglected, or unseen. But Elder Gong gently reminds us that while Christ always sees us, receiving His healing and guidance requires our active participation. Like the mourners who met the resurrected Christ in the garden or the brokenhearted He declared His mission to heal (Luke 4:18), we must come to Him.

The Savior offers garments of salvation and robes of righteousness—but He doesn’t force us to wear them. Some spiritual discontent comes not from what the Church failed to give, but from what we failed to seek. Rather than outsource spiritual growth to an institution, we are invited to claim our stewardship as disciples. The Church can support, but only Christ can transform—and only we can choose Him.

Common Fallacy: Attribution Error – the tendency to explain someone else’s behavior by blaming their character or intentions, while overlooking external circumstances or situational factors.This reflects the Fundamental Attribution Error—blaming external systems (like “the Church”) for internal struggles without acknowledging personal agency or stewardship.
Solution: Taking spiritual accountability—our study, prayer, service, and effort—restores power to our discipleship and invites Christ to heal and guide us personally.

Apologetic Application: Receiving Christ’s Gifts Requires Agency and Willingness

Elder Gerrit W. Gong’s talk underscores a doctrinal truth with powerful apologetic value:
God’s gifts are universal in offer—but conditional in reception.

At the heart of this message lies a doctrinal triad:

The Atonement of Jesus Christ – offered to all for the redemption of sin and sorrow (Alma 7:11–13).
The Resurrection – a universal gift, unconditionally granted to all who have lived (1 Corinthians 15:22; Alma 11:42–44).
The Restoration of the Gospel – a divine process to empower willing disciples through priesthood authority, covenants, and revelation (D&C 76:42–43; 2 Nephi 30:8).

Elder Gong teaches that Christ’s mission is not to coerce but to heal, lift, and liberate—as much as we are willing to receive.

Defending Core Beliefs1⃣ Salvation ≠ Forced Equality.Some critics claim it’s unfair that God doesn’t give everyone the same eternal reward. But this overlooks the difference between resurrection and exaltation. Resurrection is a universal gift—a free offering through Christ to every soul. Exaltation, on the other hand, honors our agency and desires. As Elder Gong teaches:

“He saves all the works of his hands—except those who willfully deny the Son.”

God doesn’t restrict salvation—He extends it. But He also respects our choices.

2⃣ God’s Love Is Universal, Not Coercive.Some see the plan of salvation as exclusive or elitist, but that misrepresents the doctrine. Jesus Christ came “to heal the brokenhearted… to set at liberty them that are bruised” (Luke 4:18)—and that includes all of us.

Elder Gong emphasizes that Christ’s invitation is open in “every time, every land, every circumstance.” But real love invites—it doesn’t override. God does not drag people into heaven. He empowers them to become heavenly.

Understanding that reception, not worthiness, is the gate helps dismantle the false belief that the gospel is only for the already-righteous. This view aligns beautifully with Latter-day Saint teachings on grace, growth, and accountability.

Practical Apologetic Use: When someone claims, “Your Church is too focused on rules and worthiness,” this doctrine shifts the focus: “Worthiness” isn’t about perfection—it’s about willingness. Christ meets us where we are, but He invites us to walk with Him through covenants.” This answer not only clarifies the doctrine but offers a loving, scriptural lens through which to see it.

The gospel is a gift. Discipleship is choosing to open it.

Historical and Doctrinal ConnectionsThroughout scripture and in every dispensation, the Lord has extended divine gifts to His children—but always with an invitation to receive them intentionally. From Adam’s covenant sacrifices to Isaiah’s Messianic prophecies to the Restoration of priesthood power, God has shown that salvation is offered freely but must be accepted willingly.

Elder Gerrit W. Gong draws on this eternal pattern by quoting Isaiah’s description of the Savior’s mission:
“To preach the gospel to the poor … to heal the brokenhearted … to set at liberty them that are bruised.” (Luke 4:18; cf. Isaiah 61)
He reminds us that this promise is as real today as it was anciently—fulfilled anew in our lives through the Atonement, Resurrection, and Restoration of Jesus Christ.

In his talk, Elder Gong affirms that the Restoration is not just a historical event—it is an ongoing promise: the Savior continues to heal, restore, and guide today through living prophets, priesthood ordinances, and the quiet power of personal revelation. The same Christ who brought “beauty for ashes” in Isaiah’s day continues to do so now.

Doctrine and Covenants 67–70 offers powerful continuity to this theme. These revelations testify that:

It is our privilege to receive divine confirmation through spiritual means, not carnal reasoning (D&C 67:10)
We are stewards over the sacred truths entrusted to us (D&C 70:3-4,9-12)

Just as Elder Gong teaches that we must receive what Christ offers, these sections emphasize that revelation and salvation are not passive experiences—they involve faith, stewardship, and accountability. Christ’s gifts are enduring and personal. God will give us truth, peace, and healing—but we must act in faith to claim them.

Living Apologetics: How to Apply This Today How can we help others understand that Christ’s gifts are real, available, and require our participation?

Elder Gong testifies that the Savior offers each of us “atonement, resurrection, and restoration—peace, becoming, and belonging.” These gifts are universal in invitation but personal in reception. Apologetically, this helps us respond to criticism that Church teachings are exclusionary or conditional. In truth, they are covenantal—meant to be received, not imposed.

Principle in Practice: Two Ways to Apply Apologetic Principles1⃣ Reframe Accusations of Exclusivity When someone says, “Only your church thinks it’s right,” respond:
→ “Christ offers salvation to everyone. Our doctrine teaches that He honors agency—and invites all to receive what they are willing to accept.”

2⃣ Use Isaiah’s Language to Reassure the Weary Elder Gong quotes Isaiah’s promises to the “poor, brokenhearted, captive, blind, and bruised.” → In conversation, say: “This isn’t just poetic—it’s who Christ came to heal. And that means all of us. The gospel is for the bruised, not the perfect.”

Top Apologetic Facts 1. Salvation is universal, exaltation is invitational. Joseph Smith’s teachings in Doctrine and Covenants 76 boldly revealed a God who will “save all the works of His hands”—offering resurrection to all through Christ. But exaltation requires willingness and discipleship, not passive inheritance.

2. Restoration reveals a healing, not condemning, Christ. In contrast to fire-and-brimstone portrayals of God, the Restoration affirms Jesus Christ’s mission to “heal the brokenhearted… and set at liberty them that are bruised” (Luke 4:18). His gospel is redemptive, not punitive.

3. “Beauty for ashes” is a covenantal promise. Isaiah 61:3 is more than poetic—it’s a pattern of restoration. Christ offers hope and transformation through His Atonement. As Elder Gong testifies, His gifts include atonement, resurrection, and restoration— extended to all who will receive them.

Conclusion: Receiving Heaven’s Gifts with Willing HeartsElder Gerrit W. Gong’s Easter message invites each of us to step into the healing, peace, and joy made possible through Jesus Christ’s Atonement, Resurrection, and the Restoration of His Church. These are not distant theological concepts—they are personal, practical gifts waiting at the threshold of our willingness.

We are not forgotten. We are not too broken. In every circumstance, Jesus Christ offers beauty for ashes, garments of salvation, and robes of righteousness. But as Elder Gong reminds us, the Savior’s gifts must be received—not just known about, or admired, or believed in abstractly, but embraced with covenantal commitment and faith in action.

This week’s Come, Follow Me lesson underscores the same truth: stewardship, accountability, and trust in God’s word prepare us to receive His richest blessings. Through our choices, we decide whether eternity’s gifts will be symbolic… or transformative.

Are you willing to receive what Christ is already offering?

“May we each find in Jesus Christ atonement, resurrection, and restoration—peace, becoming, and belonging—that which is enduringly real and joyful, happy and forever.” — Elder Gerrit W. Gong

The Consider Conference series by FAIR offers an in-depth look at recent General Conference talks to help members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints navigate common questions, misunderstandings, and criticisms. Each post provides doctrinal insights, historical context, and practical ways to apply gospel principles in everyday conversations. Through this series, we hope to equip readers with faith-promoting resources that encourage thoughtful reflection, respectful dialogue, and a stronger foundation in gospel truths, fostering both personal conviction and meaningful discussions with others.

The post Beauty for Ashes appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

The Church in Ohio, August–November 1831 (D&C sections 63–69)by Mike Parker

Class Notes

Additional Reading

President J. Reuben Clark Jr., “When Are the Writings and Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture?,” address to Seminary and Institute personnel at BYU, 7 July 1954.
Kirtland, City of Revelation: A Joseph Smith Papers Podcast is an eight-part documentary miniseries that explores the way men and women flocked to Kirtland in the 1830s to hear the voice of God through the prophet Joseph Smith. The episodes consider Kirtland as a site of abundant revelation and the place where church leaders organized much of the church. The episodes also illuminate how Joseph Smith was intent on teaching church members in Kirtland how to hear the voice of God themselves. Series host Spencer W. McBride interviewed historians and Church leaders for this podcast.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 63–69 – Mike Parker appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

From Passive Observers to Active Participants in God’s Prophetic Work

Have you ever assumed that the Restoration was something that happened once—and now we’re just meant to follow along?

In his deeply doctrinal message, “The Times of Restitution of All Things,” Elder David A. Bednar challenges that assumption. Quoting Acts 3:21, he draws our attention not just to what God has restored, but what He continues to restitute—through us. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was formally organized in 1830, yes—but that event was part of a prophesied restitution of all things foretold by prophets throughout time. And we are not merely witnesses to it—we are meant to be agents in it.

Elder Bednar’s invitation is clear: learn the message, prove it for yourself, and act on it. The Restoration isn’t only about what God did through Joseph Smith—it’s about what He is now doing through each of us. So the question is: Are we content to be acted upon? Or will we choose to act in faith as disciples in the final dispensation?

Apologetic Issues: Restoration and ApostasyMisconception: Many members believe the Restoration was a one-time historical event completed through Joseph Smith. Others concede the idea of an “ongoing restoration” but assume that only Church leaders receive revelation and direction, leaving ordinary members to simply follow.

Response: Elder Bednar reframes this entirely: the Restoration was only the beginning of the “restitution of all things” (Acts 3:21). This restitution includes not only restored priesthood, ordinances, and doctrine—but also our individual participation in fulfilling prophecy. Elder Bednar teaches that each of us is to “learn about and prove this message,” actively preparing the world for the Second Coming.

Common Fallacy: False Dichotomy – Presenting only two options when more exist.
Correction: Elder Bednar adds a third, crucial truth: The Restoration inaugurated a restitution that requires each of us to engage—studying, praying, acting, and helping to fulfill God’s promises.

Criticism: Critics often argue that there was no “Great Apostasy,” and that the early Christian Church has continued uninterrupted through history. In their eyes, the Apostasy is an LDS invention justifying the need for a new Church.

Response: Elder Bednar (quoting the Restoration Proclamation) affirms that after the death of Christ’s original Apostles, “Christ’s New Testament Church was lost from the earth.” The Restoration was not about dismissing past faith, but about restoring priesthood authority, covenants, and organization through a divinely appointed prophet. This directly fulfills the biblical promise of a future restitution.

Common Fallacy: Straw Man – Misrepresenting a position to make it easier to attack.
Correction: The Church does not claim that all truth disappeared—only that authority and fullness had to be restored by divine means.

Apologetic Application: The Apostasy, Restoration and RestitutionCore Doctrine: The Great Apostasy refers to the loss of priesthood authority and gospel fullness. What began with Joseph Smith is part of a broader restitution (Acts 3:21)—one that invites us to actively participate in preparing the world for Christ’s return.

This doctrine helps clarify why the Restoration was not just about correcting teachings or starting a new church—it was about divinely reestablishing Christ’s original authority, ordinances, and covenants. It affirms that the Church today stands not only as a restored institution but as the prophesied means of gathering Israel, sealing families, and preparing for the Second Coming. Recognizing that we live in the era of restitution reframes our role as disciples—not as observers of sacred history, but as active partners in the fulfillment of God’s work on earth.

Defending Core Beliefs

1⃣ The Apostasy and Restoration were prophesied. The Apostasy was prophesied (2 Thessalonians 2:3; Amos 8:11–12), and the Restoration was needed to return authority and ordinances to the earth. Prophets and apostles foresaw a falling away from truth and priesthood power, which made a divine intervention necessary. The Restoration through Joseph Smith wasn’t just a revival—it was a re-establishment of the Church with the same authority and covenants Christ originally gave.

2⃣ Restitution is participatory.
It includes each of us gaining a testimony and acting in faith to help fulfill God’s promises. Rather than being spectators to prophecy, we are agents commissioned to act. Through missionary work, temple service, personal revelation, and teaching others, we take part in the fulfillment of Acts 3:21 as co-laborers in the Lord’s ongoing work.

Practical Apologetic Use: Rather than viewing the Restoration as a completed chapter in Church history, Elder Bednar urges us to see it as the opening act in an ongoing divine process. The year 1830 marked the official organization of the Church, but it was just the beginning of a sweeping restitution that continues to unfold. Understanding this helps us reframe our role—not as bystanders in a finished work, but as engaged participants in the prophesied gathering, teaching, and temple work that defines this dispensation.

Historical and Doctrinal ConnectionsIn Acts 3:21, Peter foretells a future time when God would orchestrate the “restitution of all things.” Elder Bednar links this to modern revelation:

The Savior’s restored Church is being established throughout the world and is the instrument by which God will ‘gather together in one all things in Christ.’

Come, Follow Me Connection:This week’s study includes Doctrine and Covenants 58:26–29, a passage that beautifully complements Elder Bednar’s message. The Lord teaches that He does not intend to “command in all things”—instead, He calls us as disciples to be “anxiously engaged in a good cause” and to act “of their own free will.” Elder Bednar’s invitation to “learn about and prove this message” reflects that same divine expectation. We were never intended to experience the Restoration as a passive spectator; each of us is meant to be an active participant through initiative, faith, and agency.

Living Apologetics: How to Apply This Today We are not passive recipients of restored truth—we are participants in the restitution of all things.

Principle in Practice: We need to be engaged in the restitution of all things1⃣ Explain That Priesthood Authority Had to Be Restored:

Many Christians believe that the Church merely needed reformation, not restoration. But Elder Bednar testifies that priesthood authority and saving ordinances were lost and had to be restored by heavenly messengers—not simply rediscovered through scholarship. When someone questions why a Restoration was necessary, explain that authority from God can’t be self-appointed or inherited through tradition; it had to be divinely conferred once again.

2⃣ Emphasize Personal Revelation as a Covenant Expectation:

While we often associate revelation with prophets, Elder Bednar reminds us that each disciple is invited to receive answers and direction from God. Revelation isn’t reserved for leadership—it’s foundational to our covenant relationship with Him. You might say: “One of the greatest truths of the Restoration is that each of us can ask, seek, and receive.”

Top Apologetic Facts 1. The Church Was Organized After Key Restorations – The formal organization of the Church on April 6, 1830, occurred after priesthood authority had been restored by John the Baptist and the Apostles, and the Book of Mormon had been translated and published. This sequence emphasizes that the Church is built upon divinely conferred authority—not human ambition or historical tradition.
2. Restitution Means Ongoing Fulfillment – Restitution, as used in Acts 3:21 and by Elder Bednar, means more than restoring what was lost—it means bringing to pass everything prophesied, promised, and covenanted in all previous dispensations. It includes temple covenants, family sealing, gathering Israel, and preparing for the Second Coming.
3. Testimony Is Gained Through Action – Elder Bednar promises that those who “learn about and prove this message” will be blessed with their own divine witness. This underscores that faith is not passive; it is a process of seeking, acting, and receiving. Living the gospel is how we come to know it is true.

ConclusionThe Restoration of the gospel was not the end of a story—it was the beginning of a divine unfolding. Elder David A. Bednar reminds us that we are not merely inheritors of restored truth, but agents in a continuing restitution—a prophetic work that gathers, heals, and prepares the world for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

We are invited to learn, to prove, and to act. The Lord trusts us to move forward without needing to be “compelled in all things” (D&C 58:26), and He has placed power within us to participate in fulfilling prophecy, not just observe it.

So let’s ask ourselves: Am I waiting to be acted upon—or am I fully engaged in the restitution of all things?

The Savior’s restored Church is being established throughout the world and is the instrument by which God will ‘gather together in one all things in Christ.’

The post The Times of Restitution Are Now appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Emma Hale Smith; the sacrament; authority in the Church (D&C sections 25, 27–28)by Mike Parker

Class Notes

Additional Reading

Digital photographs of Emma Smith’s 1835 hymnbook, available online at the Joseph Smith Papers website.
In early 1879, Emma was interviewed by her son, Joseph Smith III, who asked her questions about the Prophet Joseph, the translation of the Book of Mormon, and other events in the restoration of the gospel. Her responses were published as “Last Testimony of Sister Emma,” The Saints’ Herald 26, no. 19 (1 October 1879): 289–90. Although Emma denied that the Prophet Joseph ever practiced plural marriage (which he, in fact, did), her eyewitness testimony is otherwise invaluable and inspiring.
Background on Emma’s second husband, Lewis Bidamon, may be found in Valeen Tippetts Avery and Linda King Newell, “Lewis C. Bidamon, Stepchild of Mormondom,” BYU Studies 19, no. 3 (Spring 1979): 375–88.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 25, 27–28 – Mike Parker appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

A Gift of Divine Power for All God’s ChildrenWhat does it mean to access God’s power? How can priesthood ordinances shape our journey, not just for those who hold the priesthood, but for all who make and keep sacred covenants? In her General Conference address, “Live Up to Your Privileges”, President Emily Belle Freeman invites us to consider these questions in light of Doctrine and Covenants 25—the Lord’s revelation to Emma Smith—and our own divine privileges.

This week’s Come, Follow Me lesson (D&C 23–26) invites us to seek for the things of a better world. This phrase naturally directs our thoughts toward Easter, as we anticipate the victory of Jesus Christ over death and sin. The Atonement of Christ, coupled with the power available through our covenants, enables us to become all God intends for us to be.

“If you live up to these principles, how great and glorious will be your reward in the celestial kingdom! If you live up to your privileges, the angels cannot be restrained from being your associates.” – Joseph Smith

This call, given to the women of the Church, applies to all disciples of Jesus Christ. We are not passive participants in God’s work. Women in the early Church—and today—have been given sacred responsibilities and access to divine power through priesthood ordinances and covenants.

Apologetic Issues: Women and the PriesthoodMisconception: Women do not hold the priesthood, so they have no access to priesthood power.Response: Priesthood power is available to all who enter into covenants with God.Many misunderstand the difference between holding priesthood office and receiving priesthood power. The Lord taught Emma Smith—and all disciples—that through baptism, temple covenants, and faithfulness, God’s power flows into our lives. President Russell M. Nelson affirmed:

“Every woman and every man who makes covenants with God and keeps those covenants, and who participates worthily in priesthood ordinances, has direct access to the power of God.” (Spiritual Treasures, Oct. 2019)

Misconception: Emma Smith was not given an important role in the Restoration.Response: Doctrine and Covenants 25 shows that she had a divinely appointed mission.The Lord called Emma an “elect lady” and assigned her to teach, expound scripture, compile hymns, and serve in His Church. She was not a spectator in the Restoration but a vital participant. Like Emma, women in the Church today are given responsibilities and privileges to build the kingdom of God.

Common Fallacy: False DichotomySome critics create a false dichotomy between priesthood holders and covenant-keeping women, implying that one has power and the other does not. This misunderstands the doctrine of priesthood. Priesthood offices are held by men in God’s ordained order, but priesthood power flows to all who receive covenants and live righteously.

Apologetic Application: The Power of CovenantsD&C 25 highlights three essential ways priesthood ordinances empower disciples of Christ, regardless of gender:

1⃣ Identity: Women are not spiritually subordinate but covenant daughters of God.2⃣ Purpose: The Lord assigns specific spiritual responsibilities to women, as seen in Emma Smith’s calling.
3⃣Sanctification: Through covenants, God transforms us into our divine potential.

Real-Life Analogy: Just as electricity is available to all who connect to a power source, so is God’s power accessible to all who make and keep sacred covenants.

Historical and Doctrinal ConnectionsThe Restoration of the priesthood in Harmony, Pennsylvania coincided with the Lord’s revelation to Emma Smith (D&C 25). While Joseph and Oliver were learning about the priesthood, Emma was being taught how to access its power.

Doctrine and Covenants Connection: “The power of godliness is manifest” through ordinances (D&C 84:19–20). This truth, restored in the latter days, applies to all who make covenants.

Living Apologetics: How to Apply This Today How can we help others understand women’s role in the priesthood?

Teach from scripture – Show how Emma Smith was given power and responsibility.
Encourage covenant-keeping – Help women see their divine privileges in ordinances.
Speak with clarity – When discussing priesthood, explain the distinction between office and power.

President Freeman teaches that God’s power is available to all who participate in priesthood ordinances and keep their covenants. This truth is both spiritually strengthening and apologetically significant. Understanding how priesthood power works allows us to correct misconceptions, strengthen faith, and confidently share the gospel.

Teach the Difference Between Priesthood Ordination and Priesthood PowerWhen discussing the role of women in the Church, clarify that ordination is not the same as priesthood power. Help others see that covenant keeping, not priesthood office, grants access to divine strength. Use simple examples like the sacrament—which is prepared by ordained holders but blesses all who partake worthily.
Use the Sacrament as an Apologetic ToolMany see priesthood as hierarchical rather than a gift that serves others. Explain that ordinances like the sacrament bring the power of Christ into individual lives. Emphasizing this helps resolve concerns about whether priesthood power is accessible to all.

Faith in Action: How Can You Share This? 1. Family Discussions – Talk about the blessings of priesthood ordinances in family councils.
2. Teaching – Use D&C 25 to show how women receive priesthood power through covenants.
3. Testimony – When speaking in church or teaching, highlight personal experiences with God’s power.

Quick Reference: Key Defenses 1. Women have access to priesthood power through covenants – Russell M. Nelson, Spiritual Treasures 2. Emma Smith’s calling shows the role of women in the Restoration – D&C 25 3. Priesthood ordinances manifest God’s power in all our lives – D&C 84:19–20

Conclusion: Preparing for Easter with PowerPresident Emily Belle Freeman’s message is a powerful reminder that we are not spiritually powerless. Each of us—men and women—have divine access to God’s strength, healing, and guidance through sacred ordinances and covenants. Understanding this truth not only deepens personal faith but also helps us explain and defend core gospel principles with clarity and confidence.

As we study D&C 23–26, we are reminded to “seek for the things of a better world.” This is a foreshadowing of Easter—the ultimate moment when God’s power was fully manifest through Jesus Christ’s Resurrection.

As we prepare to celebrate Christ’s victory, let us live up to our privileges. May we recognize that through priesthood ordinances, we can access divine power, allowing us to become who God intends us to be.

Are you fully embracing the privileges God has given you? How can you better draw upon His power in your daily life?

“Through His priesthood ordinances and the keeping of her covenant promises, God’s power will work in and through her to help her overcome whatever life brings and become the woman God knows she can become.” – Emily Belle Freeman

The post Live Up to Your Privileges: Women, Priesthood Power, and Seeking a Better World appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Nuances of Baptismby Autumn Dickson

Let’s talk about historical context again quickly so that we can have a reference for what we read this week. Chronologically, Section 21 came before Section 20. Section 21 came on the day the church was organized, and it talks a lot about how Joseph was called as a prophet and the importance of listening to the prophets. Section 20 came in between the day that the church was organized and its first conference held in June. Section 20 had a lot of administrative tasks explained as well as core doctrines that are found in The Book of Mormon. Section 22 came last as people were wondering whether they needed to get rebaptized.

There is actually quite a bit given to us on the subject of baptism this week. One section describes the mode and manner of baptism, and another section describes the need to be baptized with proper authority. Let’s talk about some of the things we can learn about baptism from the revelations we’re covering this week.

He follows us

The first detail I want to talk about comes as the Lord describes how we are to be baptized.

Doctrine and Covenants 20:72-74

72 Baptism is to be administered in the following manner unto all those who repent—

73 The person who is called of God and has authority from Jesus Christ to baptize, shall go down into the water with the person who has presented himself or herself for baptism, and shall say, calling him or her by name: Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

74 Then shall he immerse him or her in the water, and come forth again out of the water.

We know that baptism holds a lot of symbolism. We’re dressed in white. We go down into the water and come back out, symbolizing the death of our old life and becoming new again. It also symbolizes Christ dying and being resurrected. There was one piece of symbolism that I did not previously recognize that was pointed out quite clearly in the previous verses.

The person who is called of God and has authority from Jesus Christ to baptize, shall go down into the water with the person who has presented himself or herself for baptism…

In order to understand the symbolism, we have to understand the “characters” participating in the baptism. We are representing ourselves (or those who have passed on and cannot do the work themselves), but we are not the only one present in our baptism. There is also a priesthood holder that follows us in.

This priesthood holder is authorized by Jesus Christ to use His authority to bind us to the Savior so that the Savior can legally (in an eternal sense) bind us to Him in a manner that produces salvation. One might even argue that the priesthood holder is a representation of Christ, Himself.

Christ follows us into the water as we choose to make a covenant with Him, as we walk towards the death of our old life. If we were to picture the Savior, with the wounds of His sacrifice still on His resurrected body, walking into the water with us, how would our baptism feel different? It may be a priesthood holder actually standing in the water, but the only reason the priesthood holder is there is because he is holding Christ’s authority to baptize. It’s really Christ who is utilizing power to bind us to Him in a covenant that saves us. The priesthood holder is nothing more than a vessel.

There are a couple of ways this might change how we feel about our baptism.

The first one that comes to my mind is that He is teaching us what the rest of our lives are going to look like because we chose to enter into a covenant relationship with Him. Following us into the water and binding us to Him according to our willingness is a foreshadowing of what our lives can look like. If we keep our willingness to follow Him and allow Him near us, we don’t have to do anything alone anymore.

Christ’s approach to our growth and development is two-pronged. It is wise in the sense that He allows us to suffer, struggle, and figure it out. This is really difficult for many people to swallow, especially when you consider the depths of injustice and despair in the world. But that’s why the second prong of His approach is so important.

The Savior is not asking us to do anything that He has not done Himself. He was already perfect, and so He didn’t need these experiences to figure out how to live happily in an eternal setting. With His sacrifice, He chose to step into that water to feel it firsthand. And then He chooses to be with us as we struggle through those same experiences in our own life.

I am quite adamant in my parenting approach to let my kids struggle through things. I think it’s so critical to their growth. It’s absolutely essential to their becoming a well-adjusted adult. Sometimes this makes my kids feel unsupported and unloved, but that’s far from the case. I do it because I love them.

This is the same with the Savior. He sent us here because He loves us. Our struggle is evidence of His love, not the other way around. But He takes it beyond wisdom. His approach is not, “Go get in those baptismal waters and put yourself under and come back up.” His approach is, “I will follow you where you have to go to get where you need to be.” He follows us into the water and brings us closer to Him. He is willing to follow us the rest of our lives through every “water” we have to walk through.

We have to believe that He’s walking with us and mourning with us, or His sacrifice won’t have much effect. Even though He follows us, it won’t bring much comfort unless we believe it and allow that belief to fill us with the relief He is offering.

Dead works

The next detail about baptism that I want to talk about is found in Section 22. The Saints had not yet grasped the idea of proper authority and so the idea of getting rebaptized confused them. This is how the Lord explained it.

Doctrine and Covenants 22:2 Wherefore, although a man should be baptized an hundred times it availeth him nothing, for you cannot enter in at the strait gate by the law of Moses, neither by your dead works.

I understand the need for proper authority, but this verse originally confused me. In my mind, the Lord was telling His people to not trust in dead works. The Israelites used to believe that following the Law of Moses would save them. They didn’t realize that the Law of Moses was supposed to bring them closer to the Savior who would save them. This also makes sense to me.

The part that confused me was the fact that baptism can be considered one of our “works.” He commanded the Israelites to keep the Law of Moses, and He commanded us to be baptized by proper authority. The difference (and the detail I want to expound on) is that one work is “dead” and one work is not.

Performing the work of baptism is different from other commandments (not all commandments, but some of them). It is an essential ordinance. The Savior is the one who saves us, but it is baptism that pulls us into a covenant relationship with Him so that He can save us. This is also why the Lord commands us to perform vicarious ordinances for those who weren’t baptized. Everybody needs to have the work done.

We don’t go out and mow a neighbor’s lawn vicariously for someone else. We don’t follow the Word of Wisdom or pay tithing on behalf of those who didn’t do it in their own lives. There are commandments that are given to us to bring us closer to the Savior so He can save us. Going out and mowing a lawn can help us understand sacrifice and charity. Following the Word of Wisdom can help us have healthy bodies and keep our minds clear and free. Paying tithing allows us to learn how to trust in the Lord. All of these things help us get closer to Christ who will save us, but they are dead in and of themselves.

Baptism obviously brings us closer to the Lord and helps us understand Him, but baptism does more than that. It binds us to Him using His own power and authority. Regular men on earth do not have the power to seal in heaven. They can baptize you with their religious degree or their certifications from their churches, but power given from regular old human to regular old human is not sufficient to bind in heaven. Only the Savior can give that kind of power.

In this manner, when we die, that baptism has the ability to follow us into heaven where the Savior still holds power. It keeps us bound to Him on both sides of the veil because the Savior holds enough power to accomplish that, and He lends that power to us. It’s still His power.

Baptism (and other covenant-entering ordinances) are essential. They are literally binding us to the Savior. That’s why the Lord treats that commandment differently than other dead, Law-of-Moses type commandments.

This also enlightens us as to why we should never tear down baptisms that are done without proper authority. I once heard a missionary describe someone’s baptism into another church as an abomination. It went over well (sarcasm).

The Lord did describe these works as dead because they were done without proper authority. However, He also described the Law of Moses (the one that He specifically gave to His people) as dead. He’s not saying that it’s worthless. He gave the Law of Moses so that the Israelites could draw closer to Him and become ready to receive Him. Baptism into other Christian churches holds that same ability. They can (and often do) bring people closer to Christ and help them become ready to receive Him more fully. There’s no reason to ever tear down someone’s decision to try and draw closer to Christ.

I testify of a Heavenly Father who set up a perfect Plan of Salvation. I testify that His words are so consistent. I have often run into ideas, stories, and words that I did not originally understand. There have been times when I have found myself confused about details or things that didn’t seem congruent with what I understood of a loving Heavenly Father. I have also learned that as I choose to be patient, new understanding comes to my mind and clarifies what I didn’t yet know. The more I study the gospel, in all of its rich details, the more I understand the character of my Heavenly Father and Savior.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 20–22 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Joseph Smith’s early revelations to family & friends; restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood(D&C sections 4, 11–12, 14–16, 18–19)by Mike Parker

Class Notes

Additional Reading

There has much scholarly debate on the date of the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood. The traditional view is that it took place in late May or early June 1829, within a few weeks after the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood. A handful of scholars argue for a later date, however—some time in the summer of 1830.

For an examination of the historical evidence, see Brian Q. Cannon and BYU Studies Staff, “Priesthood Restoration Documents,” BYU Studies 35, no. 4 (1995): 166–73.
Larry C. Porter argues for the earlier date in two articles: “Dating the Restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood,” Ensign (June 1979): 5–10 and “The Restoration of the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods,” Ensign (December 1996): 30–47.
In support of the later view, see Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1984), 162–63. Ben Park sums up the argument for the later date in “Dating the Melchizedek Priesthood Restoration,” The Juvenile Instructor, 4 August 2008.
Michael Hubbard MacKay argues that the Melchizedek Priesthood was restored over a series of angelic and inspired events in “Event or Process? How ‘the Chamber of Old Father Whitmer’ Helps Us Understand Priesthood Restoration,” BYU Studies 60, no. 1 (2021): 71–101. John S. Thompson makes a similar argument in “Restoring Melchizedek Priesthood,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 62 (2024): 263–318.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 4, 11–12, 14–16, 18–19 – Mike Parker appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

An Uncomfortable Offeringby Autumn Dickson

This week, we learn about some of the men and women who supported Joseph in the early days of the restoration. He was supported through friendship as well as monetarily as he worked to complete the translation of The Book of Mormon. We also learn about the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood. John the Baptist came to Joseph and Oliver and conferred that authority upon them.

Plenty could be written about the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood, but there was actually another part of this event that I wanted to speak about. Though I am far from qualified in historical perspectives and details (especially pertaining to ancient Israel), I do believe that there is insight that I can give.

Here is the one verse that describes the restoration of this preparatory priesthood.

Doctrine and Covenants 13:1 Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.

The portion that I would like to try and give insight on is the last phrase, “until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.” This verse, accompanied by many quotes in the Doctrine and Covenants institute manual, teach that there will be a literal animal sacrifice at some point in our dispensation. It will be performed when the sons of Levi can do so in righteousness. The sons of Levi were priesthood holders in ancient Israel, and so we can understand that this is talking about modern day priesthood holders. Will they be specifically from the tribe of Levi? Maybe. The manual simply states that they will be priesthood holders.

There will be some who cry that the Law of Moses was done away, and they are absolutely correct. It was done away. However, animal sacrifice existed before the Law of Moses and so there’s no reason to assume that it was permanently done away with the rest of the rights and rituals included in the Law of Moses. One quote from President Joseph Fielding Smith stated that this sacrifice would be done in the beginning of the Millennium when Christ is already on the earth.

Even when we take into consideration the logical arguments for the restoration of all things, this is simply not one of our friendlier doctrines. It’s not necessarily one of the things that we like to expound upon and focus on. It’s uncomfortable.

And therein lies my exact insight. Let’s explore.

Uncomfortable

As I was reading about this sacrifice from the sons of Levi, I remember trying to think of how I would explain something like that to a friend or even to my children. I don’t know how to describe the necessity of animal sacrifice when I’m not even sure why it’s totally necessary.

I tried picturing what that sacrifice might look like, and once again, all I could feel was extreme discomfort. Society has definitely evolved away from this kind of death. People used to raise their own meat and personally slaughter their dinners. If they didn’t personally raise the meat, they hunted wild game and still personally slaughtered their dinners.

We have begun to feel that we’re more sophisticated because we get to eat the meat without watching the animal die. It offends our more sensitive natures because we’re just not used to it anymore. I’m not saying this is necessarily a bad thing. I don’t think there is anything wrong with sensitivity towards death. However, I wonder what we have lost when we’re so far separated from the process that we don’t appreciate what occurred to put that meat on our table.

I promise this isn’t a discourse on being vegetarian, and I do have a point. This is an uncomfortable doctrine for us, in a different way than it was uncomfortable to ancient Israelites.

The point of animal sacrifice was to teach the Israelites about the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. But why does an innocent animal need to suffer so we can learn a lesson?

And then it hit me. How much more poignant could we get?

An innocent, perfect Man sacrificed Himself so that we could come to earth to learn the lessons we needed to learn in order to live an eternal life. We rejoice in this doctrine. We’re grateful for it. It is our central doctrine that the Savior offered Himself up so that we could be saved.

It’s easy to reflect on the gratitude; it’s much more difficult to grasp the sacrifice.

The ancient Israelites were probably not as sensitized to animal death as we are, and so the lessons probably felt a little different. They understood that meat on their table meant death. We’re far removed and so we don’t often think about it, but perhaps that just drives the lesson home even more.

Animal sacrifice feels uncomfortable, even wrong. Isn’t there some other way we can learn about the atonement of Jesus Christ? Now take these direct feelings and apply them to the sacrifice of the Savior. Expand this poignant lesson to exactly where it’s supposed to be: our Redeemer. I wonder what kind of emotions would be evoked if we could see a vision of the Garden of Gethsemane and the cross before our eyes. It would certainly be uncomfortable since most of our modern societies have moved away from brutal torture methods. I wonder if it would also evoke emotions such as, “This is wrong. He is good. Why are we letting this happen? Surely there is another way!”

It is not enough to logically understand the atonement of Jesus Christ. If we want to feel the depth of the love He holds for us, if we want to experience gratitude to the level it deserves, if we want His sacrifice to change us, we have to experience the atonement emotionally. I’m not saying we go out and sacrifice an animal to let the lesson hit home. I’m just going to leave those particulars to the Lord when He gets here.

But as much as we love the atonement of Jesus Christ and all that it brought us, do we also understand the depth of darkness that accompanied it? Do we feel gratitude because we understand on some kind of level, just what He had to innocently go through in order to save us and give us an opportunity to come here and learn? In some ways, you might argue that the atonement of Jesus Christ isn’t even one of our friendlier doctrines. There was so much love associated with it, and I believe it is absolutely right to celebrate that love and the victory. I believe it’s also important to recognize what that victory cost.

Abraham and Isaac

It makes me think of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham was commanded by the Lord to offer up Isaac, his only son, as a sacrifice. I always hated this story in the Old Testament. What kind of God would command His child to sacrifice their posterity? It seemed so jarring and so incongruous with who I believed God to be.

It wasn’t until I studied this story during Come Follow Me that I noted something I had never seen before. Abraham was commanded by the Lord to offer up his son as a sacrifice, but the Lord never intended on actually accepting the sacrifice. It was never part of the plan for Isaac to actually be sacrificed.

Some would argue that it was cruel of God to put Abraham through such an ordeal. I can’t imagine the agony. I think about one of my kids dying, and I can’t breathe. I don’t know if I would have had the strength to follow that commandment even if it did directly come from God (and that’s just plain honesty on my part). I would probably assume I had gone completely mental and checked myself into a hospital.

But once again, Isaac wasn’t ever actually going to be sacrificed. I wonder if Abraham just kept repeating to himself that Isaac would be resurrected one day, and they would be reunited. I wonder if that brought him any comfort because I don’t think it would have brought me any comfort. Though it was harrowing, absolutely excruciating to have experienced the trek up that mountain, understanding what was at the end of it, I wonder if anyone understands the atonement on the level that Abraham understands.

When the angel came and stopped Abraham from sacrificing Isaac, I picture Abraham falling over himself to hug Isaac, sobbing into his neck. I picture the tears of joy that his son was mercifully spared. And later, when things got quieter and Abraham had some time to ponder, I picture more tears as Abraham finally understood just what it meant that Heavenly Father had sent His innocent Son to be sacrificed for the sins of the world. I picture the depth of gratitude Abraham must have felt that while he didn’t have to sacrifice his own son, Heavenly Father had chosen to send Jesus for our sake.

Maybe Heavenly Father kept reminding Himself that Jesus would be resurrected and returned to Him. I wonder if that helped, or I wonder if the nature of a parental relationship denies the ability to skip the pain in favor of the ending. Heavenly Father didn’t turn away from the brutality that was necessary in order to save us. The least we can do is appreciate that on some level.

I testify that rejoicing and gratitude and worship are all wonderful things that the Lord encourages. I testify that our salvation was worth it to the Savior. I also testify of uncomfortable doctrines that were necessary. I testify that saving us required a sacrifice, a sacrifice that we are hard-pressed to comprehend because of the elevated and sanitized societies in which we now live. That’s not to knock the progress we’ve made as humanity away from public executions by crosses, but it is to help us understand that the atonement of Jesus Christ carries a depth of pain that matches the depth of joy that has been offered to us. Appreciating that on some level (because heaven knows we can’t yet fully understand and appreciate it) goes a long way in pushing us towards the Savior for what He did, and that is a worthwhile endeavor to find that appreciation.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Doctrine and Covenants 12–17; Joseph Smith—History 1:66–75 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

What does it mean to belong to “His Church”? For many, the concept of belonging to an organized religion feels restrictive or even antiquated. Yet, Elder Dale G. Renlund’s talk, This is My Gospel – This is My Church sheds light on why The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is essential to God’s plan—not just as an institution but as a transformative, power-filled support for individuals. By exploring how the gospel and the Church work in harmony, Elder Renlund offers insights that can help address both common critiques and lingering questions about the Church’s role in the lives of its members. Why does the Church matter, and how does it enable spiritual growth?

In this post, we’ll delve into Elder Renlund’s message, looking at common critiques and questions. We’ll consider how this talk addresses issues around doctrine, historical practices, and social questions that often surface in discussions about faith.

Questions, Misconceptions, and Criticisms “I Can Be Saved Without Organized Religion” * + A common critique of organized religion is the belief that one’s personal relationship with God or spiritual experiences in nature are sufficient for salvation, making church attendance or participation optional. While personal spirituality is vital, Elder Renlund’s talk teaches that such an approach is incomplete without the structure and ordinances provided by the Church. + Elder Renlund uses a compelling metaphor to explain the necessity of the Church. He compares the gospel of Jesus Christ to nitroglycerin—powerful but unstable—and the Church to diatomaceous earth, a stabilizing substance that makes nitroglycerin safe and effective. Separately, these components are either ineffective or dangerous, but together, they become transformative and valuable, like dynamite. + In the same way, while personal spirituality can provide inspiration, it lacks the stability and divine authority of the Church, which is essential for lasting transformation and salvation. Elder Renlund emphasizes that the Church offers more than a gathering place—it is the divinely authorized institution that: 1. 1. 1. Teaches the Doctrine of Christ: The Church ensures that the gospel is taught in its fullness and purity. Without it, spiritual understanding becomes vulnerable to what Elder Renlund calls “doctrinal drift”—the gradual distortion of truth over time due to cultural and philosophical influences. 2. Administers Saving Ordinances: Ordinances like baptism, the sacrament, and temple covenants can only be performed with priesthood authority, which resides in the Church. These ordinances are not just symbolic; they are the means by which we access Christ’s power to transform and sanctify us. 3. Facilitates Covenants with God: Church participation is not about passively attending meetings; it is about entering into sacred covenants with God and renewing those covenants through ordinances such as the sacrament. These covenants bind us to Christ and enable us to access His atoning power in ways that personal spirituality alone cannot. * Following Christ Means Following His Church * + Elder Renlund teaches that the Savior refers to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as “my church” because it is commissioned to fulfill His purposes. The Church is not a human invention; it is the instrument through which Christ administers His saving and exalting power. To fully follow Christ, we must participate in the institution He established. While spiritual experiences at home or in nature can enrich our connection to God, they cannot replace the essential role of the Church. Elder Renlund’s message invites us to embrace the Church not as a restriction on personal spirituality but as the divine structure that makes salvation possible. * “The Church is Run by Imperfect People, So How Can It Be Divine?”* * + A common criticism is that because the Church is led by imperfect individuals, it cannot truly represent God’s work. This perspective can lead to disillusionment, especially when leaders make mistakes or policies evolve. Elder Renlund acknowledges the reality of human imperfection but emphasizes that the divinely established Church remains essential for God’s purposes. + Elder Renlund explains that the Church is comprised of “ordinary people, disciples of Jesus Christ, gathered and organized into a divinely appointed structure that helps the Lord accomplish His purposes.” This acknowledgment highlights that the Church is not perfect because of its human members; it is perfect because it was divinely instituted and operates under Christ’s direction.

Apologetic Applications of DoctrineDefending Divine DoctrinesElder Renlund uses the metaphor of dynamite and stabilizers to clarify why the Church is essential in preserving and delivering the gospel. Here’s how this doctrinal emphasis defends some core beliefs:

The Nature of God: This talk highlights that the Church teaches the nature of God in a restored, clear form, contrasting with creedal interpretations. Elder Renlund explains that without the structure of the Church, doctrines have historically “drifted” or been altered over time.
Priesthood and Ordinances: By linking the Church’s role to dynamite’s power, Elder Renlund reinforces the necessity of divinely sanctioned authority. Ordinances performed with priesthood authority are essential stabilizers, enabling members to access divine power.

Application

When faced with imperfections in the Church, focus on Christ, whose purpose is to draw us closer to Him. Exercise charity by recognizing that we are all striving to follow the Savior despite our flaws. Trust that God works through imperfect individuals to accomplish His purposes, deepening your faith in His guidance of His Church.

Historical and Doctrinal ConnectionsContextual BackgroundThe importance of organized worship and ordinances administered through Christ’s Church is not unique to the modern Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Evidence from both the New Testament and the Book of Mormon reveals that the ancient Church operated in much the same way—emphasizing community, priesthood authority, and sacred ordinances as essential to following Christ.

The New Testament Church

The New Testament demonstrates the early Christian Church as a divinely authorized institution organized by Christ Himself, who called apostles and gave them authority to teach, baptize, and administer ordinances (see Matthew 16:18–19; 28:19–20). After His Ascension, the apostles continued this work, gathering believers for worship, prayer, and the sacrament (see Acts 2:42; 1 Corinthians 11:23–26). Paul emphasized that the Church is “the body of Christ,” where every member plays a vital role in its function and growth (see 1 Corinthians 12:12–27; Ephesians 4:11–16), and that ordinances like baptism (see Acts 2:38) and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost (see Acts 8:17) were essential components of the faith community.

The Book of Mormon Church

The Book of Mormon describes the establishment of Christ’s Church among ancient believers, with Alma organizing a congregation at the Waters of Mormon where he taught repentance, administered baptism, and led the people to covenant to follow Christ and gather regularly for worship (see Mosiah 18:7–17). After His visit to the Nephites, Christ explicitly organized His Church, granting priesthood authority to His disciples and commanding them to administer ordinances, teach His gospel, and help individuals make covenants with God (see 3 Nephi 27:7, 21).

A Consistent Pattern Across DispensationsThese examples from both the New Testament and the Book of Mormon demonstrate that the pattern of attending church, receiving ordinances, and making covenants is not merely a modern construct. It is a hallmark of Christ’s Church in every dispensation. Elder Renlund reinforces this truth, teaching that without the Lord’s Church, humanity’s understanding of His gospel becomes unstable and subject to distortion. The Church provides the authority and structure necessary for salvation, ensuring that sacred ordinances are performed properly and that individuals can access God’s power through covenants.

Living ApologeticsPractical Application: Discussing Faith with OthersElder Renlund’s talk encourages us to recognize the essential power the Church brings into our lives through ordinances, authority, and gospel truth. In conversations with friends or family, you might consider:

Focus on Transformative Power: Rather than trying to explain each doctrine, share how the Church’s gospel has transformed you. Elder Renlund’s metaphor of dynamite offers a great image of powerful change and stability.

Faith in Action Lead a Study Discussion:* Host a discussion in a study group or family setting about the talk, addressing critiques with Elder Renlund’s explanations of gospel and Church synergy.

Application Ideas Personal Reflection on Covenants: Spend time reflecting on the covenants you’ve made, writing down how they have drawn you closer to the Savior and “transformed” you, as Elder Renlund describes. * Share these experiences with those who may question the necessity of organized religion, using Elder Renlund’s metaphor of dynamite to illustrate the stabilizing and transformative power of the gospel combined with the Church. * Focus on Christ: When confronted with the imperfections of others at Church, shift your focus to Christ. The Church is His, and its purpose is to draw us closer to Him. * Exercise Charity: Recognize that imperfection is part of the human condition. Approach others with empathy and patience, knowing we are all striving to follow the Savior. * Engage with Faith:* Remember that God works through flawed individuals to accomplish His purposes. Allow this truth to deepen your faith in His ability to guide His Church.

Quick Reference: Key Defenses and Facts Church and Gospel Combination: The gospel without the Church lacks the stability required for transformative power. Just as nitroglycerin needed kieselguhr, the gospel needs the Church to provide divine authority and doctrinal consistency. * Doctrine of Eternal Progression: The idea that we can become like God is grounded in covenants made possible only through the Church, as Elder Renlund emphasizes. * Priesthood Authority and Ordinances:* Ordinances performed with priesthood authority make it possible to receive God’s transformative power. This divine authority stabilizes and preserves the gospel’s purity.

Top Apologetic Facts:

The Essential Role of the Church in Salvation: The Church provides the divine authority, ordinances, and structure necessary to stabilize the gospel and enable salvation, countering the instability of personal spirituality alone.
The Transformative Power of Covenants and Ordinances: Covenants and ordinances administered through the Church are essential for accessing God’s power to become holy and perfected in Christ.
Imperfect People in a Perfectly Designed System: The Church’s divine mission is accomplished through Christ’s guidance and atonement, proving that human imperfection does not invalidate its role in God’s plan.

ConclusionElder Renlund’s message powerfully reminds us that belonging to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is about accessing the divine power that transforms us into what God intends us to become. The combination of gospel and Church makes possible an “unspeakable joy” that Elder Renlund promises is “far greater than dynamite.” How has belonging to “His Church” empowered you to become what God intends you to be?

Without the Lord’s Church, humanity’s understanding of His gospel was unstable—prone to doctrinal drift and subject to the influence of different religions, cultures, and philosophies. An amalgamation of those influences has been manifested in every dispensation leading up to this last one.

Share your insightYour thoughts and experiences can help others along their journey. Share them below, and let’s continue this conversation on the power of belonging to His Church.

The post The Power of Gospel and Church Together: Understanding God’s Design for Our Transformation appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Can faith and trust in God’s guidance coexist with personal doubts?

Elder David P. Homer’s recent General Conference address, “Trusting Our Father,” explores a fundamental question: How can we fully trust God’s will, even when it challenges our own understanding? Drawing on historical and scriptural examples, Elder Homer emphasizes that God’s boundaries are eternal and defined by His love for us. As we seek to understand these divine truths, this talk offers valuable insights for those facing doubts or challenges to their faith.

Questions, Misconceptions, and CriticismsDoctrine:

Misconception: Truth is always relative and depends on individual perspective or context.
- Response: This belief reflects the philosophical concept of moral relativism, which suggests that what is right or true depends entirely on social norms, personal beliefs, or situational factors. However, Elder David P. Homer counters this idea by teaching that God’s truths are absolute, eternal, and independent of human perspective. “The boundaries between right and wrong are not for us to define. God has established these boundaries Himself, based on eternal truths for our benefit and blessing.” Elder Homer asserts that while circumstances can shape how we experience or apply principles, some truths remain unchanged because they are divinely appointed. For example, the law of chastity, honesty, and the command to love one another are consistent moral standards that transcend cultural shifts. These truths are not contingent on context but are rooted in God’s eternal character.
Fallacies and Cognitive Biases:
- Moral Relativism Fallacy: This fallacy suggests that since different cultures have varying beliefs about what is right or wrong, no universal truth exists. While individual experiences vary, God’s laws are designed for the eternal well-being of all His children, not just specific groups or times.
- Appeal to Popularity (Bandwagon Fallacy): Believing that truth must conform to popular opinion assumes that societal consensus determines what is morally right. This is flawed because majorities have often supported unjust practices in history. Truth is not a democratic process; it is revealed by God.

Social Issues:

Criticism: Commandments should change to align with evolving social norms.
- Response: The belief that God’s laws must adapt to current cultural standards is based on the assumption that divine commandments are outdated social constructs. However, Elder Homer teaches that God’s commandments are not arbitrary rules but expressions of His love and eternal wisdom. “God’s saving truths are absolute, independent, and defined by God Himself.” While societies evolve, God’s commandments remain constant because they are designed to bring lasting happiness and spiritual safety. For example, commandments related to honesty, fidelity, and service reflect eternal principles that uplift individuals and communities. When societal values deviate from divine law, God does not alter His laws to accommodate humanity’s changing preferences; instead, He invites us to align with His higher standard.
Fallacies and Cognitive Biases:
- Appeal to Novelty: This fallacy assumes that newer societal norms are inherently better than established principles simply because they are modern. This discounts the wisdom embedded in enduring divine teachings.
- Presentism Bias: This bias judges historical religious teachings based on modern cultural values, ignoring the fact that God’s commandments are meant to be timeless and not bound by current societal trends.
- False Dilemma: Some assume that if commandments don’t change, believers must choose between following an outdated moral code or rejecting faith entirely. This oversimplifies the process of living faith, which involves applying unchanging truths in changing circumstances with personal revelation and divine grace.
By understanding that God’s laws are rooted in eternal truths rather than social consensus, we can see the wisdom in commandments that sometimes feel countercultural. Elder Homer reminds us that trusting in God’s design leads to spiritual clarity, peace, and lasting joy.

Defending Divine DoctrineElder Homer’s emphasis on trusting in divine boundaries provides an apologetic approach to several common critiques. By underscoring that truth is not for humans to redefine, he aligns with Come, Follow Me lessons in Moroni 1-6 about the Sacrament, repentance, and ordinances as God-given instructions rather than culturally influenced practices.

Application: Trusting God’s Boundaries in Daily LifeThis teaching helps counter the criticism that Church doctrines are restrictive. By trusting that God’s boundaries are an expression of love, believers can find meaning even when doctrines challenge their views. Elder David P. Homer’s talk offers several practical “to-do” items that help apply this principle in everyday life:

Pause, Reflect, and Respond with Faith:
- “When we don’t understand, we can pause, let our feelings settle, and then choose how to respond.” When faced with difficult teachings or personal struggles, practice pausing before reacting. This pause creates space for spiritual clarity through prayer and thoughtful reflection.
Study the Scriptures and Listen to Prophets
- “Fortunately, we have the scriptures and guidance from living prophets to help us understand God’s truth.” Commit to a consistent scripture study routine. Focus on teachings that address current questions or concerns, such as studying Come, Follow Me lessons or recent General Conference talks. Create a study journal to write down insights, questions, and how you see God’s guidance in your life.
Seek Personal Revelation
- “If clarification beyond what we have is needed, God provides it through His prophets. And He will respond to our sincere prayers through the Holy Ghost.” Practice regular personal prayer, specifically asking for help understanding God’s will. Follow promptings from the Holy Ghost, even when they require courage or sacrifice.
Stay with Faith through Uncertainty
- “We must never allow doubt to hold us prisoner and keep us from the divine love, peace, and gifts that come through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.” When doubts arise, try Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf’s counsel to “doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith.” Create a habit of spiritual resilience by focusing on past spiritual experiences and holding onto the truths you already know.
Choose to Trust God’s Timing
- “God gives His word according to the attention and effort we devote to it.” Make a conscious decision to trust God’s timeline. This might mean waiting patiently for answers to long-term questions while staying active in your spiritual practices.
Remember God’s Eternal Perspective
- “God has something better for us. If we reach out to Him, He will assist us.” Write down one area of your life where you struggle to trust God’s plan. Pray specifically about that area, asking for His help in seeing things from His eternal perspective.

By applying these steps, believers can build trust in God’s eternal laws rather than being influenced by temporary societal trends or personal uncertainties. As Elder Homer’s talk illustrates, trusting divine boundaries leads to deeper peace, spiritual growth, and lasting joy—even when understanding takes time.

Explaining the Nature of the PriesthoodElder Homer’s discussion on trusting divine roles and structures supports the Church’s position on priesthood authority as sacred and purpose-driven. For example, Moroni 3 discusses the importance of ordaining individuals by priesthood authority—a principle that underscores God’s intentional design for leadership in His Church.

Historical and Doctrinal ConnectionsContextual Background – The Story of Louisa Barnes PrattThe example of Louisa Barnes Pratt courageously following God’s guidance despite personal reluctance mirrors the journeys many of us take in faith. This historical story reminds us of the faith required to trust in God’s eternal plan, even when societal norms suggest alternative paths.

Resources for Deeper Understanding:* Priesthood * Church resource: Revelation for Our Lives

Living ApologeticsPractical ApplicationRespectful Dialogue Guide: When discussing spiritual topics, particularly the idea of absolute truth vs. relative morality, it’s important to approach conversations with empathy, patience, and clarity. Here’s how to engage effectively:

Listen Actively: Begin by listening without interrupting to understand others’ perspectives, even if they differ from your own.
Ask Open-Ended Questions: Use phrases like, “How did you come to that conclusion?” or “What do you believe about truth?” to invite thoughtful dialogue.
Clarify God’s Teachings with Humility: Share beliefs without being defensive. Say something like: “I believe that God’s laws are based on eternal principles meant for our lasting happiness.”
Acknowledge Common Concerns: Recognize that trusting in God’s will can be challenging. You might say: “There have been times I’ve struggled to understand a commandment, but as I’ve studied and prayed, I’ve come to see its deeper purpose.”
Express Love and Understanding: No matter the outcome, express kindness: “Thank you for sharing your perspective. I’ve enjoyed learning more about what you believe.”

Faith in Action: Applying Elder David P. Homer’s counsel to trust in God’s boundaries, even when public opinion or personal desires differ, strengthens our spiritual foundation.

Suggested Actions: Speak with Purpose: Share your beliefs about God’s eternal truths when the opportunity arises. This might be during family discussions, in church meetings, or with friends who have honest questions. Use phrases like: “I believe that God’s truth isn’t defined by society but revealed through His prophets.” * Study Faithfully: Strengthen your understanding by studying scriptures and prophetic counsel. Focus on sections like Alma 30 (Korihor’s rebellion) and 2 Nephi 2* (agency and eternal law). Seek personal revelation on how to trust God’s will more fully.

Quick Reference: Key Defenses and Facts Truth is Eternal: God’s truths are independent and do not change based on cultural trends. * Historical Figures in Faith: Stories like Louisa Barnes Pratt show that trusting God often requires courage against popular opinion. * Sacrament and Ordinances:* Following sacred ordinances, as discussed in Moroni 1-6, helps believers connect to God’s guidance and protection.

ConclusionEncouragement and Reflection: Elder Homer’s message encourages us to trust in God’s eternal love and wisdom, especially in times of doubt or challenge. When we recognize that God’s boundaries are expressions of His love, we can find peace in His plan for us.

“God trusts us to make many important decisions, and in all matters He asks us to trust Him. This is especially difficult when our judgment or public opinion differs from His will for His children. Some suggest that we should redraw the lines between what is right and what is wrong because they say that truth is relative, reality is self-defined, or God is so generous that He does not actually care about what we do. As we seek to understand and accept God’s will, it is helpful to remember that the boundaries between right and wrong are not for us to define. God has established these boundaries Himself, based on eternal truths for our benefit and blessing.”

Share Your InsightShare your thoughts on trusting God’s boundaries – your thoughts and experiences can help others!

The post Trusting God’s Boundaries: Faithfully Navigating Modern Challenges appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

by Michelle Pack

The “Asking Big Questions” series is made in cooperation with the Wilford Woodruff Papers Project.

Wilford and Phebe Woodruff’s first child, Sarah Emma, was born on July 14, 1838. Just over a year later, Wilford left his family to serve a mission in England. In his journal on July 14, 1840, he wrote, “Sarah Emma is two years old this day. May the Lord preserve my wife and children from sickness and death until my return. O Lord, I commit them into thy hands. Feed, clothe, and comfort them, and thine shall be the glory.” Wilford had a strong testimony of the power of covenants to unite his family for eternity. In a letter to Phebe on July 16, 1840, he said:

CONTINUED HERE

The post Asking Big Questions: How Can I Gain a Testimony of Temple Ordinances? appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

[English]

Diese Liste von verfügbaren Ressourcen wurde erstellt, um die Fehlinformationen in der kürzlich veröffentlichten Abhandlung von Francois Radzik mit dem Titel „13 Thesen: Die Irreführung durch die Kirche Jesu Christi der Heiligen der Letzten Tage, die Mormonen“ besser einordnen und klarstellen zu können. Leser, die mit den von der Kirche bereits veröffentlichten korrekten Informationen sowie mit den üblichen Taktiken der Fehlinformation vertraut sind, werden die Verzerrungen in dieser Abhandlung erkennen. Wie bei den meisten Angriffen auf die Kirche heutzutage ist das einzig Neue die Verpackung.

Nützliche Informationsquellenvon Keith Erekson

1) Wissen über Gott wird Zeile um Zeile offenbart

Vorträge über Theologie („Vorlesungen über den Glauben“) (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
King-Follett-Rede (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Wie Gott werden (Abhandlungen zu Evangeliumsthemen)
Veränderung ist in Ordnung (siehe 2 Nephi 28:30; 29:9; Lehre und Bündnisse 61:20; 9. Glaubensartikel)

2) Vollmacht und Führung

Wiederherstellung des Aaronischen Priestertums (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Wiederherstellung des Melchisedekischen Priestertums (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Nachfolge in der Führung der Kirche (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Heilige, Band 3: Unerschrocken, erhaben und unbeirrbar (Salt Lake City: Kirche Jesu Christi der Heiligen der Letzten Tage, 2022), 214-217 (Kapitel 12). [Beschreibt die Lehren von Brigham Young]

3) Visionen von Jesus Christus und anderen Boten

Berichte über die erste Vision (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Joseph Smith, Journal, April 3, 1836 [Jesus, Mose, Elias, und Elija im Kirtland Tempel] (nur auf Englisch abrufbar)
Alexander L. Baugh, „Parting the Veil: The Visions of Joseph Smith“, BYU Studies 38, Nr. 1 (1999): 23–69 (nur auf Englisch abrufbar).

4) Die frühe Geschichte von Joseph Smith

Siehe Joseph Smith-Lebensgeschichte 1:55-56
Schatzsuchen (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Sehersteine (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Berichte über die erste Vision (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Joseph Smith, Geschichte, 1832 [frühester schriftlicher Bericht über die Erste Vision]
Die Übersetzung des Buches Mormon (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Engel Moroni (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)

5) Mehrehe

Die Mehrehe in Kirtland und in Nauvoo (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Fanny Alger (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
„Mercy Thompson und die Offenbarung über die Ehe“, in Offenbarungen im Zusammenhang

6) Veränderung im Laufe der Zeit

Kollegium der Zwölf Apostel (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Rassenzugehörigkeit und Priestertum (Abhandlungen zu Evangeliumsthemen)
Das Manifest und das Ende der Mehrehe (Abhandlungen zu Evangeliumsthemen)
Veränderung ist in Ordnung (siehe 2 Nephi 28:30; 29:9; Lehre und Bündnisse 61:20; 9. Glaubensartikel)

7) Zion

Zion/Neues Jerusalem (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Das Buch Mormon und die DNS-Forschung (Abhandlungen zu Evangeliumsthemen)

8) Geschichte der Kirche in Missouri

Zion/Neues Jerusalem (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Gewalt im Kreis Jackson (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Die Kirtland Safety Society (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Daniten (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Krieg mit den Mormonen in Missouri 1838 (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Ausrottungsbefehl (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Gefängnis zu Liberty (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Prophezeiungen von Joseph Smith (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)

9) Frühe Tempel und Verordnungen

Kirtland-Tempel (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Nauvoo-Tempel (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Endowment im Tempel (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Freimaurerei (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Anpassungen bei der Tempelarbeit (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Tempelbau (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)

10) Auszug aus Nauvoo

Nauvoo (Commerce), Illinois (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Freimaurerei (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Rat der Fünfzig (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Versuchte Auslieferung nach Missouri (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Nachfolge in der Führung der Kirche (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Treck der Pioniere (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)

11) Brigham Young

Brigham Young (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Tod von Joseph und Hyrum Smith (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Utah (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Daniten (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Massaker von Mountain Meadows (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Frieden und Gewalt unter den Heiligen der Letzten Tage im 19. Jahrhundert (Abhandlungen zu Evangeliumsthemen)

12) Studium und Glauben

Nach Antworten auf Ihre Fragen suchen (Themen und Fragen)
Dieter F. Uchtdorf, „Kommen Sie zu uns!”, Generalkonferenz, Oktober 2013
Russell M. Nelson, „Christus ist auferstanden; Glaube an ihn versetzt Berge“, Generalkonferenz, April 2021
„Auskünfte aus zuverlässigen Quellen“, Allgemeines Handbuch: Wie man in der Kirche Jesu Christi der Heiligen der Letzten Tage dient, 38.8.41
Dallin H. Oaks, „Criticism“, Ensign, Februar 1987 (nur auf Englisch abrufbar)

13) Zehnter

Zehnter (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)
Finanzen der Kirche (Themen im Zusammenhang mit der Geschichte der Kirche)

Übliche Taktiken in antagonistischen Materialien

Anbieten von neuer Freiheit und fortschrittlichem Denken
Mitteilen von ausgewählten Fakten, die aus ihrem größeren Zusammenhang gerissen sind
Darstellen von Fehlern, als ob sie richtig wären, wobei Fakten und Fehler oft miteinander vermischt werden
Behaupten von geheimnisvollen Verschwörungen und dunklen Motiven

Siehe auch „How Can We Find Truth in a Sea of Information?“ (Liahona, April 2023 – nur auf Englisch abrufbar)

Keith Erekson is an author, teacher, and public historian who has published on topics including politics, hoaxes, Abraham Lincoln, Elvis Presley, and Church history. He grew up in Baltimore, served a mission in Brazil, and earned advanced degrees in history and business. He works for the Church History Department in efforts to encourage outreach and historical engagement. His 2021 FAIR Conference presentation, “Real Vs. Rumor,” can be seen here.

The post Aufgewärmte Fragen, bereitstehende Antworten: Sich mit Radzik und seinen 13 Thesen auseinandersetzen appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

by Keith Erekson

[This document was prepared in response to a paper recently published in German by Francois Radzik called “13 Theses: The deception of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormons.” As with most attacks on the Church today, the only thing new is the packaging.]

1) Knowledge of God Revealed Line Upon Line

Lecture on Theology (‚Lectures on Faith‘) (Church History Topics)
King Follett Discourse (Church History Topics)
Becoming Like God (Gospel Topic Essays)
Change is okay (see 2 Nephi 28:30; 29:9; Doctrine and Covenants 61:20; Article of Faith 9)

2) Authority and Governance

Restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood (Church History Topics)
Restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood (Church History Topics)
Succession of Church Leadership (Church History Topics)
Saints, Volume 3: Boldly, Nobly, and Independent (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2022), 181-184 (chapter 12). [Describes Brigham Young’s teachings]

3) Visions of Jesus Christ and Other Messengers

First Vision Accounts (Gospel Topics Essays)
Joseph Smith, Journal, April 3, 1836 [Jesus, Moses, Elias, and Elijah in the Kirtland Temple]
Alexander L. Baugh, “Parting the Veil: The Visions of Joseph Smith,” BYU Studies 38, no. 1 (1999): 23–69.

4) Joseph Smith’s Early History

See Joseph Smith-History 1:55-56
Treasure Seeking (Church History Topics)
Seer Stones (Church History Topics)
First Vision Accounts (Gospel Topics Essays)
Joseph Smith, History, 1832 [earliest written account of the First Vision]
Book of Mormon Translation (Gospel Topics Essays)
Angel Moroni (Church History Topics)

5) Plural Marriage

Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo (Gospel Topics Essay)
Fanny Alger (Church History Topics)
“Mercy Thompson and the Revelation on Marriage,” in Revelations in Context

6) Change over Time

Quorum of the Twelve (Church History Topics)
Race and Priesthood (Gospel Topics Essays)
The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage (Gospel Topics Essays)
Change is okay (see 2 Nephi 28:30; 29:9; Doctrine and Covenants 61:20; Article of Faith 9)

7) Zion

Zion/New Jerusalem (Church History Topics)
Book of Mormon and DNA Studies (Gospel Topics Essays)

8) Church History in Missouri

Zion/New Jerusalem (Church History Topics)
Jackson County Violence (Church History Topics)
Kirtland Safety Society (Church History Topics)
Danites (Church History Topics)
Mormon-Missouri War of 1838 (Church History Topics)
Extermination Order (Church History Topics)
Liberty Jail (Church History Topics)
Prophecies of Joseph Smith (Church History Topics)

9) Early Temples and Ordinances

Kirtland Temple (Church History Topics)
Nauvoo Temple (Church History Topics)
Temple Endowment (Church History Topics)
Masonry (Church History Topics)
Adjustments to Temple Work (Church History Topics)
Temple Building (Church History Topics)

10) Departure from Nauvoo

Nauvoo (Commerce), Illinois (Church History Topics)
Masonry (Church History Topics)
Council of Fifty (Church History Topics)
Missouri Extradition Attempts (Church History Topics)
Succession of Church Leadership (Church History Topics)
Pioneer Trek (Church History Topics)

11) Brigham Young

Brigham Young (Church History Topics)
Deaths of Joseph and Hyrum Smith (Church History Topics)
Utah (Church History Topics)
Danites (Church History Topics)
Mountain Meadows Massacre (Church History Topics)
Peace and Violence among 19th Century Latter-day Saints (Gospel Topics Essays)

12) Seeking and Learning

Seeking Answers to Questions (Topics and Questions)
Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Come, Join with Us,” General Conference, October 2013
Russell M. Nelson, “Christ Is Risen; Faith in Him Will Move Mountains,” General Conference, April 2021
Dallin H. Oaks, “Criticism,” Ensign, February 1987

13) Tithing

Tithing (Church History Topics)
Church Finances (Church History Topics)

Common Tactics in Antagonistic Materials

Offer new freedom and advanced thinking
Share selected facts that are taken out of their wider contexts
Present errors as if they are correct, often blurring facts and errors together
Allege secret conspiracies and dark motives

See alo “How Can We Find Truth in a Sea of Information?” (Liahona, April 2023)

The post Helpful Sources of Information appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

2024 April General Conference, Sunday Morning Session

Pillars and Rays

Elder Alexander Dushku
Of the Seventy

Main Points

We too can have our own pillar of light—one ray at a time.
No two people experience God’s light and truth in exactly the same way.
Most of us receive truth line upon line, not in one big revelation

Gospel Principles taught

Jesus Christ, The Holy Ghost, Faith in Christ,

Gospel Doctrine taught

Restoration, Prophets

Scriptures

Joseph Smith—History 1:10–13, Joseph Smith—History 1:14–16, Joseph Smith—History 1:17, Joseph Smith—History 1:20, Mosiah 16:9, Doctrine and Covenants 84:46; John 1:9, Doctrine and Covenants 88:12–13, Doctrine and Covenants 6:23, Doctrine and Covenants 8:2; Helaman 5:30, Mosiah 5:2; Doctrine and Covenants 11:12, 2 Nephi 4:21; Helaman 5:44, Doctrine and Covenants 46:13–14, Doctrine and Covenants 18:35–36, Mosiah 2:17; Moroni 7:45–48, 1 Nephi 1:20, Helaman 5:9–12, Doctrine and Covenants 20:77, 79, Moroni 10:3–4, Doctrine and Covenants 88:40, Alma 32:35, Doctrine and Covenants 50:24, Alma 32:41

Other Sources

Joseph Smith, Journal, Nov. 9–11, 1835, 24

Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith Chapter 23: Receiving a Testimony of Jesus Christ

Related talks:

Russell M. Nelson, “Closing Remarks”
Spencer W. Kimball, in Conference Report, Munich Germany Area Conference, 1973, 77; quoted in Graham W. Doxey, “The Voice Is Still Small”
David A. Bednar, The Spirit of Revelation
Gerritt W. Gong, Ministering
Always Remember Him

Look for Jesus Christ:

Testimony of Christ.
- Jesus Christ “is the light and … life of the world”
- Christ’s “Spirit giveth light to every man [and woman] that cometh into the world”
- His light “fill[s] the immensity of space”
- His light gives “life to all things.”
- I bear witness of Jesus Christ, that He is the light and life of the whole world—and of your personal world and mine.
- I testify that He is the true and living Son of the true and living God and that He stands at the head of this true and living Church, guided and directed by His true and living prophets and apostles.
Description of His Teachings.
- The Lord teaches truth line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little.”
- The Lord’s typical pattern, brothers and sisters. Rather than sending us a pillar of light, the Lord sends us a ray of light, and then another, and another.

Inspiring Words & Phrases

My message is for those who worry about their testimony because they haven’t had overwhelming spiritual experiences.
The Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ began with an explosion of light and truth!
All that, and much more, began with a boy’s desperate prayer and a pillar of light.
One of the great truths of the Restoration is that the heavens are open—that we too can receive light and knowledge from on high. I testify that is true.
One of the great truths of the Restoration is that the heavens are open—that we too can receive light and knowledge from on high. I testify that is true.
But we must be wary of a spiritual trap. Sometimes faithful Church members become discouraged and even drift away because they haven’t had overwhelming spiritual experiences—because they haven’t experienced their own pillar of light.
President Spencer W. Kimball warned, “Always expecting the spectacular, many will miss entirely the constant flow of revealed communication.”
Rather than sending us a pillar of light, the Lord sends us a ray of light, and then another, and another.
The Light of Christ is literally all around us.
Perhaps you were reading in the Book of Mormon and a verse spoke to your soul, as if God had put it there just for you—and then you realized that He did.
Brothers and sisters, I have not seen a pillar of light, but, like you, I have experienced many divine rays. Over the years, I’ve tried to treasure such experiences. I find that as I do, I recognize and remember even more of them.
I remember studying and praying desperately to receive a more certain witness of Jesus Christ. Then one day, as I pled with Heavenly Father, I felt a powerful sense of light and warmth. And I knew. I just knew.
You have had your own experiences—your own light-filled bursts of testimony. As we recognize, remember, and gather these rays “together in one,” something wonderful and powerful begins to happen. “Light cleaveth unto light”—“truth embraceth truth.” The reality and power of one ray of testimony reinforces and combines with another, and then another, and another. Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a ray and there a ray—one small, treasured spiritual moment at a time—there grows up within us a core of light-filled, spiritual experiences. Perhaps no one ray is strong enough or bright enough to constitute a full testimony, but together they can become a light that the darkness of doubt cannot overcome.
In time and through “great diligence,” we too can have our own pillar of light—one ray at a time. And in the midst of that pillar, we too will find a loving Heavenly Father calling us by name, pointing us to our Savior, Jesus Christ, and inviting us to “Hear Him!”
May we recognize and receive His glorious light and then choose Him over the darkness of the world—always and forever.

Lists

We have needs just like Joseph did:

Freedom from spiritual confusion.
Freedom from worldly darkness.
The need to know for ourselves.

The restoration brought a flood of:

Divine revelation
New scripture
Restored priesthood keys
Apostles
Prophets
Ordinances
Covenants
Reestablishment of the true and living church

We are ‘living in revelation’ (worthy to receive these divine rays constantly) if:

We have received the gift of the Holy Ghost
We are striving to exercise faith
We are striving to repent
We honor our covenants

Different ways we experience the light and Spirit of the Lord:

Peace spoken to your mind about something that has worried you
An impression to do something good
A desire to follow Jesus Christ
A desire to be faithful
Felt that the testimony you shared was true
Felt an assurance that God loves you
Someone else’s testimony of Christ touches you and gives you hope
A verse in the Book of Mormon seems to be just for you
Felt love of God as you serve others
Remember past tender mercies

Invitations/Challenges

“Immerse yourself in the glorious light of the Restoration.” (Russell M. Nelson)
May we recognize and receive His glorious light and then choose Him over the darkness of the world—always and forever.

Warnings

But we must be wary of a spiritual trap. Sometimes faithful Church members become discouraged and even drift away because they haven’t had overwhelming spiritual experiences—because they haven’t experienced their own pillar of light.
President Spencer W. Kimball warned, “Always expecting the spectacular, many will miss entirely the constant flow of revealed communication.”

Blessings/Promises

in time and through “great diligence,” we too can have our own pillar of light—one ray at a time. And in the midst of that pillar, we too will find a loving Heavenly Father calling us by name, pointing us to our Savior, Jesus Christ, and inviting us to “Hear Him!”

Stories:

Elder Dushku tells the story of Joseph Smith. “And then, “at the very moment when [he’s] ready to sink into despair and abandon [him]self to destruction,” when he doesn’t know if he can hang on any longer, a glorious brilliance fills the grove, scattering the darkness and the enemy of his soul.” The answer to his question was given when a pillar of light appeared in the grove, with the Father and the Son.
Elder Dushku remembers being a rowdy teenager at a baptism and having the Spirit urge him to sit down and be reverent.
He recounts how he received a more sure witness of Christ before his mission.
“Being awakened one night years later by a feeling of “pure intelligence” telling me I would be called to serve in the elders quorum.”
“I remember a general conference where a beloved member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles spoke the exact words of testimony I had told a friend I hoped to hear.”
I remember kneeling with hundreds of brethren to pray for a dear friend who lay unconscious on a ventilator in a small, faraway hospital after his heart had stopped. As we united our own hearts to plead for his life, he woke up and pulled the ventilator out of his own throat. He serves today as a stake president.
And I remember waking up with strong spiritual feelings after a vivid dream of a dear friend and mentor who passed away far too early, leaving an enormous hole in my life. He was smiling and joyful. I knew he was OK.

Application Ideas

Take some time to think about how you experience the light and Spirit of the Lord. Write your observations in a journal or your study journal. Revisit and revise your comments over time.
Over the next month, spend a week focusing on each of the items under “living in revelation.” Write about your experiences or share them with a trusted friend.
Honestly evaluate whether or not you are being aware of the spiritual trap Elder Dushku mentions. Ask Heavenly Father for a desire to overcome and weakness you may find.

The post Consider Conference: Pillars and Rays appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Ammon’s expedition; Limhi & Alma’s escape to Zarahemla(Mosiah 7–8, 18–25)by Mike Parker

Class Notes

Additional Reading

BYU professor Daniel C. Peterson examines the baptism of Alma₁ in these two articles:

“Priesthood in Mosiah,” in The Book of Mormon: Mosiah, Salvation Only Through Christ, eds. Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center at Brigham Young University, 1991), 187–210.
“Authority in the Book of Mosiah,” FARMS Review 18, no. 1 (2006): 149–85.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Mosiah 18–24 – Mike Parker appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

2024 April General Conference, Sunday Afternoon Session

Rejoice in the Gift of Priesthood Keys
President Russell M. Nelson
President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Main Points

Priesthood keys govern how the priesthood of God may be used to bring about the Lord’s purposes and bless all who accept the restored gospel.
The Kirtland Temple has unusual significance in the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Several events that took place there had been prophesied for millennia and were essential for the Lord’s restored Church to fulfill its latter-day mission.
The promise Christ gave of the Kirtland Temple on April 3, 1836, applies to every dedicated temple today: “I will manifest myself to my people in mercy in this house.”
The significance of the restoration of Priesthood keys to the earth cannot be overstated.
Joseph Smith’s dedicatory prayer of the Kirtland Temple is a tutorial about how the temple spiritually empowers you and me to meet the challenges of life in these last days.
Understanding the spiritual privileges made possible in the temple is vital to each of us today.

Gospel Principles taught

Our Heavenly Family, Jesus Christ, Agency, The Priesthood, Priesthood Organization, The Lord’s Covenant People, Missionary Work, The Family can be Eternal, Eternal Marriage, Temple Work & Family History, Gathering of Israel

Gospel Doctrine taught

Priesthood and Priesthood Keys, Ordinances and Covenants, The Restoration, Marriage and Family, Agency, The Covenant Path

Scriptures

Doctrine and Covenants 110:3
Doctrine and Covenants 110:4
Doctrine and Covenants 110:7
Doctrine and Covenants 110:11
Doctrine and Covenants 110:12
Genesis 18:18
1 Nephi 15:18
Malachi 4:5–6
Doctrine and Covenants 110:13–16
Doctrine and Covenants 13
Doctrine and Covenants 27:7–8, 12
Doctrine and Covenants 20:1–4
Doctrine and Covenants 121:28
Doctrine and Covenants 95:8
Doctrine and Covenants 109:22
Doctrine and Covenants 132:45–46
2 Nephi 26:33
Doctrine and Covenants 109:8
Doctrine and Covenants 109:15
Doctrine and Covenants 109:22
Doctrine and Covenants 109:24–26
Doctrine and Covenants 110:12
Doctrine and Covenants 132:29–30

Look for Jesus Christ:

Testimony of Christ.
- The Prophet recorded that the Savior’s “eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters.”
- My dear brothers and sisters, I testify that this is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He stands at its head. We are His disciples.
Christ’s own words.
- “I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father.”
- “I will manifest myself to my people in mercy in this house.”

Inspiring Words & Phrases

Jesus Christ…declared that He had accepted the temple as His house and made this stunning promise: “I will manifest myself to my people in mercy in this house.” This significant promise applies to every dedicated temple today.
Then Elijah the prophet appeared. His appearance fulfilled Malachi’s promise that before the Second Coming, the Lord would send Elijah to “turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers.”10 Elijah conferred the keys of the sealing power upon Joseph Smith.
The significance of these keys being returned to the earth by three heavenly messengers under the direction of the Lord cannot be overstated.
The power of these priesthood keys is infinite and breathtaking.
Without priesthood keys, none of us would have access to essential ordinances and covenants that bind us to our loved ones eternally and allow us eventually to live with God.
Priesthood keys distinguish The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from any other organization on earth. Many other organizations can and do make your life better here in mortality. But no other organization can and will influence your life after death.
Priesthood keys give us the authority to extend all of the blessings promised to Abraham to every covenant-keeping man and woman. Temple work makes these exquisite blessings available to all of God’s children, regardless of where or when they lived or now live. Let us rejoice that priesthood keys are once again on the earth!
The sealing power is supernal evidence of how much God loves all of His children everywhere and wants each of them to choose to return home to Him.
How much does it increase your confidence to know that, as an endowed woman or man armed with the power of God, you do not have to face life alone? What courage does it give you to know that angels really will help you?
The temple is the gateway to the greatest blessings God has in store for each of us, for the temple is the only place on earth where we may receive all of the blessings promised to Abraham.

Lists

Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery experienced a series of remarkable visions in the Kirtland Temple on Easter Sunday, April 3, 1836:

Jesus Christ appeared. He affirmed His identity as the Savior and accepted the Kirtland Temple as His House.
Moses appeared. He conferred upon Joseph Smith the keys for the gathering of Israel and the return of the ten tribes.
Elias appeared. He committed the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham to Joseph.
Elijah the prophet appeared. Elijah conferred the keys of the sealing power upon Joseph Smith.

About priesthood keys:

Constitute the authority and power of presidency.
Govern how the priesthood of God may be used to bring about the Lord’s purposes.
Bless all who accept the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.
Gave Joseph Smith authority to organize the Church in 1830.

Different priesthood keys mentioned:

Keys of the Aaronic priesthood
Keys of the Melchizedek priesthood
Keys of the Gathering of Israel
Keys of the Gospel of Abraham
Keys of the Sealing Power

These keys are essential in order to authorize Joseph Smith and all succeeding Presidents of the Lord’s Church

To gather Israel on both sides of the veil
To bless all covenant children with the blessings of Abraham
To place a ratifying seal on priesthood ordinances and covenants
To seal families eternally
make it possible for every covenant-keeping man and woman to enjoy incredible personal spiritual privileges.

Without these keys:

You could not be endowed with the power of God.
The Church could serve only as a significant teaching and humanitarian organization but not much more.
None of us would have access to essential ordinances and covenants that bind us to our loved ones eternally and allow us eventually to live with God.

I invite you to consider carefully the following three statements:

The gathering of Israel is evidence that God loves all of His children everywhere.
The gospel of Abraham is further evidence that God loves all of His children everywhere. He invites all to come unto Him—“black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God.”
The sealing power is supernal evidence of how much God loves all of His children everywhere and wants each of them to choose to return home to Him.

The Temple is:

a house of prayer
a house of fasting
a house of faith
a house of learning
a house of glory
a house of order
a house of God

This list of attributes is much more than a description of a temple. It is a promise about what will happen to those who serve and worship in the house of the Lord. They can expect to receive answers to prayer, personal revelation, greater faith, strength, comfort, increased knowledge, and increased power.

New Temples announced:

Uturoa, French Polynesia
Chihuahua, Mexico
Florianópolis, Brazil
Rosario, Argentina
Edinburgh, Scotland
Brisbane, Australia south area
Victoria, British Columbia
Yuma, Arizona
Houston, Texas south area
Des Moines, Iowa
Cincinnati, Ohio
Honolulu, Hawaii
West Jordan, Utah
Lehi, Utah
Maracaibo, Venezuela

Invitations/Challenges

I hope you will repeatedly study the messages of this conference throughout the coming months.
I invite you to ponder what the Lord’s promise (“I will manifest myself to my people in mercy in this house.”) means for you personally.
Consider how your life would be different if priesthood keys had not been restored to the earth.
I encourage you to study that prayer (the dedicatory prayer of the Kirtland Temple), recorded in Doctrine and Covenants section 109.
How much does it increase your confidence to know that, as an endowed woman or man armed with the power of God, you do not have to face life alone? What courage does it give you to know that angels really will help you?
Let us rejoice in the restoration of priesthood keys, which make it possible for you and me to enjoy every spiritual blessing we are willing and worthy to receive.

Blessings/Promises

This list of attributes (“a house of prayer, a house of fasting, a house of faith, a house of learning, a house of glory, a house of order, a house of God.”) is much more than a description of a temple. It is a promise about what will happen to those who serve and worship in the house of the Lord. They can expect to receive answers to prayer, personal revelation, greater faith, strength, comfort, increased knowledge, and increased power.
Time in the temple will help you to think celestial and to catch a vision of who you really are, who you can become, and the kind of life you can have forever.
Regular temple worship will enhance the way you see yourself and how you fit into God’s magnificent plan. I promise you that.
We are also promised that in the temple we may “receive a fullness of the Holy Ghost.” Imagine what that promise means in terms of having the heavens open for each earnest seeker of eternal truth.
all who worship in the temple will have the power of God and angels having “charge over them.”
“no combination of wickedness” will prevail over those who worship in the house of the Lord.
My dear brothers and sisters, here is my promise. Nothing will help you more to hold fast to the iron rod than worshiping in the temple as regularly as your circumstances permit. Nothing will protect you more as you encounter the world’s mists of darkness. Nothing will bolster your testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Atonement or help you understand God’s magnificent plan more. Nothing will soothe your spirit more during times of pain. Nothing will open the heavens more. Nothing!

Stories:

40 years ago to the day, on April 7, 1984, President Dallin H. Oaks and President Russell M. Nelson were sustained to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.
When Russell M. Nelson was born (Sept 9, 1924), there were only six functioning temples in the Church:St. George, Logan, Manti, and Salt Lake City, Utah; as well as in Cardston, Alberta, Canada; and Laie, Hawaii; as well as the Nauvoo and Kirtland temples, which the Saints had to leave when they moved west. The Nauvoo was destroyed by arson, and rebuilt and dedicated by President Gordon B. Hinkley. The Kirtland temple was first desecrated by enemies of the Church, then acquired by the Community of Christ, and now (along with several historic sites in Nauvoo) has been purchased by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Application Ideas

Make a plan of how you personally will follow the Prophet’s instruction to ‘repeatedly study the messages’ of the April 2024 General Conference throughout the coming months.
Accept the prophet’s challenge to ponder what the Lord’s promise to manifest himself to his people in mercy in His house means to you personally. Write your feelings and any impressions you have in your journal or study journal.
Read and ponder D&C 109.
Make an effort to visit a temple this week, even if it’s only the temple grounds. If you don’t live near a temple, you might consider a virtual tour of the Kirtland Temple, the Orem, Utah temple or the Saratoga Springs Temple.
Pray for an increased understanding and love of the temple.

The post Consider Conference: Rejoice in the Gift of Priesthood Keys appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

On this episode, Brian Hales joins us to discuss the history and significance of the crowning ordinance of the temple.

Brian C. Hales is the author or co-author of several books dealing with Joseph Smith and plural marriage, and runs the website JosephSmithsPolygamy.org. He is also the author of several articles dealing with the origin of the Book of Mormon.

Jacob Crapo was born and now resides in Las Vegas, Nevada. He served his mission in Upstate New York and was an ordinance worker in the Las Vegas Temple. One of Jacob’s dreams is to help build a temple. He is an electrician by trade but his real passion is helping others access the powers of heaven.

The post Cornerstone: A FAIR Temple Preparation Podcast – Episode 6: Temple Sealings with Brian Hales appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

by Lyndie Jackson

The “Asking Big Questions” series is made in cooperation with the Wilford Woodruff Papers Project.

Conflicts and differing opinions surround us in this world. All voices—good and bad—are amplified through social and mass media. Thankfully, the Lord has given us a voice that we can and should listen to above all others: the voice of living prophets.

Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf said, “One of the glorious messages of the Restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ is that God continues to speak to His children! He is not hidden in the heavens but speaks today as He did in ancient days. From the days of Adam, God has spoken to His children through appointed oracles who are charged with revealing His will and counsel to others.”

CONTINUED HERE

The post Asking Big Questions: Why Do We Need a Living Prophet? appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

2023 October General Conference, Saturday Morning Session

The Sealing Power
D. Todd Christofferson, Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

Main Points

The gathering of Israel is how the covenant promises given to Abraham are realized.
The gathering of Israel is the most important thing taking place on earth today.
The sealing power isn’t just confined to certain temple ordinances, but is necessary to make any ordinance valid and binding beyond death.
The very reason the earth was created was so families could be formed and sealed to each other.

Gospel Principles taught

The Lord’s Covenant People, Missionary Work, The Family Can be Eternal, Eternal Marriage, Temple Work & Family History, Gathering of Israel, Exaltation

Gospel Doctrine taught

The Atonement of Jesus Christ, The Restoration, Priesthood and Priesthood Keys, Ordinances and Covenants, Marriage and Family, Exaltation, The Covenant Path

Scriptures

Isaiah 49, 2 Nephi 10:8, 2 Nephi 10:7, Doctrine and Covenants 115:6, Abraham 2:11, Doctrine and Covenants 132:6, Doctrine and Covenants 110:11, Doctrine and Covenants 110:12, Doctrine and Covenants 84:34, Doctrine and Covenants 110:13–16, Doctrine and Covenants 2:1, Doctrine and Covenants 128:9, Doctrine and Covenants 132:7, Doctrine and Covenants 128:18, Doctrine and Covenants 124:32, Doctrine and Covenants 128:15, Malachi 4:6, Doctrine and Covenants 2:3

Related talks:

Russell M. Nelson and Wendy W. Nelson, “Hope of Israel” (worldwide youth devotional, June 3, 2018)
Russell M. Nelson, “The Everlasting Covenant,” Liahona, Oct. 2022
Russell M. Nelson, “Children of the Covenant,” Ensign, May 1995
Henry B. Eyring, “Families under Covenant,” April 2012 general conference
M. Russell Ballard, “Hope in Christ,” Liahona, May 2021
David A. Bednar, “A Welding Link” (worldwide devotional for young adults, Sept. 10, 2017)

Look for Jesus Christ:

Testimony of Christ.
- I testify that the Atonement of Jesus Christ has made immortality a verity and the possibility of exalted family relationships a reality.
Description of His Teachings.
- “Baptism is the gate that leads to becoming joint heirs to all the promises given anciently by the Lord to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their posterity.” (quoting President Nelson)
Description of His Atonement.
- We now carry the gospel of Jesus Christ—the good news of redemption through Him—to all parts and peoples of the earth and gather all who will into the gospel covenant.
- We have hope in Christ.
- I testify that the Atonement of Jesus Christ has made immortality a verity and the possibility of exalted family relationships a reality.
Description of His relationship with us.
- “When we embrace the gospel and are baptized, we take upon ourselves the sacred name of Jesus Christ.” (quoting President Nelson)
- “In all ages of the world, whenever the Lord has given a dispensation of the priesthood to any man by actual revelation, or any set of men, this power has always been given. Hence, whatsoever those men did in authority, in the name of the Lord, and did it truly and faithfully, and kept a proper and faithful record of the same, it became a law on earth and in heaven, and could not be annulled, according to the decrees of the great Jehovah.” (Doctrine and Covenants 128:9)
- “…Individual salvation and family exaltation (are) universally available to the children of God wherever and whenever they may have lived on the earth… This sealing power is a perfect manifestation of the justice, mercy, and love of God.”

Inspiring Words & Phrases

Highest and holiest
The latter-day gathering into the covenant crosses through the veil.
The gathering is for the purpose of bringing the blessings of salvation and exaltation to all who will receive them. It is how the covenant promises given to Abraham are realized.
We now carry the gospel of Jesus Christ—the good news of redemption through Him—to all parts and peoples of the earth and gather all who will into the gospel covenant.
The power to validate all priesthood ordinances and make them binding both on earth and in heaven—the sealing power—is crucial for gathering and preparing a covenant people on both sides of the veil.
Here we see the majesty and sacredness of the sealing power—it makes individual salvation and family exaltation universally available to the children of God wherever and whenever they may have lived on the earth. No other theology or philosophy or authority can match such an all-inclusive opportunity. This sealing power is a perfect manifestation of the justice, mercy, and love of God.
The commitment to aid one another across the veil can be classified as a covenant promise, part of the new and everlasting covenant.
The highest and holiest manifestation of the sealing power is in the eternal union of a man and a woman in marriage and the linking of humankind through all their generations.
We recognize that in the imperfect present, this [eternal marriage & family] is not the reality or even a realistic possibility for some. But we have hope in Christ.
“Salvation is an individual matter, but exaltation is a family matter. No one can be exalted alone.” (quoting President Nelson)

Lists

The purpose of the gathering of Israel is:

To provide defense against the natural consequences of disobedience
To provide refuge from the natural consequences of disobedience
To bring the blessings of salvation and exaltation to all who will receive them
To fulfill the promises given to Abraham
The building and operation of temples so that
- God can reveal the ordinances of the temple
- God can reveal the glories of His kingdom
- God can teach people the way of salvation

In 1836 in the Kirtland Temple:

Moses committed the keys of the gathering of Israel (to Joseph)
Elias appeared and committed the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham (that in us and our seed all the following generations would be blessed)
Elijah restored the authority and keys to make ordinances binding on earth and in heaven

If you have experienced unhappy/unhealthy family circumstances:

Remember that God’s pattern for families begins with you
Any healthy and happy connections are also important
You can strengthen your family
You may be able to restore some of the broken relationships
The work of family exaltation is accomplished one by one

Invitations/Challenges

If you have experienced heartache or violated trust, remember that God’s pattern for families begins with you.
Turn our hearts to our “fathers” and forge enduring links with them through the sealing power.

Warnings

Without the sealings that create eternal families and link generations here and hereafter, we would be left in eternity with neither roots nor branches—that is, neither ancestry nor posterity. It is this free-floating, disconnected state of individuals, on the one hand, or connections that defy the marriage and family relations God has appointed, on the other hand, that would frustrate the very purpose of the earth’s creation. Were that to become the norm, it would be tantamount to the earth being smitten with a curse or “utterly wasted” at the Lord’s coming.

Blessings/Promises

I promise that as you faithfully seek that privilege [being sealed as a family in the temple], in time or eternity it will surely be yours.
In the latter days, the Lord’s covenant people will be gathered in.

Apologetics:

No other theology or philosophy or authority can match such an all-inclusive opportunity. This sealing power is a perfect manifestation of the justice, mercy, and love of God.

Application Ideas

Consider each of the covenants and ordinances you’ve taken part in. Write in your journal how the sealing power affects those covenants and ordinances.
Create an account on FamilySearch if you don’t have one yet.
Find a way to engage in family history this week. There are some great ideas here.
Spend time in the temple this coming week.
Set a goal that will help you be a strong link in your family.

The post Consider Conference: The Sealing Power appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Evangelical Questions: Priesthood of all Believersby Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC

Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about priesthood of all believers. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.

It is Thanksgiving week here in the US, so happy Thanksgiving if you celebrate. We got snow on the mountains here in Utah County, so there is plenty to be thankful for in these parts. I hope it’s a week of gratitude for you too, no matter where you live.

Okay, today we’re going to talk about one of the most misunderstood verses in the New Testament when it comes to conversation between Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints: The priesthood of all believers. We’ll start with 1 Peter 2:5:

You yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

Now, no Latter-day Saint that I know of would disagree with that verse or verses like it. There is no quibble as to if this is a good verse translated properly or not. The question becomes what does it mean by “priesthood”? And as with most things, digging down a little into history and language helps us clear up the confusion.

Let’s start with history. So, rewind all the way back to before the Protestant Reformation. In 1517 Martin Luther has had it with the corrupt practices of the Catholic church and nails his 95 thesis to the door of the Wittenburg Chapel. Luther had 95 complaints and social media hadn’t been invented yet, so nailing something to the door of the church was what he had available to him. A lot of that document has to do with the concept of purgatory and the paying of indulgences. Indulgences were purchased for money by living people in essence to shave off some of the time a dead person would have to serve in purgatory. Sometimes they’ve been wrongly thought of as purchasing a free pass to commit some sin, and there may have been some of that happening, but what Luther was really upset about was the idea that a living person could impact the experience of a dead person- without that person having to accept the work. Luther wasn’t even primarily mad at the idea that a living person could do some proxy work for dead people – he was mad that indulgences discouraged the purchaser from doing works of mercy in a way that would cause growth in their own soul. His logic was: How could people who were not pious give any assistance toward the piety of dead people? It would be as if we were baptizing people for the dead but there were no requirements on the righteous living of the person doing the work. Luther saw this issue really clearly. By the end of the 95 Thesis Luther makes it clear that he’s not trying to do away with proxy work altogether, he just wants to have it be done in such a way that requires righteousness from living people.

And what Luther was trying to do, he states this very clearly, is to begin a conversation among the religious scholars of the day. But by 1520 (just 3 years later) the whole thing spins a bit out of control for him as the conversation morphs into, “what is the role of the priest in forgiveness – are they actually the ones deciding if you get forgiven? Or are they the ones who pronounce forgiveness upon you but that forgiveness is granted from Christ, not the priest.” And that’s where we’ll pick up the thread.

So things are not going well for our boy Martin, at least in terms of debate among his academic peers. He wanted to be having this as an academic conversation, and he got some of that, but the people are starting to understand at least a bit of what he’s talking about when they see the implications for them. And Luther himself sees this to. In 1520 he puts out a document that has a very unfortunate name if you’re standing on this side of history. “The Christian Nobility of the German Nation.” But this is the document where he really lays out his growing ideas on the priesthood of all believers. And what he’s trying to do is react against the pre-Reformation idea that humans are divided into 2 categories – the secular and the sacred. So before this, if you lived in some little German town, there would be the regular people living their lives, mostly just trying to feed themselves and their families. These were the secular people. Even if they were followers of Christ, they were considered secular. The sacred people were the priests and those who had taken holy orders to live in monastic communities. And how it played out was that the secular people who believed in Christ didn’t have much access to materials that would help them learn the scripture or grow on their own – so they kind of gave up and let the sacred people take on that burden. It was sort of the attitude of, “I’m just a regular person, I don’t need to spend my day praying because those monks up in the monastery on the hill are spending their days doing that on my behalf.” And you can see where Luther gets upset at this – he’s not mad about the “proxy-ness” of it, he’s mad that the secular people side-step their own responsibility to grow and outsource most spiritual tasks to the priests, monks, and nuns. In the monasteries, the system was set up so that they prayed at fixed points throughout the day, including the middle of the night. And this system of prayer became more and more elaborate, requiring more and more time. The regular folks just trying to live their lives and feed their families couldn’t live under a schedule like that, so instead of modifying it for their own use in ways that were workable, they mostly just let the monks and nuns take care of the prayers for them. And Luther is upset at this because it leaves the regular people spiritually immature. And he wants to correct this situation, so he writes about it in “Nobility of the German Nation.”

And so one of Luther’s goals becomes the emptying of the monasteries. He wants everyone – secular people and sacred people – to know how to do the work of prayer and Christian living. The term “liturgy” has its origins here – liturgy means, “the work of the people.” And you can see how Luther is using this term in particular – he wants the regular people to do spiritual work too. But in order to do that, he has to help them break out of the system they have going that separates secular and sacred. So he spends a lot of time and energy teaching that the regular people also have a priesthood to which they belong, the priesthood of all believers, and there are responsibilities in that priesthood.

So far, Latter-day Saint friends, I don’t think there is much for you to disagree with. What Luther was doing is very reasonable in lots of ways. But let’s flip contexts out of Luther’s German world, and into our English-speaking world. And you’ll easily see how the problems develop.

Very often when translating from Biblical Greek to English we have more English words to choose from. But in some instances it works the other way around – Greek has more words for something while English only has 1. Probably the best example you’re familiar with is the various words for “love” in Greek describe important nuances between different forms of love. But in English, we use the same word for, “I love pizza” and “I love my child.” It’s the same situation with “priesthood.” We have 1 word, priesthood, while the New Testament has 2 words: One that means “sacred person” and the other that means “one with elderhood.”

So when Luther says, “you are the priesthood of all believers” he means, “You are not just secular people who have nothing to do with the spirituality of those monks and nuns….you too are sacred people, even just living your normal lives of taking care of your families.” He never intended to say that there aren’t 2 different kinds of priesthoods. The one we are talking about right now, the priesthood of all believers, is a universal priesthood that everyone who claims the name of Christ has – the priesthood that asks us to do the spiritual work for ourselves and those over whom we have responsibility such as children. The other form of the word meaning, “the one who has eldership,” is not canceled because of this universal priesthood responsibility that the average believer also has.

So, what about our Evangelical friends? What do they make of all of this? Well, as we’ve talked about here a number of times Evangelicals value 2 things above all else – independence and devotion to Christ. When I say “independence” what I mean is they do not want to be told what to believe by anyone who claims authority. To them, the very claim of authority is problematic. They want an absolute level playing field where no person has authority over any other. They want to do what is right in their own eyes – you get the appeal, I’m sure. But they also value devotion to Christ and the concern here is that they do not want anyone “standing between” them and Christ. Not monks and nuns up on a hill, not priests that help with confession and repentance, not even the body to which they are a church member. If they don’t like what is being taught they see no obligation to stay – they move on to another church. In practice what this means is that they each have to be their own Prophet. They don’t get – or want – guidance that comes with authority. They are the authorities.

They also see Christ as being not just the “great High Priest” but also the only current priest of any type. And to be honest, we’re not too far apart from each other on this one – we would also say that the priesthood belongs to God. It is his power on the Earth. But Evangelicals worry that any claim to priesthood is an attempt to take the power away from God and give it to man.

And this is part of the arc of development for them as people embedded into a particular time and place. The Evangelical movement grew up right alongside of the modern, hyper-modern, and post-modern era. The natural conclusion of this arc is that the concept of authority itself is invalid. Think of how people conceptualize books. It used to be that the author had a meaning in mind, she would write her thoughts, and people who wanted to understand what she’s on about would read the book. The author got the final say, as it were. But in the postmodern turn it is the reader who brings meaning to the book. The reader decides what it means, even if that meaning is wildly different from what the author intended. The reader gets the final word. There is an important philosophical concept that started back in the 1960’s that says, “the author is dead”….and by natural progression, the very concept of authority dies with him. Author-authority. We see this play out in our national debates – what is an authority anyway? Is a guy at home with an internet connection just as much of an authority as a guy with a PhD? Large parts of our current culture answer that question as: Yes. Authority has died. And this is the culture the Evangelical movement has grown up alongside. Any authority that comes with priesthood is bad, it’s nonexistent to them. Only the common authority anyone has over their own lives matters, the idea of, “you can say what you want as long as its true for you.” But, “history predicts the future” and these things are cyclical – at some point things change. If you look at last week’s Deseret News you will find an article titled: Want to fix education? Bring back authority.” (You also will find a piece in DN last week with my name on it – its a summary of the presentation I gave at the FAIR conference back in August if you’re curious.) But “Bring back authority” is essentially getting at this same thing – we’ve swung too far away from the idea that anyone, teacher/priest/researcher/anyone can have authority at all. And maybe these things correct themselves over time.

This got to be a long episode, but I hope it helps you think though why your Evangelical friends get so worked up about the “priesthood of all believers” concept.

Okay, we’ve got 5 episodes left. Next week we’re talking about the Holy Ghost and asking what does it mean when an Evangelical also experiences the Holy Ghost. I think you’ll be plenty fascinated with that one. See you then.

More Come, Follow Me resources here.

Jennifer Roach earned a Master of Divinity from The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology, and a Master of Counseling from Argosy University. Before her conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints she was an ordained minister in the Anglican church. Her own experience of sexual abuse from a pastor during her teen years led her to care deeply about issues of abuse in faith communities.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – 1 and 2 Peter appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Evangelical Questions: Isn’t Jesus the Only Melchizedek Priesthood Holder?by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC

Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about part 2 of 3 on priesthood. There is so much to say on this and we’re going to get right to it. But I want to point out one thing…

Sometimes, at least in people I know, Latter-day Saints seem a little unsure of their overall Bible knowledge. And it’s true, there are some ins and outs of the Bible, especially the New Testament, that Evangelicals will tend to know better than our people. But the Book of Hebrews is not one of those places. The Book of Hebrews is the least read in the New Testament among Evangelicals. It’s not that they don’t think it’s scripture. They do. But it’s a dense book, and you have to know some things about the Old Testament, and even then it’s still considered kind of esoteric. But because of the mention of Melchizedek in Hebrews, more Latter-day Saints have spent significant time there. The parts of Hebrews they really do like are chapters 11 and 12. You probably see this too, but it feels more familiar in tone, pace, and voice. It feels like Paul writing. The first 10 chapters of Hebrews just feel different to them. And, to be fair, they are different. If this is Paul writing, these chapters are the only ones where he talks like that.

Okay, so let’s get to our jumping-off point. Hebrews 7:17:

You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.

So what do Evangelicals do with this verse?

If we’re talking about percentages – how many Evangelicals engage with this concept – the answer is: its not a very high percentage. It’s just not on their radar. We say, “The Bible doesn’t lay flat,” meaning that some passages form a canon within a canon. Those are the go-to passages that all Evangelicals would know. And the verses in Hebrews about Melchizedek are not on that list. Latter-day Saints certainly have our own “canon within a canon” – the passages we pay more attention to, and those outside of it don’t get much air time.

So the most likely question an Evangelical would have here is simply, “Who is Melchizedek anyway?” Because we don’t have tons of details about the historic priest Melchizedek, the answer to that question is pretty short, so they think there isn’t much here and move on to the other parts of Hebrews that have more content they can do something with. They don’t really have a conceptualization of “priest” so it doesn’t really go anywhere with them. They do like the part in Hebrews that talks about Jesus’ ability to be our Great High Priest because he suffered in the same ways we suffer. And who wouldn’t? There is a lot of comfort in that idea and we are on very firm mutual ground here. Both Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals would feel good about that concept.

Among Evangelicals who are theologically educated, you might get conversation about how Melchizedek is actually “Jesus in disguise,” as one of the few places in the Old Testament where Jesus shows up. That was a really popular theory all throughout the 20th century, less so now.

I think the question that might most come up for them here is, “Why are you making all of this priesthood stuff more complicated than it needs to be?” And if you’ve been listening to this series at all you know that is pretty on-brand for them. The entire Evangelical project has been all about simplifying the Gospel, taking away the parts that make it hard for people to understand or participate – church services are very casual, “priests” are now “pastors,” Difficult to sing hymns are replaced by pop worship choruses. There is a way to take this question without disrespect intended, I think it could be a very sincere question: Why are you making this so complicated? Because in many ways Evangelicals are doing what the early Campebelite churches were doing – trying to get rid of everything that is not the absolute most essential part of the Gospel. The Campbelites considered that the “restoration of all things,” to them it meant just getting to the most important part and let everything else go. And you can hear echoes of that in the Evangelical question: Why are you making this so complicated? And to be honest, it’s a fair question. On the outside looking in, it can seem like a lot when you’re used to the “paring down” philosophy. However, Joseph Smith was not interested in a restoration that gets rid of everything. He wanted to add in everything, always be expanding, worlds without end. So Latter-day Saints look at this and think: Why wouldn’t you want EVERYTHING restored?

And what it comes down to on this one is the question of authority. What is needed in order to do God’s work? The go-to verse for Evangelicals is in 1 Peter, “the priesthood of all believers,” and they interpret this to mean that no special authority is needed to baptize or perform ordinances. They see the Bible as giving anyone who believes in Christ the proper authority. To them, the concept of authority means that someone else is going to stand between you and God and regulate what you must do. While we would see authority slightly differently – the power of the priesthood is God’s power and we all are invited to participate in it in various ways.

We see the priesthood as belonging to God, it is his power, and we humans are invited to participate. While they see the priesthood as belonging to humans who just want to get in the way and make it more difficult to understand God. And sometimes they’re not wrong. There really are, “evil priests who seek to destroy and oppress,” even if those people don’t always carry the title, “priest.”

And I gotta tell you….I sympathize with their opinion in some ways. No one wants evil priests, and it is very easy for someone who thinks they’re acting in the power of God to confuse that with their own desires for power. That goes bad in 100 different ways. But the saying, “misuse should not mean no use,” applies here. Just because evil priests exist, does not mean there is no good priesthood at all. And this is part of what Hebrews is getting at – Jesus is the only priest who never messes it up and misuses his power.

But you can see that what Evangelicals are really worried about here is something like: Who gives you the authority to make all these rules? And the accusation is: You’re just making stuff up to make it seem more complicated than it is. And in a weird way, they see THAT as being an “evil priest.” A person who is blocking access to God – in this case through “complications” – instead of doing what Jesus did which is to make access to God even possible.

They see things like baptism being required as an extra rule. They see all of the ordinances that way. The idea of a priesthood is just another example of this. But this is actually where we find some common ground. In the Evangelical way of thinking authority or leadership is bestowed on someone because they themselves feel a direct call from God to do whatever it is that God is calling them to do. No one chooses you or calls you, you have to do it yourself. And, depending on the corner of the Evangelical world you’re standing in, anyone can claim to be called to anything simply because they feel God wants them to do the thing. In the simplest terms possible, this is the main difference that they would be able to identify – they call themselves and qualify themselves, and we have a process for it that involves requirements and accountability. A young deacon in our church might not have given much thought as to whether he should become ordained or not – I hope he has, but these are young boys and that process probably happens a bit more automatically for some than for others. They get ordained as a deacon simply because they’re the right age to do so – but the further up he goes the more it will require the man himself to desire to take on the requirements and responsibilities of the priesthood. He has to want to do it too. That piece – the man’s desire to serve in this way, and his own understanding of his calling – that is something Evangelicals can relate to. They might never love the structure (though to be honest, for someone like me the structure in our church is a breath of fresh air) but they might also be surprised that a man taking on priesthood responsibilities is also doing it out of his own sense of desire to do so. I mean, have you met the men in our church? My impression is that yes, they can certainly submit to their spiritual leaders when necessary – but it’s not divorced from the man’s own desire to serve. And Evangelicals would recognize and respect that if it were pointed out to them.

Okay, next week we’re in the book of James, so a break from talking about priesthood – and then we do the “priesthood of all believers” which is the continuation of this. See you then.

More Come, Follow Me resources here.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Hebrews 7–13 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Evangelical Questions: Ordain Every Man in the Church?by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC

Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about why in the world ALL men in the church can be ordained as a priest, not just a few. As you know, we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.

You will also notice I am not in my regular spot. I’m in the airport waiting on a delayed flight. I planned on recording when I got home, and that is not going to happen. But I got to have a fantastic girl’s weekend with friends that I know from growing up in Modesto, CA. So, this video is going to be shorter, and well, it’s an airport. So, yeah. Here we go.

The word, “priesthood” is a very loaded word. At least when we’re trying to talk about how different groups use that word, and the situation between Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals is one area where it gets hard in about 8 different directions. But, luckily, we’re spending 2 weeks in Hebrews, and then some time in 1 Peter, so I’ve got 3 episodes worth of material to try and unpack this. Today we are only going to focus on the aspect that we come across in Hebrews 5 which is this:

For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. 2 He can deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is beset with weakness. 3 Because of this he is obligated to offer sacrifice for his own sins just as he does for those of the people. 4 And no one takes this honor for himself, but only when called by God, just as Aaron was. 5 So also Christ did not exalt himself to be made a high priest, but was appointed by him who said to him,“You are my Son, today I have begotten you”; 6 as he says also in another place, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.”

So the question that comes up here might not even be obvious to you as a Latter-day Saint if you haven’t spent much time in other Christian churches. For this episode, we’re going to talk about “priest” as a category, not necessarily a job title. Most Evangelical churches are not going to use the word, “priest” except in the context of, “priesthood of all believers” and we will get to that specific issue once we hit 1 Peter. However, today we’re just going to stay tightly focused on the issue of why most men are ordained to the priesthood in our church. It’s a rather unique thing. I actually can’t think of another denomination where that happens – where every eligible man is ordained. If you know of one, hit me up in the comments.

In Evangelical churches the word priest morphs into “pastor” and all the variations on that word. But we’re in the same category, sort of. But we need a little history lesson first.

For most of the history of Christianity churches were led by pastors, and those pastors were overseen by a bishop – maybe they didn’t call him bishop, but that’s the category of the role. So it goes, congregation, pastor, bishop, and then someone over him, and up some more. And initially, Evangelical churches were organized this way too, at least in th e1950’s and well into the 1960’s. By the late 70’s, and certainly by the 1980’s this structure had significantly disappeared. The nature of Evangelical churches lends itself very much toward independent churches that are not overseen by a bishop. This is not scientific evidence, but I messaged a handful of my Evangelical friends who all attend church regularly and asked if any of their churches had this set up, and not one did. It’s mostly gone away. So what they have now is congregation, pastor, and maybe he has some kind of advisory board, but there is no one above him. And so the language started to change in the 80’s and into the 90’s. They started to say things like, “Every member a minister” and the idea was that the senior pastor was now the overseer of all the members of the chuch, who are actually the ministers. It’s no longer a bishop overseeing a number of churches in the same city, but a pastor overseeing non-ordained people who mostly do the work of the church.

This set up should sound somewhat familiar to you. An Evangelical would look at how our local wards are set up and wonder why someone is being called the Bishop (I mean, if they know the word at all) because he’s only over 1 congregation and traditionally bishops were over multiple churches. But if you go up one level in structure we have Stake Presidents who essentially are in the same category that would traditionally be called Bishop – he oversees multiple congregations. And it’s not immediately intuitive to Evangelicals that we have formalized a structure that they arrived at because of the changing landscape of how churches work. So, back to our question, why is every eligible man and boy ordained? But the only structural difference there is that we have formalized what they keep informal. They actually do see each member (men and women, for the most part) as ministers – they just grab the title “priesthood of all believers” to sort of cover them in that role.

This is one of those fascinating situations where, at first glance, we are in very different structures…..but as it turns out, no, not really. Now, questions about priesthood certainly don’t stop at understanding who is ordained and why. We’ll get to the rest in parts 2 and 3.

But I do hope this clears up a bit of the language difference between us. We use a formal ordination process for “ordinary” men – and they use an informal process that accomplishes the same thing.

This is a short episode, but I’m in the airport. So. Come back next week and we’ll take up the next bit on priesthood.

More Come, Follow Me resources here.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Hebrews 1–6 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Evangelical Questions: What Apostasy?by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC

Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about The Great Apostasy. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.

Our jumping-off point is 2 Thes 2:1-4. This is in the English Standard Version:

Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.

If you’ve ever had a conversation with someone unfamiliar with The Great Apostasy you are probably familiar with the look on their face that says something like, “I have no idea what you are talking about.” And I imagine that is rather confusing to you, Latter-day Saint friends. The signs of it seems so obvious to us it’s barely something that needs proving. You might as well ask someone to prove that air exists. But it’s different for Evangelicals. So, what are the issues?

Well, first, they don’t deny that apostasy with a lower-case “a” has happened many times in history. You can see it in the Bible and in every generation since. However, they will always couch it in terms of being individual apostasy, not collective. This forces the conversation into an awkward corner because the natural response might be something like, “Oh no, it wasn’t just one person, it was the whole thing.” And now you’ve got a problem. Because it wasn’t the whole thing. You’ve just conflated 2 different ideas about apostasy. Let me explain.

What does, “complete apostasy” mean? And what doesn’t it mean? Well, it can’t mean that there were no people who loved God, had the desire to serve him, and patterned their lives after Jesus Christ. We know from history that this is not true. So Evangelicals have a rough little piece of logic to work through here – and sometimes we make it harder on them by over-playing our hand. The Evangelical who knows even the basics of history can point out plenty of people who are examples of faithful believers throughout the ages. So, even being able to point out 1 counterexample seems to discredit the claim.

But the claim of The Great Apostasy is not that no one loved and followed God to the best of their ability. It’s that the priesthood power was taken from the Earth. Those are 2 very different things. The Great Apostasy is an institutional situation, not an individual one.

All that to say, when you’re in a conversation with an Evangelical about the apostasy try to stay out of the trap of “the apostasy means no one loved Jesus Christ at all during that time.”

Second issue. Evangelicals absolutely believe in a great apostasy. But, like many times, they’re not talking about the same thing we are. They would define the great apostasy as something that will happen at some future point in time. GK Beal, an Evangelical Biblical scholar says it this way, “The point Paul appears to be making is that the visible church community, within which true saints exist, will become so apostate that it will be dominantly filled with people who profess to be Christian but really are not. The church will continue to profess to be Christian but most in it will actually not be true believers.” Dr. B. J. Oropeza, an Evangelical at Azusa Pacific University has written 3 volumes, 800 pages, on apostasy. And every single one of those pages deals with the apostasy of the individual. Not the removal of priesthood power.

So, we’re on the same page that there is such a thing as a great apostasy. They just think it is a future event while we believe it is a past event. But this nuance brings up an interesting layer. Some of the pushback Evangelicals give on the concept of an apostasy (as we define it) is that God wouldn’t do that to us humans – why would he send Jesus and then let the whole thing fall apart? Well, interestingly enough they are perfectly okay with believing that is a possibility – a future possibility, but a possibility nevertheless. The only difference between their thinking on this and ours is that we think it happened quickly after the Apostles were gone, and they think it won’t happen for a long time to come.

In this 2 Thes passage, we also get Paul warning the reader to not let anyone deceive you. Which is a very good and helpful thing for him to be saying – but it also sets up the Evangelical way of thinking – that apostasy an individual matter. The person who becomes apostate has been tricked or fooled out of proper belief. And it is their responsibility alone to right their ship. Apostasy happens to individuals and must be fixed by individuals. The closest they can probably get to apostasy being the removal of priesthood power is looking at the Catholic church in the middle ages – if they know much about history they can probably point to that time period and say that the whole project seems to be off the rails. But Evangelicals and Catholics have an uneasy relationship. A very typical response here would be something like, “Well, those were Catholics.” The implied message is, “they aren’t real Christians like us.”

So what do you do with all of this? They see apostasy as an individual matter. And while we certainly can also see it in individuals, when we use the term The Great Apostacy, what we mean has to do with priesthood power, not individual behavior. And while they agree that a great apostasy is going to happen in the future, they don’t think its happened yet. Are we just at a stalemate? No, I don’t think so.

It gets tricky because they tend to see the concept of priesthood as a burden, not a gift. They think it is an unnecessary barrier between an individual and God. All they know are “false priests who oppress.” So one path you could go down is talking about how having the priesthood restored actually helps you get closer to God, not further away. I have experienced this in my own life, I’m sure you have too.

But another way to talk about this is to think about apostasy as they do. Accept their definition for a moment – that apostasy only has to do with the individual holding incorrect beliefs and has nothing to do with the lack of priesthood power. That it only happens to individuals and not all humans together. How does someone come to understand that they hold an incorrect belief? Your Evangelical friends hold incorrect beliefs – I did when I was an Evangelical. But, most good people who hold wrong beliefs really have no idea that they’re wrong. They’re not trying to be wrong, and they have nothing else to go on that might help them see that some things are off here. Some very simple questions about epistemology would come in handy here – how do they know what they know? How do they know they’re not wrong?

If you know and love Evangelicals you probably already know where this goes – they point to the Bible as the source of what they believe. And I trust them when they say that. But here is the thing….the Bible doesn’t lay flat. What does that mean? It means that some passages are given more emphasis and importance than others. And this is true in a way that makes people “blind” to certain passages. They can quote and believe the ones they like, and ignore lots of other verses that add more information. The solution here? You are not going to like it….You need to know your Bible better than you do. I know. I teach Gospel Doctrine and it’s only October and I can already hear the sighs of relief that people have about getting to do Book of Mormon year next year. -And I’m excited too – but as a people, we don’t know the Bible very well, so conversations with folks who are basing literally everything off the Bible are difficult because they can outwit you. I know you’re antsy to get to the BoM but I implore you, if you have a missionary heart toward Evangelicals at all please don’t run out of energy on the New Testament yet. We’ve still got 10 weeks left of the New Testament and one of the best things you might be able to do for the Evangelials you care about, is learn the Bible better.

Alright, that is that. Next week we get the wonderful phrase, “husband of one wife” and all the worries Evangelicals have about the history of polygamy in our faith. See you then.

More Come, Follow Me resources here.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – 1 and 2 Thessalonians appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

This post will be the last in the section about race and the Priesthood restriction. I apologize for not getting this up sooner. My offline life has been a little crazy this summer, and I just didn’t have the time to do this post justice until today. It’s an important topic, and I wanted to make sure I was able to treat it with the respect it deserves.

The bulk of the conversation this week is about the idea that the prophets can never lead the Church astray:

Follow the Prophet

The Church reminds us to give strict obedience to the prophet because he speaks for God and is incapable of misconduct.

No, the Church absolutely does not teach either of those things. If you run a search on the Church’s website for the phrase “strict obedience,” do you know what you find? A whole bunch of scriptures, talks, and lesson manuals advising strict obedience to the commandments of God and the covenants we make with Him. I went through several pages of search results and didn’t find a single entry teaching strict obedience to the prophets.

For my entire lifetime, multiple prophets and apostles have counseled us to pray over their words for confirmation from God that they’re speaking the truth. In fact, when I wrote my response to the CES Letter last year, I spent a decent chunk of one post listing multiple quotes by Brigham Young, saying that he fearedthat the Saints would trust him without bothering to ask the Spirit for confirmation that he was teaching them correct doctrine. Here are some of the things he had to say about blindly trusting your leaders:

“Ladies and gentlemen, I exhort you to think for yourselves, and read your Bibles for yourselves, get the Holy Spirit for yourselves, and pray for yourselves.” (Source)
“What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.” (Source)
“I do not wish any Latter–day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied. I wish them to know for themselves and understand for themselves, for this would strengthen the faith that is within them. Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, ‘If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,’ this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord.” (Source)
“The First Presidency have of right a great influence over this people; and if we should get out of the way and lead this people to destruction, what a pity it would be! How can you know whether we lead you correctly or not? Can you know by any other power than that of the Holy Ghost? I have uniformly exhorted the people to obtain this living witness each for themselves; then no man on earth can lead them astray.” (Source)
“It is your privilege and duty to live so that you know when the word of the Lord is spoken to you and when the mind of the Lord is revealed to you. I say it is your duty to live so as to know and understand all these things. Suppose I were to teach you a false doctrine, how are you to know it if you do not possess the Spirit of God? As it is written, ‘The things of God knoweth no man but by the Spirit of God.’” (Source)
“… [B]e faithful, live so that the Spirit of the Lord will abide within you, then you can judge for yourselves. I have often said to the Latter-day Saints—’Live so that you will know whether I teach you truth or not.’ Suppose you are careless and unconcerned, and give way to the spirit of the world, and I am led, likewise, to preach the things of this world and to accept things that are not of God, how easy it would be for me to lead you astray! But I say to you, live so that you will know for yourselves whether I tell the truth or not. That is the way we want all Saints to live. Will you do it? Yes, I hope you will, every one of you.” (Source)
“Now, let me ask the Latter-day Saints, you who are here in this house this day, how do you know that your humble servant is really, honestly, guiding and counseling you aright, and directing the affairs of the kingdom aright? … [H]ow do you know but I am teaching false doctrine? How do you know that I am not counseling you wrong? How do you know but I will lead you to destruction? And this is what I wish to urge upon you—live so that you can discern between the truth and error, between light and darkness, between the things of God and those not of God, for by the revelations of the Lord, and these alone, can you and I understand the things of God.” (Source)
“… ‘How are you going to know about the will and commands of heaven?’ By the Spirit of revelation; that is the only way you can know. How do I know but what I am doing wrong? How do I know but what we will take a course for our utter ruin? I sometimes say to my brethren, ‘I have been your dictator for twenty-seven years—over a quarter of a century I have dictated this people; that ought to be some evidence that my course is onward and upward.’ But how do you know that I may not yet do wrong? How do you know but I will bring in false doctrine and teach the people lies that they may be damned? Sisters can you tell the difference? I can say this for the Latter-day Saints, and I will say it to their praise and my satisfaction, if I were to preach false doctrine here, it would not be an hour after the people got out, before it would begin to fly from one to another, and they would remark, ‘I do not quite like that! It does not look exactly right! What did Brother Brigham mean? That did not sound quite right, it was not exactly the thing!’ All these observations would be made by the people, yes, even by the sisters. It would not sit well on the stomach … [i]t would not sit well on the mind, for you are seeking after the things of God; you have started out for life and salvation, and with all their ignorance, wickedness and failings, the majority of this people are doing just as well as they know how; and I will defy any man to preach false doctrine without being detected; and we need not go to the Elders of Israel, the children who have been born in these mountains possess enough of the Spirit to detect it. But be careful that you do not lose it! Live so that you will know the moment the Spirit of the Almighty is grieved within you.” (Source)
“How often has it been taught that if you depend entirely upon the voice, judgment and sagacity of those appointed to lead you, and neglect to enjoy the Spirit for yourselves, how easily you may be led into error, and finally be cast off to the left hand?” (Source)

(And, just as a quick caveat, most of those were taken from the Journal of Discourses, so be careful about accepting them as word-for-word quotes.)

So, because of multiple statements just like these ones described here, I reject Faulk’s framing here. The prophets themselves tell us they’re fallible and that they want us to seek their confirmation from the Spirit that what they’re teaching us is true.

In fact, when President Spencer W. Kimball heard that Sister Elaine Cannon had taught the young women of the Church that when the prophet speaks, “the debate is over,” he was so alarmed that he met with her the very next day and asked her not to say things like that again. She explained what she actually meant, but he worried that people would think they wanted to take away their agency, because that wasn’t at all true.

Remember, it was Lucifer’s plan to leave us as choiceless automatons who did everything we were told to do. God’s plan was one of free will. And because we do have free will, none of us mortal humans are free from making the occasional error.

Faulk then quotes some statements about prophets never leading the Church astray:

“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.” (President Wilford Woodruff, General Conference, October 1890)
“Keep your eye on the Prophet, for the Lord will never permit his Prophet to lead this Church astray.” (President Ezra Taft Benson, General Conference, October 1966)
“Follow your leaders who have been duly ordained and have been publicly sustained, and you will not be led astray. (Elder Boyd K. Packer, General Conference, October 1992)
“Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, Follow the prophet; don’t go astray. Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, Follow the prophet; he knows the way.” (Children’s Songbook)

This quote was initially taken from Official Declaration 1, the Manifesto officially ending plural marriage in the Church.

However, it was a teaching that actually originated with Joseph Smith. In a 2014 post on the Ether’s Cave blog, Matthew Roper cited multiple accounts of people remembering Joseph and also Oliver Cowdery teaching that by following the majority of the church membership and the majority of the Twelve, who kept the records of the Church, a person would never be led astray into apostasy.

President James E. Faust elaborated that this is because the Twelve hold the Priesthood keys.

And in an excellent devotional given to students at Ensign College last year, Keith Erekson said:

“In its complete original context, Wilford Woodruff’s teaching emphasized that the prophet would not … lead people ‘astray from the oracles [or revelations] of God and from their duty.’ Prophets will not lead us away from their true witness of Jesus Christ, from His revelations or from the path, however hard it may be, to follow Him.

If you follow these thoughts to their natural conclusion, you arrive at President Woodruff’s statement in the Manifesto. If the main body of the Church was ever led too far astray, the Priesthood keys would be lost and removed from the Earth just like they were back during the Great Apostasy. Because the Lord has promised us that the Priesthood would never again be taken from the Earth, this means that the prophet and the majority of the apostles can’t lead us astray.

So, as you can see, the way that Faulk presents that line is not the way that the Church treats it. It’s not that prophets can never make a mistake. It’s that prophets can never lead the Church into such deep apostasy that the Priesthood keys will again be removed from the Earth.

In that same devotional cited above, Erekson also taught some wrong assumptions people have about prophets, which I think is worth repeating here. This is a bit long, but I thought it was important to share because we see all of these things throughout this letter:

Erekson asked his listeners what expectations they might have about prophets, how those expectations might be influenced by their upbringing and culture, and if they are assuming things that are incorrect.

“Admitting the errors in our own thinking is sometimes the most difficult part of understanding Church history because it takes humility to change our expectations and assumptions after we learn they are incorrect.” … Many oversimplify living prophets to a simple binary of being inspired or uninspired….

Many cultures have models of prophets. For some, a prophet is a sphinx, riddler or soothsayer who speaks in anonymous riddles. For others, a prophet is a “lone voice who speaks out against all evil and oppression” and denounces every wrong. Another model is that of a cable news pundit who pins the blame for tragedies on the sins of an enemy group, offering harsh condemnations.

Some Latter-day Saints come to expect prophets to act like these models. “Then, if prophets speak too clearly in favor of vaccination, or if they fail to stand with or against the internet’s outrage of the day, or if they offer kindness instead of criticism of refugees, some turn away in rage like Naaman,” Erekson said.

Another unhelpful expectation is a distrust in a person who is influenced by culture. Every human is shaped by the language, customs, knowledge and experiences of individuals, families and societies, making it impossible for anyone — including prophets — to not be influenced by culture….

“Prophets do not urge us to follow or imitate them, but to follow and imitate the Savior,” Erekson said.“Stated another way, the prophets do not teach us to follow them, but to ‘hear Him’!” …

Why do prophets need the grace of Christ? “For the same reasons that you and I depend on His grace — to forgive our sins, succor our infirmities, mitigate our shortcomings, expand our capabilities, turn weaknesses into strengths,” Erekson said.

Prophets make mistakes and they disagree. In extreme cases, their differing perspectives can lead to disputes. “Most of the time,” Erekson said, “the differences of opinion serve to bring all perspectives on issues into the discussion.”

The only person to ever live a mistake-free life was Jesus Christ. Prophets are aware of their own shortcomings, Erekson said, citing Moses who worried over his speaking inadequacies, Moroni who felt the same about his writing, and Joseph Smith who published his errors and divine rebukes. … Simply citing the many instances of when prophets disagreed, made mistakes or were tricked is incomplete, Erekson said, “without understanding that prophets serve ‘through the … grace of [our] Lord Jesus Christ.’ His grace is sufficient to bring them to unanimity, refine their souls and succor them.”

Prophets don’t know everything about the future. “While it is true that God reveals some of His secrets to prophets, and that some prophets including Moses, Enoch and Nephi received sweeping visions, that does not mean that every prophet knows everything about everything,” Erekson said. The things they do know are not always spelled out for them.

“As the ‘mouthpiece’ of the Lord, they do not simply open their mouths and the word of God flows out,” he said. “Sometimes revelation has come as dictated wording, but prophets also receive inspiration, feelings and impressions that they must put into words and actions. Sometimes they explore paths that don’t work out.” …

Prophets work to be inspired of the Holy Ghost because they don’t know everything, and they gain light and truth from the Lord line upon line…

“We should rightly expect prophets to be called through the will of God and the grace of Jesus Christ and receive ongoing guidance through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost,” Erekson said. “As we do so, we can, like Naaman, shed incorrect expectations and assumptions about prophets that both impede our ability to be blessed and prompt divisive anger.”

There are a lot of incorrect assumptions given about prophets and their roles and abilities in this section of the LFMW. We need to be able to spot them and to know how to challenge them, because if we don’t ward against this kind of manipulation, it’ll eventually infect our minds. It’s how we sway from righteous teachings and beliefs into unrighteous ones.

Today the Church says the past leaders were in error because their statements were just “theories”.

Not exactly. Church leaders today say that those statements were theories because they were speculative statements based on opinion and ignorance rather than revelation. They may have thought at the time that they were preaching revealed doctrine, but we know today that they were not.

It’s okay to make mistakes and to be wrong occasionally. Most of us know what it feels like to receive personal revelation from God. He doesn’t often appear to us in person and dictate word-for-word what we record in our journals. He points us in the right direction and nudges along, and He gives us inspiration and understanding, but He also often gives us the basics and lets us figure out the details. It’s how we learn and grow, by stretching ourselves and discovering how to recognize His direction. Sometimes, we get those details wrong, because we’re still learning how to recognize His voice and what He’s saying to us.

It works the same way for our prophets. They may occasionally hear God’s voice or meet with the Savior face to face, but most of the time, their spiritual experiences are just like ours. They need to figure out what their impressions and directions mean, the same way we do. Sometimes, that involves trial and error. Sometimes, it means making the wrong choice before correcting their mistake and making the right one. Sometimes, it means relying on assumptions and inferences that turn out to be incorrect once more light has been shed.

We’ve all been there. We know what it’s like. We know that we’re not perfect and that sometimes, we get things wrong even when we’re trying our hardest to get it right. So, we need to grant our prophets and apostles that same level of understanding and grace. They’re trying their hardest to get it right, too. And you know what? They usually do get it right.

But expecting perfection from fallen, mortal men is an exercise in futility. Why do we insist on holding our prophets and apostles to an impossible standard that even God Himself doesn’t hold them to?

When I ask this question, the response I usually get is, “They’re prophets of God. They’re supposed to be better/smarter/wiser/more attuned to the Spirit than the rest of us.”

Well, where did they ever get that idea? Have they ever even read the Old Testament? Those prophets surely made their fair share of errors.

Yes, there are many areas in which President Nelson is more knowledgeable than I am. He knows considerably more than I do about the way the human body works, particularly the heart and lungs. He also has nearly 60 more years of experience in recognizing and following the Spirit than I do. He has a lot to teach me.

But if I don’t allow him the chance to be human and to make mistakes sometimes, I do both of us a huge disservice. It holds him to an impossible standard he can’t possibly live up to. For me, it weakens my capacity for charity and gives me a distorted view of not only the Priesthood keys but also personal and prophetic revelation, and even the Atonement itself.

Another common refrain is, “What do you expect when the Church teaches us songs like ‘Follow the Prophet, he knows the way’?”

What we expect is that when we teach kids simple, black-and-white concepts, their understanding will expand and deepen as they grow older.

For example, we teach kids not to talk to strangers, but as they get older, we expect them to realize that sometimes, they have to converse with strangers. When you buy something at the store, you usually have to talk to the cashier. When your internet goes down, you have to talk to the guy who comes out to fix it. When you take your car in for repairs, you have to speak to the mechanics. You have to speak to strangers in job interviews. Some of us have to engage with customers at work. Etc.

We teach children by degrees, the same way that the Spirit teaches us. We give them basic concepts when they’re young, and as their maturity and understanding grows, so does the way we discuss these topics.

So, if your thinking on this particular topic hasn’t grown or expanded since you were four years old and singing simplistic songs in Primary, that’s a problem. You should probably talk to somebody about that, because that isn’t normal cognitive function.

Applying the idea that the priesthood ban on blacks was just a theory also doesn’t make much sense when considering what Pres. David O. McKay stated, “…discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God.”

This is dishonest framing with a cherry-picked and cropped quote. If you read the full statement, a very different picture of President McKay’s words appears. I’ll quote the relevant portion here:

From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding Presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which he has not made fully known to man.

Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, “The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back to the beginning with God…

“Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s preexistent state.”

President McKay has also said, “Sometime in God’s eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood.”

Until God reveals his will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will. Priesthood, when it is conferred on any man comes as a blessing from God, not of men.

We feel nothing but love, compassion, and the deepest appreciation for the rich talents, endowments, and the earnest strivings of our Negro brothers and sisters. We are eager to share with men of all races the blessings of the gospel. We have no racially segregated congregations.

Were we the leaders of an enterprise created by ourselves and operated only according to our own earthly wisdom, it would be a simple thing to act according to popular will. But we believe that this work is directed by God and that the conferring of the priesthood must await his revelation. To do otherwise would be to deny the very premise on which the Church is established….

We join with those throughout the world who pry that all of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ may in the due time of the Lord become available to men of faith everywhere. Until that time comes we must trust in God, in his wisdom, and in his tender mercy.

They were in error regarding the Priesthood restriction coming from the days of Joseph Smith, but these are not the words of hateful racists trying to hold Black people down. They believed they were following the direction of God, and we can’t say for certain that they weren’t.

Brigham Young said that this was ordained/decreed by the Lord and that he could not change it until the Lord Himself did. We don’t know if that belief came from a direct revelation or not, because Brigham believed that all knowledge or belief was revelation from God, whether it actually was or not. That muddies the water and makes it very difficult for us to figure out exactly what happened.

It does seem clear that however it began, the Lord did need to reverse it by revelation. Remember, President McKay told a room full of witnesses that he prayed for it repeatedly until the Lord told him to stop asking because, while it would change someday, it wouldn’t be under his tenure.

After that experience, I think the First Presidency was justified in saying in the statement above that it needed to be changed by revelation and that they couldn’t do it themselves. Whether that was just the Savior using a man-made policy for His own purposes or not, I don’t know.

I can’t say that the Priesthood restriction came about because of a revelation, and I can’t say that it didn’t come about because of a revelation. There’s conflicting, unclear information. What I can say for certain is that before 1978, multiple prophets believed it came from revelation and that the Lord would not allow them to change it.

If prophets claim to speak the will of Heavenly Father when their words can be later disavowed, then how was it that they were prophets at all?

What makes someone a prophet is not their ability to reason, to be infallible, or to always say everything exactly the way God would say it. A prophet is a prophet because he was called of God and holds all of the Priesthood keys to direct God’s church on Earth.

Part of a prophet’s job is to correct misunderstandings that have crept in—even if those misunderstandings came from a prior prophet who shared information that he believed was true before more light and knowledge was given to clarify the situation.

Prophets preach the Gospel according to their own understanding of the scriptures and their personal revelation. They go into their new calling the same way we all do, with our prior knowledge and beliefs backing us up. They aren’t suddenly gifted with infinite knowledge and wisdom when they’re set apart.

We can trust that these are men who love the Lord and are doing their utmost best to serve Him the very best they can. We can’t trust them to be perfect in all they say or do or think, but we can trust that they take their callings seriously and are doing the very best they can with the knowledge and light they have.

I trust them, and that’s why I’m willing to follow them. I don’t do it blindly, but I choose to do it, even knowing that they may make an occasional mistake.

This completely undermines the ‘prophet will never lead us astray’ principle.

No, it doesn’t, because “the prophet will never lead us astray” does not mean “the prophet will never make a mistake about anything.”

As we discussed above, that statement was regarding Priesthood keys and prophets leading the Church into widespread apostasy to the point where those keys were taken again from the Earth.

What doctrines currently attributed to God by today’s prophet can be discredited as just “theories” by future general authorities?

I guess we’ll find out, won’t we? That’s the beauty of a church led by modern-day prophets and ongoing revelation. As more revelation comes to light, older beliefs are clarified and corrected or deepened, depending on the situation.

We’re not members of a church that clings to revelation given to a specific group of people 5,000 years ago pertaining to their specific circumstances. Universal truths are still taught in every dispensation, but for revelation specific to our society and world today, we look to our current-day prophet. We don’t look to prophets who have been dead for decades, centuries, or millennia.

That’s a feature of our church, not a bug. If new light, knowledge, and understanding wasn’t waiting to come into the world, we wouldn’t have needed a single prophet since Adam.

It’s weird that Faulk is pushing the idea that revelation shouldn’t change over time. Do you see how manipulative that is? If he can cement that idea into your head, and you think about it for even two seconds, you start wondering what the point is of having prophets at all. Don’t fall into that trap. You’re smarter than that.

God sends us prophets because He still has much, much more to teach us. We just need to open ourselves up to embrace it. If we refuse to listen to our current prophets because we prefer the teachings of dead ones, He won’t give us any new revelation. If we don’t read the scriptures we already have, He won’t give us the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon or any other records He has waiting in the wings for us. If we won’t embrace His way of teaching us line by line, He won’t continue to teach us anything.

I’m not personally willing to give that up for Thomas Faulk or Jeremy Runnells, or any of the other ex-Mormon “prophets” out there. I prefer to listen to real ones.

Sarah Allen is relatively new in her affiliation with FAIR. By profession, she works in mortgage compliance and is a freelance copyeditor. An avid reader, she loves studying the Gospel and the history of the restored Church. After watching some of her friends lose their testimonies, she became interested in helping others through their faith crises. That’s when she began sharing what she’d learned through her studies. She’s grateful to those at FAIR who have given her the opportunity to share her testimony with a wider audience.

The post Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 23: The Early Church – Blacks and the Church [D] appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

As we pick up with the difficult racial quotes this week, I want to start again with the disclaimer that neither I nor anyone else at FAIR agrees with or condones the words and attitudes on display in these comments. I am not defending their use. I am just putting some history and context back […]

The post Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 21: The Early Church – Blacks and the Church [B] appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

We’re now moving into one of the most controversial topics in our church’s history, the Priesthood restriction for black members of African descent. Like plural marriage, this is a topic that comes with a lot of emotion behind it. People have very strong feelings about this part of our history, and for good reason. I’m […]

The post Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 20: The Early Church – Blacks and the Church [A] appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

In full disclosure, I’ve been concerned about this post this week. There are some things coming up today that I am not very comfortable discussing in a public setting. It involves questions I feel are important to address, but I do take temple covenants very seriously and I don’t know that this is the best place to address them. There will be things from the Letter For My Wife that I can’t copy and paste directly, and things I’ll have to skim over and paraphrase. It’s going to be a difficult needle to thread, and I can’t guarantee I’ll do it well. I’m trying to follow the counsel we’ve received in recent years to be more open about what happens inside the temple, while still not crossing the lines we’ve covenanted to keep sacred.

We’ll start off with a little bit more temple history, and from there, Faulk will move into the difficult portion. He picks up with more discussion of Freemasonry:

LDS Masons

Joseph’s family and several of the first members of the Church were Masons. Joseph Smith Sr. was a documented member in upstate New York. He was raised to the degree of Master Mason May 7, 1818 in Ontario Lodge No. 23 of Canandaigua, New York. His older brother Hyrum was a member of Mount Moriah Lodge No. 112 at Palmyra, New York. Other prominent members include: Joseph’s other brothers Samuel and William Smith, Brigham Young (2nd president of the Church), John Taylor (3rd president), Wilford Woodruff (4th president), Lorenzo Snow (5th president), Sidney Rigdon (first presidency), William Law (first presidency), John C. Bennett (first presidency), Newell K. Whitney (Presiding Bishop), Heber C. Kimball (first presidency), Orson Pratt (apostle), Parley P. Pratt (apostle), Orson Hyde (apostle), Lyman Johnson, (apostle), William Clayton (Joseph’s secretary), Porter Rockwell (Joseph’s bodyguard) and many more.

Yes, while there was a strong anti-Mason sentiment in various parts of the country, Masonry was also a popular organization for many men. In fact, in the Northeastern United States, the organization experienced “rapid growth” between 1800-1830, the time period in which several of those men listed above were inducted.

During the early part of the United States’ history, it was basically the most popular way for men to gather socially and hang out together. It’s not surprising that many early Saints—who were friends with one another in Joseph’s inner circle—would seek other ways to spend time together. Many of us today do the same thing with our friends, whether it’s game nights or movie nights or book clubs or whatever. Freemasonry was kind of like the pre-Civil War version of a modern D&D group. Obviously, it’s more a serious organization than that, but on its face, it was a social group for men to bond with one another.

You can see a list of members of the Nauvoo Lodge from 1841 in the Nauvoo Masonic Lodge Minute Book, pages 27-28 of the cited link. It’s not comprehensive and it’s difficult to read, but most of the men listed above are on it.

As soon as the saints erected the Nauvoo lodge, Joseph Smith also sought membership in the fraternity.

“15 March 1842 Tuesday – I officiated as grand chaplain at the installation of the Nauvoo Lodge of Free Masons, at the Grove near the Temple. Grand Master Jonas, of Columbus, being present, a large number of people assembled on the occasion. The day was exceedingly fine; all things were done in order, and universal satisfaction was manifested. In the evening I received the first degree in Free Masonry in the Nauvoo Lodge, assembled in my general business office.” (Joseph Smith, Journal 1841–1842. Also in History of the Church, vol.4, p.550)

Yes, Joseph Smith joined as an Entered Apprentice the night the Nauvoo Lodge was officially instituted.

Just seven weeks after his initiation as a first-degree mason, on April 4, 1842, Joseph introduces the endowment ceremony in the upper room of his red brick store; the same room where his Masonic initiation took place. Present were Hyrum Smith, Brigham Young, William Law, Heber C. Kimball and others.

I personally think this is because he was excited by the things he saw in the Masonic lodge. He’d finally figured out how best to teach the Endowment. I spoke last week about the message and the messenger, or the gift and the wrapping paper. Joseph had the message/gift already. But the Lord didn’t give him explicit instructions on how to implement it, and let him figure it out for himself. The ritual drama he saw at the Lodge, along with the ancient elements that he would have known about, gave him the messenger/wrapping paper/delivery method.

He already knew the Endowment would be happening in the new Nauvoo Temple that was being built. After all, on October 12, 1841, the Quorum of the Twelve published a letter in which they declared that the Nauvoo Temple “would be a place for proxy baptism, worship, endowment, the revelation of God’s laws, and the manifestation of ‘all the ordinances.’”

I don’t consider this an odd or unusual move, considering the things that had already been revealed to Joseph about the Endowment by that point. We covered this last week, but by March of 1842, Joseph had been receiving segments of revelation concerning the Endowment for thirteen years. Portions of it had already been instituted in the Kirtland Temple six years prior. Joseph had already lamented that he’d never had the opportunity to give the Saints the full plan that God had revealed to him before they were forced to flee Kirtland and abandon the Temple. It was also 11 months after the revelation now known as D&C 132, the celestial marriage revelation, was starting to be taught to select members of the Church that Joseph knew he could trust. The first documented plural marriage of the Nauvoo period was in April of 1841. There were things echoing temple language in many early revelations and sermons. As Jeffrey Bradshaw explained:

It appears that the Prophet learned much about temple ordinances through personal experiences with heavenly beings and revelations associated with his inspired translation of scripture. His revelations contain many unmistakable references to significant components of priesthood and temple doctrines, authority, and ordinances. Many of these date to the early 1830s, a decade or more before the Prophet began bestowing temple blessings on the Saints in Nauvoo. And given Joseph Smith’s reluctance to share the details of the most sacred events and doctrines publicly, it is certainly possible he received specific knowledge about some temple matters even earlier than can be now documented. These matters include: 1) the narrative backbone, clothing, and covenants of the modern temple endowment; 2) the sequence of blessings of the oath and covenant of the priesthood; and 3) priesthood keys and symbols expressed in keywords, names, signs, and tokens.

So, given all of that, of course Joseph was excited to finally have a way to teach those things to the Saints. And we know that’s likely how he viewed it, because Joseph Fielding told us:

Many have joined the Masonic institution. This seems to have been a stepping stone or preparation for something else, the true origin of Masonry [or, rather, the Priesthood]. This I have also seen and rejoice in it.

They viewed Masonry as a stepping stone to something greater, something true and restored. Bradshaw explains what Joseph might have been trying to teach the Saints by using Masonic elements:

One aspect of this preparation apparently had to do with the general idea of respecting covenants of confidentiality. For example, Joseph Smith once told the Saints that “the reason we do not have the secrets of the Lord revealed unto us is because we do not keep them.” But as he later observed, ‘“The secret of Masonry is to keep a secret.” Joseph may have seen the secret-keeping of Masonry as a tool to prepare the Saints to respect their temple covenants.

In addition, the rituals of the Lodge enabled Mormon Masons to become familiar with symbols and forms they would later encounter in the Nauvoo temple. These included specific ritual terms, language, handclasps, and gestures as well as larger patterns such as those involving repetition and the use of questions and answers as an aid to teaching. Joseph Smith’s own exposure to Masonry no doubt led him to seek further revelation as he prepared to introduce the divine ordinances of Nauvoo temple worship.

Finally, although Freemasonry is not a religion and, in contrast to Latter-day Saint temple ordinances, does not claim saving power for its rites, threads relating to biblical themes of exaltation are evident in some Masonic rituals. For example, in the ceremonies of the Royal Arch degree of the York rite, candidates pass through a series of veils and eventually enter into the divine presence. In addition, Christian interpretations, like Salem Town’s description of the “eighth degree,” tell of how the righteous will “be admitted within the veil of God’s presence, where they will become kings and priests before the throne of his glory for ever and ever.” Such language echoes New Testament teachings. Thus, apart from specific ritual language, forms, and symbols, a more general form of resemblance between Mormon temple ritual and certain Masonic degrees might be seen in the views they share about the ultimate potential of humankind.

Steven Harper gave a great presentation at the 2013 BYU Church History Symposium in which he explained how Joseph “translated” the Masonic imagery for Latter-day Saint audiences the same way he translated ancient scripture, or “restored” it the way he restored the Church and Priesthood. (He also made a truly hilarious joke about “hermetic sealing” that you guys really should check out. It makes me laugh every time.) Samuel Morris Brown agrees and says something very similar in his book, In Heaven As It Is On Earth: Joseph Smith and the Early Mormon Conquest of Death.

That’s also how Heber C. Kimball explained it to Parley P. Pratt in a letter dated June 17, 1842:

We have received some precious things through the Prophet on the priesthood that would cause your soul to rejoice. I cannot give them to you on paper, for they are not to be written. So you must come and get them for yourself. We have organized a lodge here of Masons since we obtained a charter. … There is a similarity of priesthood [ordinances] in Masonry. Bro. Joseph says Masonry was taken from priesthood but has become degenerated. But many things are perfect.

Bradshaw puts a slightly different spin on it:

However, sometimes it may be more accurate to see the process by which revelation came to the Prophet in an inverse fashion. In other words, we might see the revelatory process, at least in some cases, not primarily as a “translation” of elements of Masonic ritual into Mormon temple ordinances, but rather as a “translation” of revealed truths — components of temple ordinances that Joseph Smith had previously encountered in his translation of the Bible and through his personal revelatory experiences — into words and actions that the Saints in Nauvoo could readily understand because their intuitions had already been primed by their exposure to the Bible and to Freemasonry.

It should be no more a surprise to Latter-day Saints if some phrasing of the rites of Freemasonry parallel selected aspects of restored temple ordinances than the idea that wording similar to that of the King James Version was adopted in the English translation of scriptural passages from the Old Testament included on the Book of Mormon plates. In both cases, the use of elements already familiar to the early Saints would have served a pragmatic purpose, favoring their acceptance and understanding of specific aspects of the ancient teachings better than if a whole new and foreign textual or ritual vocabulary had been introduced.

So, Bradshaw believes that seeing the Masonic rituals and drama allowed Joseph to convert the revelations he’d received over the years into something concrete and understandable to the Saints of the Nauvoo period. He did that by using elements they were familiar with through participation in Masonry.

Heavenly Father often gives us direction to do something without telling us how. He leaves that up to us, because things like that are how we learn and grow. If He told us exactly what to do in every situation, we’d never be able to become like Him, because He’s taking all of the difficulty out of it. We don’t truly learn until we stand on our own feet. By teaching us to “study it out in our minds” and come up with solutions beforegoing to Him, He’s letting us learn to stand on our own, rather than carrying us.

I believe that’s precisely what He left Joseph to do here. And Joseph followed the model Heavenly Father had already given him when He used the seer stones to help Joseph learn how to become a prophet. Joseph then packaged the Endowment, something new and overwhelming and confusing, into something digestible by using the familiar packaging of Masonry they were used to.

Similarities between Masonic rituals and LDS Temple Ceremony

What exactly was Joseph exposed to during this initiation and is it possible that any of it made its way into the endowment ceremony? Two expository books on Masonry written by William M. Morgan and Jabez Richardson disclose various temple ceremonies. (Illustrations of Masonry by One of the Fraternity, 1827 and Monitor of Free-Masonry. www.themasonictrowel.com/ebooks/freemasonry/eb0348.pdf) They show that the words, actions and symbols used in Masonic rituals are nearly identical to LDS temple ordinances. Below is a small collection of those that bare most striking resemblance.

Okay, obviously, this is the part we’re not delving into in any kind of detail. He goes on from here, showing pictures and describing signs, symbols, and tokens. I’m going to bypass all of that. I will just say first that the Church’s website has an entire section on temples that is full of solid information. It even lists out the temple covenants, and as is an excellent resource.

Second, while there are similarities, there are also instances of Joseph Smith using those same symbols and signs in Latter-day Saint theology before becoming a Mason. Matthew B. Brown’s book, Exploring the Connection Between Mormons and Masons spends several chapters and appendices going through those evidences.

These include things like the all-seeing eye being described as early as 1829; the handclasp as early as 1832, with a more specific teaching of using that handclasp to determine whether an angel is one of the light or of the darkness in 1839; “Holiness to the Lord” as early as 1830; and bees were obviously first mentioned in 1829 in the Book of Mormon, but as a specific symbol of the Saints as early as 1832. Joseph was also using the sun, moon, and stars in multiple documents, including in the capacity of scripture, as early as the late 1820s. Additionally, in D&C 124:42, during a revelation given in January of 1841, the Lord says He “will show unto my servant Joseph all things pertaining to this house” (the Nauvoo Temple). Joseph later stated that the symbols on the outside of the temple were given to him in revelation, fulfilling this prophecy.

Brown also explains why Joseph would not have taken the Endowment ordinance itself from the Masons:

About one year and give months before Joseph Smith became a Freemason (5 October 1840), he told the congregants at general conference in Nauvoo, “God will not acknowledge that which He has not called, ordained, and chosen. … [T]he ordinances must be kept in the very way God has appointed, otherwise [the] priesthood will prove a cursing instead of a blessing.” On 22 January 1843—just a little over eight months after giving the Nauvoo endowment for the first time—the Prophet taught the very same concept, saying, “All the ordinances, systems, and administrations on the earth [are] of no use to the children of men unless they are ordained and authorized of God. For nothing will save a man but a legal administrator, for none others will be acknowledged either by God or angels.”

Since the Prophet was teaching near the time of his Masonic initiation that the system of the Masons was “degenerated” and had been “taken from [the] Priesthood,” he certainly would not have viewed its administrations as being ordained and authorized of God, nor efficacious in matters of personal salvation. It should also be emphasized that there is no primary, secondary, or tertiary historical source where Joseph Smith states that he borrowed elements of the Masonic ceremonies….

So, if Joseph had declared on multiple occasions that no ordinance was valid unless it was ordained, given by those holding authority, and performed exactly as God decreed, and he was teaching at the same time that Masonic rites were “degenerated” and corrupted, why would he copy them for use in the Temple? That makes no sense at all. Corrupted ordinances by their very nature cannot be performed exactly as God decrees.

I found it interesting that it was not until after Joseph Smith’s exposure to Masonry that he introduced the endowment ceremony. Just seven weeks separated Joseph’s Masonic initiation and the instructions for the first endowment.

I don’t. He’d been searching for a way to teach it, as he implied in that 1839 letter mentioned above. This gave him an idea on how to do that. And again, that is just the “messenger,” or the outer packaging for delivering the ordinances and covenants. The actual ordinance is not adapted from Masonic ritual at all.

He used certain elements to teach people how to keep sacred things private, and to teach certain concepts like the eternal progression of man.

According to Steven Harper:

Joseph seems to have used Masonry as a point of departure, a beginning rather than an end in itself. Several scholars of differing degrees of belief in Joseph Smith’s teachings have analyzed the evidence and arrived at this conclusion. Michael Homer argued that “the rituals of Freemasonry provided a starting point for the Mormon prophet’s revelation of ‘true Masonry.’” David Buerger argued that the pattern of resemblances was too great and the content of the endowment too unique to explain simply. “Thus,” he concluded, “the temple ceremony cannot be explained as wholesale borrowing from Masonry; neither can it be explained as completely unrelated to Freemasonry.” Allen Roberts concluded that “Joseph’s Masonry was not a conventional one. He attempted to restore it in much the same way the gospel was restored. That is, he saw Masonry like Christianity, as possessing some important truths which could be beneficially extracted from what was otherwise an apostate institution.”

Joseph modified one ritual drama into another one, changing it and using it to teach a completely different concept and story. I don’t think that’s very scandalous, personally, but I know this is an issue that bothers some people quite a bit.

March 15, 1842 – Joseph Smith became a Mason in his general business office. (History of the Church, vol.4, p.551)
May 4, 1842 – Joseph instructed the other leaders on the washings, anointing, signs and tokens. (History of the Church, vol.5, p.2)

And, as we went over, many of those were already taught by Joseph a decade or so before the Endowment was first taught as a whole. All the Masonic rites did was give him a vehicle he could adapt for his own purposes to teach the Saints.

Steven Harper explained:

It requires a logical leap to bridge the evidentiary gap between similarity, which was obvious to those who knew both Masonry and the endowment, and dependence, which is assumed—not known. Some people reason that Joseph Smith initiated men and women into the endowment ordinances after he was initiated into Freemasonry; therefore, the temple rituals derived from Masonry. One problem in this theory is that Freemasonry itself borrowed much of its ritual and ceremony from elements preserved since antiquity. There is ample similarity and difference not only between Freemasonry and LDS temple ordinances, but in many other ancient and more modern stories and rituals as well. Disentangling the complex relationships between them is not possible and should not be oversimplified.

It is possible to discern differences in the functions (however similar in form) of Masonic and LDS temple ordinances. Masonic rituals use aprons, door-knockings, and unusual handshakes to foster brotherhood. Bonds are made between men, not between people and God. LDS temple ordinances endow believers with power to regain the presence of God as they make and keep covenants with him. The ritual is not the endowment of power itself. It may be that some ritual forms were adapted from Masonic traditions, but the endowment teaches a divine plan of creation, Fall, and redemption through Christ—promising those who covenant to keep God’s laws that they will gain power over the effects of the Fall. As Heber Kimball was perfectly positioned to know, the endowment did not simply mimic Masonry.

The Endowment and the Masonic rites are not the same thing. As I said last week, “Yes, there are some elements of Masonic ceremony in the endowment. But those elements link back at least to early Christianity, and some are far older than that. Additionally, those elements are small things, like signs, tokens, symbols, minor phrasing, and the fact that there’s a ritual drama to teach us important lessons. They do not include the lessons themselves or the ordinances and covenants.”

It appears that every LDS temple ceremony has a nearly identical Masonic ceremony with the corresponding symbols. This brings up the question – Who is the real author of the endowment? Parallels between Masonry and the endowment seem to be problematic. Could Joseph Smith have simply borrowed this “revelation”?

It doesn’t bring up that question unless you’re reaching for it, and to me personally, it’s not problematic when you actually study the details around it. Joseph Smith obviously didn’t “borrow this revelation” if he was discussing prominent elements of it as far back as 1829 and all throughout the 1830s. Greg Kearney gave a great overview of all of the similarities and, more importantly, some of the major differences between Masonic ritual and the Latter-day Saint Endowment. Scott Gordon also gave a fantastic presentation on this at the 2017 FAIR Conference.

I also have to take exception to the scare quotes around “revelation.” Joseph received the Endowment in many revelations across more than a decade, and there is documented proof of that. Jeffrey Bradshaw’s paper gives a good timeline of that, and so does Matthew Brown’s book. Just because Thomas Faulk doesn’t believe that the Endowment came from God, does not mean he’s right. He’s not.

The Endowment is a beautiful gift, the bestowal of God’s power to us.

President Nelson once taught:

When we realize that we are children of the covenant, we know who we are and what God expects of us. His law is written in our hearts. He is our God and we are His people. Committed children of the covenant remain steadfast, even in the midst of adversity. When that doctrine is deeply implanted in our hearts, even the sting of death is soothed and our spiritual stamina is strengthened.

The greatest compliment that can be earned here in this life is to be known as a covenant keeper.The rewards for a covenant keeper will be realized both here and hereafter. Scripture declares that “ye should consider on the blessed and happy state of those that keep the commandments of God. For behold, they are blessed in all things, … and if they hold out faithful to the end they are received into heaven … [and] dwell with God in a state of never-ending happiness.”

God lives. Jesus is the Christ. His Church has been restored to bless all people. … And we, asfaithful children of the covenant, will be blessed now and forever.

And Brigham Young said:

Your endowment is to receive all those ordinances in the House of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to talk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels, being enabled to give them the key words, the signs and tokens, pertaining to the Holy Priesthood, and gain your eternal exaltation in spite of earth and hell.

There is so much for us to learn and understand about the temple. It’s a lifelong process, and it’s easy to feel overwhelmed or inadequate. But when questions arise, or when you see the attacks of critics, just remember the very wise words of President Nelson:

Now a little word of warning. There are those who would undermine your ability to call upon the power of God. There are some who would have you doubt yourself and minimize your stellar spiritual capacity as a righteous woman [or man].

Most certainly, the adversary does not want you to understand the covenant you made at baptism or the profound endowment of knowledge and power you have received or will receive in the temple—the house of the Lord. And Satan certainly does not want you to understand that every time you worthily serve and worship in the temple, you leave armed with God’s power and with His angels having “charge over” you.

A friend and I recently had a conversation in which he said that there are no guarantees in this life. I have to respectfully disagree. This is a guarantee: God has gifted us His power, and He will go before our faces, on our right hand and our left, and His Spirit will be in our hearts. He will send His angels to watch over us and gather round us, to bear us up. Because of that, we “need not fear.”

The post Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 15: The Early Church – The Endowment [B] appeared first on FAIR.

In Heaven as It Is on Earth: Joseph Smith and the Early Mormon Conquest of Death

View Details

While the Endowment is a subject that I find comforting and fascinating to study, I will admit upfront that I’ve been feeling some trepidation regarding this section. In his Letter, Faulk actually describes and shows images of many of the temple signs, symbols, and tokens, and those are not things I’m comfortable discussing in a public setting. I take our temple covenants very seriously, and I don’t want to put myself or FAIR or any of the readers here in the position of potentially breaking those covenants. Because of that, there will be a large section of this topic that will just be skimmed over without the usual level of detail and documentation I try to provide.

And frankly, I’m actually appalled that Faulk would post that information for everyone to read and look at. I don’t believe in mocking someone else’s sincerely held religious beliefs, even when I find those beliefs strange or off-putting. Unfortunately, that’s what Faulk’s Letter leads to deeper in this section. While I want to give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that wasn’t his intent, he does air these things publicly where they can and will be mocked by those who belittle them.

This week, however, we’ll be focusing most of our attention on the idea that the Endowment was copied from Freemasonry. There is some truth and a lot of untruth behind that charge.

Before diving in, I’d like to again thank Jeffrey Bradshaw, Brandon Cole, Trevor Holyoak, and Ryan Mercer, who all offered me assistance on this topic. Some gave it this week, while others passed along information as I was working on the response to the CES Letter with similar accusations. I’ll be drawing on a lot of that same information again, so I appreciate their input and the resources they provided.

Was the temple endowment really a revelation from God or could it have another origin? This chapter covers the origin of Freemasonry, founders of the Church and their Masonic membership, and similarities between Masonic temple ceremonies and the LDS temple endowment.

There are absolutely links between the ritual, symbols, and tokens of the Endowment and those of Freemasonry. That’s not really in dispute. It’s also indisputable that the covenants and teachings of the Endowment are far, far more ancient than that and were revealed, at least in part, to Joseph well before he ever became a Mason, or even moved to Nauvoo, for that matter.

Before we go into some of the details, it’s important to recognize that there are different parts to the Endowment ceremony. There’s the Endowment ordinance itself, with the covenants and the endowment of Priesthood power, and then there’s the ritual, which is full of symbolism. It’s the method used to teach the Endowment, not the Endowment itself.

This separation has been described in various ways by Latter-day Saints. For example, Greg Kearney, a Latter-day Saint and a Mason, refers to it as “The Message and the Messenger.” David O. McKay has referred to it as the “mechanics” of the temple vs the “symbolism.”

The analogy I personally used to describe this before was that of a birthday gift. You have the present itself, which is the covenants and ordinances, and the Priesthood power we’re endowed with, and then you have the wrapping paper. The gift wrapping is the outer covering, something that we put time and effort into making. We want it to look beautiful and enticing, but ultimately, it’s just the disguise the gift hides in. This is much like the ritual that the teachings, ordinances, and covenants of the Endowment are housed in. We learn those teachings through rituals and repetition, through symbols and tokens. Those things are not the Endowment; they’re just the packaging the Endowment comes in.

However we describe it, it’s important to know that those are separate things. When you purchase a package off Amazon, it often comes in a cardboard box. The box is part of the package, but it’s not the important part. The important part is what’s in the box.

And to further explain some of the terminology we’ll be using over the next few weeks, here are a few other examples. First, think of an elder raising his arm to the square when he baptizes someone. That’s a sign of the ordinance he’s performing. Second, the rainbow is a symbol representing God’s covenant with Noah to never again flood the Earth and destroy the people. And third, a wedding ring is a token, a physical reminder of the vows you made to your spouse when you got married.

These are all immediately recognizable to us because we’re familiar with them. But when we first go to the temple, the signs, symbols, and tokens we find there are brand new to us, and it can throw us off. It takes time to learn to understand them and what they represent.

So, with all of that said, let’s dive into the LFMW and see what Thomas Faulk has to say:

Origin of Freemasonry

“The earliest Masonic texts each contain some sort of a history of the craft, or mystery, of masonry. The oldest known work of this type, The Halliwell Manuscript, dating from between 1390 and 1425.” (Grand Lodge of British Columbia, The Halliwell Manuscript. http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/regius.html)

“Some are also told that King Solomon ruled over Masonic lodges as grand master. The stories they weave around the building of the temple are obviously not literal or historical facts but a dramatic means of explaining the principles of Freemasonry. Freemasonry neither originated nor existed in Solomon’s time. The general agreement amongst serious Masonic historians and researchers is that Freemasonry has arisen, either directly or indirectly, from the medieval stonemasons who built great cathedrals and castles. Those who favor the direct descent from operative masonry say there were three stages to the evolution of Freemasonry. The stonemasons gathered in huts (lodges) to rest and eat. These lodges gradually became not the hut but the grouping together of stonemasons to regulate their craft. In time, and in common with other trades, they developed primitive initiation ceremonies for new apprentices.”

“As stonemasons could easily travel all over the country from one building site to another, and as there were also no trade union cards or certificates of apprenticeship they began to adopt a private word which a traveling stonemason could use when he arrived at a new site, to prove that he was properly trained and had been a member of a lodge. It was, after all, easier to communicate a special word to prove that you knew what you were doing and were entitled to the wages it deserved that to spend hours carving a block of stone to demonstrate your skills.”

“We know that in the early 1600s these operative lodges began to admit men who had no connection with the trade – accepted or gentlemen masons. Why this was done and what form of ceremony was used is not known. As the 1600s drew to a close more and more gentlemen began to join the lodges, gradually taking them over and turning them into lodges of free and accepted or speculative masons, no longer having any connection with the stonemasons’ craft. This is based on evidence from Scotland. In England, the first evidence of a lodge completely made up of non-operative masons is found. English evidence through the 1600s points to Freemasonry existing apart from any actual or supposed organization of operative stonemasons. This was a period of great religious and political turmoil and intolerance. Men were unable to meet together without differences of political and religious opinion leading to arguments. Opposing views split families and the English civil war of 1642-6 was the ultimate outcome. As their central idea was one of building a better society they borrowed their forms and symbols from the operative builders craft and took their central allegory from the Bible, the common source book known to all, in which the only building described in any detail is King Solomon’s Temple. Stonemasons tools also provided them with a multiplicity of emblems to illustrate the principles they were putting forward. The formation of the premier Grand Lodge in 1717 had been followed, around 1725, by the Grand Lodge of Ireland and, in 1736; the Grand Lodge of Scotland. These three Grand Lodges did much to spread Freemasonry throughout the world, to the extent that all regular Grand Lodges throughout the world, whatever the immediate means of their formation, ultimately trace their origins back to one, or a combination, of the Grand Lodges within the British Isles.” (http://www.mastermason.com/jjcrowder/ history/history.html)

That’s a pretty good overview of the history of Masonry. I don’t really have much to add. It used to be taught that the Masons began with the stonemasons working on Solomon’s Temple, but history has not born that out. We can only trace it back as far as the late 1300s. Could it be somewhat older than that? Sure, yeah. Does it date back thousands of years? That’s highly doubtful.

However, that doesn’t mean that certain elements of Freemasonry can’t stretch back that far into the past. Certain signs and symbols could predate the Freemasons by quite some time.

Church leaders claim that the connection between Masons and Mormons date back to the stonemasons who built Solomon’s temple in the Old Testament.

That’s not exactly true. Certainly no contemporary leaders are making any such claims. Additionally, Faulk reads more into their statements than they actually said.

“Modern Masonry is a fragmentary presentation of the ancient order established by King Solomon. From whom it is said to have been handed down through the centuries. …that he was not sorry there was such a similarity, because of the fact that the ordinances and rites revealed to Joseph Smith constituted a reintroduction upon the earth of the divine plan inaugurated in the Temple of Solomon in ancient days. Masonry is an apostasy from the ancient early order, just as so-called Christianity is an apostasy from the true Church of Christ” (Elder Melvin J. Ballard, The Salt Lake Herald, December 29, 1919)

This citation is impossible to corroborate online. Some of this information was found by me, and some by my friend, Reddit user WooperSlim. The long and short of it is, the Salt Lake Herald may or may not have existed in 1919. It was founded in 1870 and lasted until 1909, when it merged with the Inter-Mountain Republican to form the Salt Lake Herald Republican. That combined paper only lasted until 1918. It appears as though it potentially reverted back to the Salt Lake Herald from July of 1918 to July of 1920, but this is the only source I can find stating this and those archives are not online anywhere that I can find. Neither Newspapers.com nor Utah Digital Newspapers has the relevant dates. And the existing archives for the Salt Lake Herald show that in 1909, the paper ended in August, not December, so it’s not just a tiny typo in the year, either.

When googling the quote, every single citation I can find is copied from a book called Mormonism and Masonry: Origins, Connections and Coincidences Between Mason and Mormon Temple/Templar Ritual by S.H. Goodwin. No one has the primary source documents available. The archives may be available on microfilm somewhere, but again, this can’t be corroborated by any other source than the one cited above.

So, I can’t verify this quote at all, nor do I know what was removed by that ellipsis. I don’t even know for sure who that “he” was who was supposedly not sorry for any similarities. If anyone can locate the primary source document that this quote came from, please let us know.

As far as Masonry being a fragmentary part of the ancient order established King Solomon in the temple, the Lord did confirm ancient Hebrew origins of the Endowment rites and rituals. As Matthew B. Brown explains in his book, Exploring the Connections Between Mormons and Masons:

The nature of the Nauvoo Temple ordinances was plainly spelled out by the Lord before they were introduced among the Saints and before Joseph Smith was received into the Masonic fraternity. At the beginning of 1841, the Lord said that Nauvoo Temple activities would be a restoration of rituals once practiced in the Tabernacle built by the prophet Moses and the temple constructed by King Solomon (seeD&C 124:37–39). In other words, they would be Hebrew in their basis and content, not Masonic. And this points to another historical fact that needs to be remembered. The Kirtland Temple rituals were a precursor of the Nauvoo Temple ordinances. The Kirtland washing and anointing ceremonies predated Joseph Smith’s Masonic membership by six years and four months, and they were specifically, and contemporaneously, linked—by the Saints themselves—to the initiation rites experienced by the priests of ancient Israel. Again, the basis and content of these ceremonies was Hebrew, not Masonic.

And if you follow that link to the scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord explains that those ordinances are “from before the world was.” So, the ordinance—the endowment and covenants and teachings—is older than the foundations of the world. But the rites and rituals may not be that old. At the very least, they have some origins in ancient Israel, but we don’t know exactly when they were created or what those elements were that are taken from those old rituals.

“We have the true Masonry. The Masonry of today is received from the apostasy which took place in the days of Solomon, and David. They have now and then a thing that is correct, but we have the real thing.” (Heber C. Kimball, Heber C. Kimball and Family, The Nauvoo Years. Brigham Young University Studies. 1975, p.458)

This is a quote I can verify, because this is a great paper that I have cited many times myself.

As we can see from these words, Heber C. Kimball believed—as was common in his day—that Masonry was handed down from the days of Solomon. He believed that our Endowment ceremony was the perfected version, while the Masons had a corrupted version. We know now that he was wrong, at least in the belief that Masonry is that ancient.

However, at no point did Kimball ever say that the connections between the Mormons and the Masons extended back to the days of Solomon. He believed, as we all do, that this Church was restored to the Earth after a long absence. He also believed that apostate groups had been around since the days when the real temple rites were being performed in Solomon’s Temple, and that those apostates handed down those rites and rituals over the centuries. During that time, those rituals became just as corrupted as the rest of the doctrines of the true and living Church of Christ had become. In short, he believed that those connections between true temple rites and apostate ones were severed back in the days of Solomon and not restored until the days of Joseph Smith.

We don’t know when those temple rituals were last performed with true authority. We can’t trace them from the beginning of recorded history down until today. We don’t know where the Masons really learned them. There are ancient Christian practices that are similar to Masonic ceremonies, such as some signs and symbols of the Catholic liturgy. There is some evidence that early Christians had the Endowment. And Masonic tradition was rooted in early Christianity before becoming a completely secular organization.

But if Christ did teach true temple ordinances to the early Christians (and they did worship in temples for decades after the Resurrection, until the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem), there’s still a gap of about 1200 years where we don’t know for sure how those signs and symbols were passed down. Aside from the ones that are similar to Catholic tradition, of course.

The thing we need to take away from Kimball’s comments, however, is that long before he became a Mason, Joseph Smith knew that he was being allowed to restore very, very ancient ordinances, going back to the days of Adam. Even more than that, the Lord Himself declared that those ordinances, and the way in which they are performed, have existed since “before the foundation of the world.”

We don’t know which elements of the temple ceremony are ancient and which are purely Masonic inventions. But we do know that Joseph received knowledge of the temple ordinances well before he ever became a Mason. As Brian Hales explains, “Freemasonry in Nauvoo offers too little, too late to serve as the starting point and principal source of inspiration for the major doctrines and teachings relating to priesthood and temple ordinances. … Given Joseph Smith’s reluctance to share the details of the most sacred events and doctrines publicly, it is certainly possible he received specific knowledge about some temple matters even earlier than can be now documented. These matters include: 1) the narrative backbone, clothing, and covenants of the modern temple endowment, especially as described in the book of Moses (1830-1831); 2) the sequence of blessings of the oath and covenant of the priesthood described in D&C 84 (1832); and 3) priesthood keys and symbols expressed in keywords, names, signs, and tokens (from 1829).”

Matthew Brown elaborates on all of this in his book:

The theory that Joseph Smith took ritual elements from the Freemasons in order to create the LDS temple ceremony is principally founded upon the concept of time. Supporters of this theory argue that since the Prophet joined the Masonic fraternity shortly before he introduced the Nauvoo endowment among the Saints—and because there are similarities between the two sets of ceremonies—the leader of the Mormons must have been guilty of unacknowledged borrowing from the Masons….

In the years 1829 and 1830, Joseph Smith produced two scriptural texts containing numerous ritual elements that would become familiar to recipients of the Nauvoo endowment. Chapters 2–6 in the book of Mosiah, chapters 11–18 in the book of 3 Nephi, and chapters 2 and 3 in the book of Ether should all be compared with each other in order to see the relevant repeating pattern in the Book of Mormon. Then this same pattern should be sought for in chapter 1 of the book of Moses while chapters 2–6 of the same volume can be examined for other patterns that were employed in Nauvoo. In 1834 some portions of the book of Moses that were later incorporated into the Nauvoo-era temple liturgy were interwoven into Lecture on Faith #2 (cf. D&C 29:34–45)….

In mid March 1839, the Prophet wrote in a letter, “I never have had [the] opportunity to give [the Saints] the plan that God has revealed to me,” and later that year he taught one of the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles “many great and glorious principles concerning God and the heavenly order of eternity,” including the concepts of the “eternal union” of marriage and “eternal family organization.”

In September 1840, the First Presidency of the Church issued an epistle wherein they declared that the dispensation of the fullness of times would be an era when “all things” would be restored and the promises made to the fathers would be fulfilled. They said that they had been “given the pattern and design” for upbuilding God’s kingdom on the earth and announced that the time had arrived for “establishing the Priesthood in their fullness and glory.” They also indicated that it was time to build a temple in Nauvoo, and it would serve as a house of worship, prayer, and divinely established “ordinances.” At the October 1840 general conference of the Church, the Prophet discoursed on baptism for the dead one day and on the “plan of ordinances” that had been revealed to Adam or the “Ancient of Days” or “Michael” the next day. Some of the themes of this second sermon included premortal time, the creation, the Garden of Eden, and the Fall; the “keys” and “covenants” and power and glory with which God blessed Adam; the instructions, revelations, and commandments that the Lord gave to the first man; “the priesthood [being] restored with all its authority, power, and blessings” (i.e., in all its fullness) in the dispensation of the fullness of times, “every ordinance belonging to the priesthood” in “ancient days” being practiced within the Nauvoo Temple; priesthood “keys” that have been kept hidden; the mysteries of godliness; and certain kinds of sacrifice being made at an altar by latter-day sons of Levi (i.e., temple officiators) but after a pre-Mosaic or Melchizedekian type. All of this, said the Prophet, was “the order from the beginning” or the “order which [God] established … whereby He sent forth power, revelations, and glory.”

Jeffrey Bradshaw and K-Lynn Paul trace much of that early history prior to 1836 in this fantastic paper for the Interpreter Foundation. From their research, it’s pretty clear that Joseph had a wealth of knowledge about temple ordinances before the Kirtland Temple was finished, well before he became a Mason in Nauvoo in March of 1842.

Moreover, the temple covenants themselves have ancient origins that greatly predate the Masons, and so do many of the symbols and tokens we learn inside the temple. LDS Living also mentioned a few symbols that were described before Joseph became a Mason. Additionally, Greg Kearney gave a list of apparent similarities between Latter-day Saints and Masons, and explained why they aren’t as striking as they might seem.

So, in my mind, there’s not really much here backing up Thomas Faulk’s assertions.

He continues:

Unfortunately for the Church, Freemason historians cite its origins to the late 14th to early 15th century in Scotland as a trade guild, not 950 BC in Jerusalem.

That’s not “[unfortunate] for the Church.” The Church doesn’t base any of its history, doctrines, or temple ordinances off of the history of Freemasonry.

President Kimball and Elder Ballard appear to be mistaken about the origins of masonry and thus the Church’s historical connection for the endowment ceremony.

No. Heber C. Kimball was mistaken about the origins of masonry, that’s true. But he wasn’t wrong about the Church’s “historical connection for the Endowment ceremony.” Knowledge of the Endowment and of everlasting marriage were both known to Joseph, who was teaching the principles of at least some of those ordinances to the people well before 1842. We don’t know exactly when it was all unfolded to him, but he was learning portions of the doctrine at least as far back as 1829.

What it appears that Joseph did do, since we’re pretty far into this post and it hasn’t come up naturally yet, is adapt portions of a Masonic ritual he was familiar with into an aide for teaching the Endowment to the Saints.

Joseph was tasked by God to write the Endowment ceremony, apparently without much instruction on how to write it or teach the concepts and principles, and include the signs and tokens and symbols he needed to include. He seems to have used the ritual drama he saw in Masonic ceremonies as a jumping-off point to tell the narrative of eternal progression during the Endowment ceremony. They are not identical, and they are used in completely different ways to teach completely different things. That’s important to understand. But it does appear that he saw the ritual drama and believed he could alter and repurpose it to fit what he needed to achieve for the Endowment:

There are some short word phrases and actions used in the temple ceremony that are similar to word phrases and actions used in masonry, but the masonic word phrases and actions are not related to the themes, teachings, or covenants made in the temple. Even those places where actions are similar, they have completely different meanings. Joseph seems to have taken some of the actions and completely repurposed them. It is also interesting to note that the similar short phrases that are currently used are not critical phrases in the endowment ceremony. When the endowment ceremony was first performed in Nauvoo, it was much longer. As it has been shortened over the years, the Masonic-like phrases have been almost entirely removed.

At this point we have to stop and talk about the nature of revelation. Brigham Young said “When God speaks to the people, he does it in a manner to suit their circumstances and capacities. …Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to rewrite the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be rewritten, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation.”

Revelation comes from God, but comes through men. Too often we think that whatever comes out of the mouth of an apostle or prophet must be exactly what God said, word for word. But, if that were true, we wouldn’t have so many wonderful airplane analogies coming out in General Conference. Our language becomes filtered by our experience. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and many members of the Church in Nauvoo were familiar with the language of Masonry. So one would be very surprised if it didn’t crop up in their writings and teachings.

Those ritual aspects of the Endowment can and do change fairly often. There was a change earlier this year, even. That ritual is not the important, ancient part that’s been around since before the foundations of the world. The ritual is just the wrapping paper, and you can unwrap your gift and rewrap it in a variety of different wrappings without changing the gift, i.e., the ordinance/covenant/endowment of power.

So, to me, it doesn’t really matter what Joseph was inspired by when he was creating the ritual, because the ritual is just the teaching method. It’s just the packaging. It was his way of using a familiar vehicle that many of the Saints were accustomed to as a means for introducing the concepts found in the Endowment.

As Steven Harper explains:

So, here’s what it all really boils down to: yes, there are some elements of Masonic ceremony in the endowment. But those elements link back at least to early Christianity, and some are far older than that. Additionally, those elements are small things, like signs, tokens, symbols, minor phrasing, and the fact that there’s a ritual drama to teach us important lessons. They do not include the lessons themselves or the ordinances and covenants.

Joseph had been receiving revelations concerning the endowment since at least 1829 and parts of it were instituted in Kirtland, well before his arrival in Nauvoo. He said back in 1839 that he’d never had the chance to teach the Saints all that had been revealed to him. It seems to me as though the endowment had been revealed to him, but that the time was not ready to reveal it to the Saints at large until they were in Nauvoo. Once there, he didn’t know how to teach it to them until he attended some Mason meetings and realized what a valuable teaching method it could be. He adapted some elements and used others he recognized were of ancient origin, and an early form of our modern endowment was created.

God speaks to each of us in ways we’ll understand. Sometimes, that’s done through adapting things we’re already familiar with to teach us divine concepts. That’s precisely what He did with Joseph’s seer stones—He used something Joseph was familiar with to teach him how to receive revelation.

Is it really so surprising that Joseph would then adopt that same method to teach the eternal principles of the Endowment to the Saints by using Masonic elements they were already familiar with?

The post Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 14: The Early Church – The Endowment [A] appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Evangelical Questions: “What Apostasy?”by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC

Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about the Apostasy. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.

Our scripture this week comes from Matthew 16:18:

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

On the one hand, what a fantastic, reassuring scripture. And on the other hand, you can immediately see how there is a lot of debate about what this actually means. And I’ll be honest, Latter-day Saint friends, some of the ways we talk about the apostasy are adding to the confusion and I think as we go along you’ll be able to see what I’m talking about.

So, first off, I will tell you, when I was an Evangelical the apostasy and the accompanying restoration were the hardest concepts for me to understand. This is the spot in our conversation where it is easiest to see the phenomenon that if you ask a fish to describe water he can’t do it – he has no idea what it means to be without water, so he really has no idea what to compare water to. I took missionary lessons for 9 months and we talked about the apostasy many times, but it was hard for the missionaries to get much past, “the apostasy happened and that’s why we need a restoration.” And even when pressed they could only cite a couple of points in Church History where things were especially bad, usually having to do with the pre-Reformation Catholic Church. But from the Protestant point of view, the pre-Reformation Catholic Church is a blip in a 2,000+ year landscape where God has always been active on the Earth. Honestly, during those lessons, my thought to myself was, “Well, these are young kids who are high school graduates and haven’t studied much history so they are simply unaware of the vastness of Christian history.” But once I started to understand what they were actually saying – and it took me an embarrassingly long time for that to actually click – I started to see that this was a case where Latter-day Saints are using the same language to mean something slightly different. For me, at the end of the day, the nuances of how our church is using that language are better. It’s theologically fuller and more hopeful than the Protestant/Evangelical meanings. And I will also say that this is probably one place in which my formal theological education probably made it harder for me than it would for the average person simply because I was able to see all of the knowledge the missionaries couldn’t and had a hard time reconciling what they were saying with the truth of Christian history. So today I want to talk about the terms we use when talking about the apostasy and help you see how Evangelicals hear them so that maybe you can help someone else short-cut through the difficulties I had.

We’ve talked in many episodes of this series about how Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints use the same words differently sometimes and that fuels the confusion between us. You might not be aware but there is a niche dictionary called the Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Theology which gives us a definition that Evangelicals would agree on. Baker is the publisher and it’s a nice, thick 1,000-page dictionary. So we’re going to draw on that a bit.

First, let’s start with the word “apostasy.” Evangelicals don’t use this word a lot, but it’s probably in their vocabulary and according to Baker’s it would mean, “Defection from the faith, an act of unpardonable rebellion against God and his truth. The sin of apostasy results in the abandonment of Christian doctrine and conduct.” And this gets used in two ways.

First, and probably most common, is that apostasy is something an individual person does after making a covenant or decision to follow Christ. “He went off the rails into apostasy.” Basically, a person who used to believe the right things, but no longer does.

Second – and you’ll see that this is where the confusion comes in – this word can be applied to large groups of people. They see widespread apostasy as an eschatological sign – meaning a sign of the end times signaling the second return of Christ is near. So if the whole world goes into apostasy, the return of Christ is near. Here is how they get there. Just like us, Evangelicals can read the Old Testament and see that constant pride-cycle. The Israelites follow God for a while, then they start to prosper and fall away from God, then God allows bad things to happen to them and they get back in line. They see this as a prototype of what will happen before the second coming of Christ. They base this on 2 Thes 2:3 “Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day (the return of Jesus Christ) will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction.” In that verse, they hear that an apostasy absolutely will happen, but only in the future, and only right before Christ comes again. So when we say, “the apostasy happened” it just doesn’t compute for them because if an apostasy happened, surely Christ would have come again.

Another term that causes some confusion here is “priesthood.” Now there is a lot to say about priesthood, and we’ve got several episodes coming up on that. When talking about the apostasy Latter-day Saints would say, this comes straight from the Church’s website, “(After Jesus Christ ascended back to Heaven)…The Apostles were killed, and priesthood authority—including the keys to direct and receive revelation for the Church—was taken from the earth. Because the Church was no longer led by priesthood authority, error crept into Church teachings.”

That word “priesthood” throws them here because they define it very differently than we do. Again, according to the Baker dictionary priesthood is defined in 4 ways. The priests we see in the Old and New Testaments; the priesthood of all believers; the post-resurrection ordained priesthood which is modernized into, “being a pastor”; the priesthood of Jesus. So when they hear us say, “the priesthood was lost from the face of the Earth” it doesn’t make sense because 1) Clearly that statement can’t be talking about the priests of the Old and New Testaments. 2) It can’t be talking about the priesthood of all believers because believers in Christ have existed on the Earth since his resurrection, which has never gone away. They’re not wrong about that. 3) It can’t mean that pastors don’t exist because clearly, they do. 4) And it can’t mean that Jesus is no longer our great high Priest. So even though they have 4 definitions of “priesthood” available to them, they can’t work out what we’re talking about when we say that the priesthood authority was taken from the Earth.

For Latter-day Saints, there are two additional meanings of priesthood that Evangelicals don’t easily see. Those are 1) Priesthood is the power and authority of God. It has always existed and will continue to exist without end. 2) In mortality, priesthood is the power and authority that God gives to man to act in all things necessary for the salvation of God’s children. Both of those are straight from the church’s website. It’s the power of God, given to humans in certain circumstances to do stuff.

Evangelicals get really nervous right here – and this might sound funny to your Latter-day Saint ears – but they hear that as a very Catholic concept. They have no conceptualization of the idea that certain actions like baptism would need to be done in certain ways, by certain people, according to God’s law. That is not a concept for them. Instead, they would say something like: We take the principle of baptism and contextualize it into our specific culture and there are no absolute rules about how that must be done. It’s sort of a “pragmatism wins” approach to theology. Evangelicals are very pragmatic, for better or for worse. The idea that a person might need to wait to be baptized because baptism requires someone who bears the priesthood is nonsense to them. They would have a kind of “hero cowboy” approach of: Well, I would jump right in and baptize that person who cares about your rules.

There’s a prototype here much earlier in American religion than the Evangelicals. You’ve certainly heard of the Methodist Church. They invented this attitude. Back in the 1700’s, pre-Revolutionary war, the Church of England whose members are called Anglicans was very well established in the colonies, but because all the senior leadership was still headquartered in England things moved very slowly for the Anglicans in America. When the Revolutionary War ended in 1783 the Anglican leaders in America were ready to start spreading out further and reach people who were living outside of the cities. Westward expansion wasn’t really in full swing yet, but it was starting and the Anglican leaders wanted to develop churches in outlying places. Their leaders in England made it hard for them – feelings were still pretty sensitive as the war had only been over for a few months. So 2 Anglican brothers, John and Charles Wesley become very frustrated and want pragmatic solutions for how the American churches could self-govern and make decisions about where and how to Evangelize. The Anglican leadership in England said no, so the Wesley brothers started the Methodist church primarily so that they could figure out how to reach people who lived outside of the established cities at that point. They needed and wanted practical solutions. It was sort of a, “Well, I don’t actually need your permission Leaders in England. Goodbye.” And Evangelicals inherited that attitude from them. It’s: you can’t tell me what to do; I don’t need your authority; I can innovate solutions without you getting in the way. It’s very, very American in that sense. And it is a high value for them to solve problems without bureaucracy. So when we say something like, “ordinances require proper authority” they hear “I want to put bureaucracy in your way.”

One final definition I want to touch on is kind of more of a cultural issue than a literal definition issue. From the same article on the church website talking about the apostasy we get, “Because the Church was no longer led by priesthood authority, error crept into Church teachings. Good people and much truth remained, but the gospel as established by Jesus Christ was lost. This period is called the Great Apostasy.” Now, how that sometimes gets taught by members in our church is something closer to, “Absolutely everything from God was removed from the Earth and no evidence of his presence could be found.” And this is maybe were we could be a little more careful with how we say things because that’s actually pretty insulting to the many people who have loved Christ and been faithful to God in the best way they could ever since Christ’s resurrection. In every era of history, we can find that people who love God are alive and well. It’s going to cause some real confusion for Evangelicals if you try to suggest that is not true. And it’s quite needless to suggest that every bit of God’s presence was removed – because that’s not even what our church is teaching, as evidenced by the quote I just read. But still, culturally, some members of the church are still saying it that way.

I hope you enjoyed this conversation about the apostasy and hopefully, you understand a bit more about why this gets muddled between Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints, and maybe some ideas about how to talk more clearly about these ideas because this is one area where our church really does have a lot of goodness to offer.

Join us next time and we’ll take up another topic. I hope to see you then.

More Come, Follow Me resources here.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 15–17; Mark 7–9 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Before we get started, I need to make a quick correction on last week’s post. I misread something and gave you guys some inaccurate information. Regarding a John Whitmer interview that was published after his death, I said that his brother David disputed the interview. David Whitmer actually disputed the contents of his own interview given that same year to the same person. Sorry for the mix-up!

However, John’s interview does still conflict with every other account given on how the Eight Witnesses saw the plates. Therefore, it should still be taken with a grain of salt—particularly since David claimed his interviewer reported things he never actually said. We’ll be discussing this disputed interview shortly.

The two topics at the end of this Witnesses section have nothing at all to do with one another. To be honest, I don’t even know why Faulk placed either of them under the “Witnesses” subtopic. So, my apologies if this post comes across as disjointed. I’m not sure yet how to transition from one topic to the next, so we’ll just run with it and see what happens.

The first topic on the agenda today is what happened to the plates after the translation was complete:

Where Are The Plates Now?

After completing the Book of Mormon Joseph had no more use of the plates and he gave up possession of them.

It’s a small thing to nitpick, but I don’t know that I’d have personally phrased in it quite that way. I’m sure Joseph still had plenty of use for them, and they would’ve been a handy evidence of what he was saying. But the plates did bring him great hardship, so I can also see why he may have been relieved to hand them back over once and for all.

Wilford Woodruff records,

“President Young said in relation to Joseph Smith returning the plates of the Book of Mormon, that he did not return them to the box from where he had received them. But he went into a cave in the Hill Cumorah with Oliver Cowdery and deposited those plates upon a table.” (Wilford Woodruff, Leaves From My Journal, December 11, 1869)

Before discussing this journal entry, there are some sourcing issues here. Leaves From My Journal is not organized by date, but by topic. A search of the full text from Project Gutenberg shows that the words “Hill Cumorah” do not appear anywhere in this book, so this is not the source where this quote was taken from. It does come from Wilford Woodruff’s journal from December of 1869, but it’s unclear where Faulk lifted this quote from.

The full quote actually reads as follows:

President Young said in relation to Joseph Smith returning the Plates of the Book of Mormon that He did not returne them to the Box from where He had Received But He went im a cave in the Hill Comoro with Oliver Cowdry & deposited those plates upon a table or shelf & in that room were deposited a large amount of gold plates containing sacred records & when they first visited that Room the sword of Laban was Hanging upon the wall & when they last visited it, the sword was drawn from the scabbard & lew upon da table & a Messenger who was the keeper of the room informed them that that sword would never be returned to its scabbard untill the Kingdom of God was Esstablished upon the Earth & untill it reigned triumphant over Evry Enemy Joseph Smith said that Cave contained tons of choice Treaas~~s~~ures & records [sic]

There are numerous such accounts from early Saints, and Faulk follows this excerpt with one from that disputed David Whitmer interview given in 1878:

In an interview, David Whitmer recalls:

“Interviewer – Where are the plates now?

Whitmer – In a cave, where the angel has hidden them up till the time arrives when the plates, which are sealed, shall be translated. God will yet raise up a mighty one, who shall do his work till it is finished and Jesus comes again.

Interviewer – Where is that cave?

Whitmer – In the State of New York.” (David Whitmer, Deseret Evening News, August 16, 1878)

The original letter asking David questions about this interview has been lost to time. All we have is his response, so it’s not clear which facts are in dispute:

“As to what you Say about the correspondence published by P Wilhelm Poulson M.D. August 20th, 1878. I surely did not make the Statement which you Say he reports me to have made, for it is not according to the facts. And I have always in the fear of God, tried to give a true statement to the best of my recollection in regard to all matters which I have attempted to Explain. And I do not now remember of talking to Mr Poulson on the subject referred to.”

What that subject is, we don’t know. There’s a bit in the interview about Martin Harris that conflicts with every other account of the Three Witnesses, so I assume it’s probably that portion, but Whitmer never said so directly. It’s just a guess.

Because we don’t know what he disputed, we need to treat this entire interview with caution. And since Poulson’s interview with David’s brother John also has discrepancies with every other known account, it’s probably safe to say that Poulson is not a reliable source.

According to Wilford Woodruff and David Whitmer, it seems as though they are still here on the Earth in a cave in the Hill Cumorah.

Clearly, Faulk did not actually read this account, because—assuming the account is accurate the way Faulk does—David Whitmer directly contradicts this statement immediately following the quoted portion of the interview:

I—Where is that cave?

He—In the State of New York.

I—In the Hill of Cumorah?

He—No, but not far from that place….

David very clearly says that the plates are not in the Hill Cumorah.

However, again, this account has been disputed, and there are multiple other accounts declaring the same thing—that the Hill Cumorah opened up, and Joseph and Oliver walked in and deposited the plates inside a room filled with a ton of other records, as well as the sword of Laban.

Brigham Young stated it in the Journal of Discourses, for example:

…This is an incident in the life of Oliver Cowdery, but he did not take the liberty of telling such things in meeting as I take. I tell these things to you, and I have a motive for doing so. I want to carry them to the ears of my brethren and sisters, and to the children also, that they may grow to an understanding of some things that seem to be entirely hidden from the human family. Oliver Cowdery went with the Prophet Joseph when he deposited these plates. Joseph did not translate all of the plates; there was a portion of them sealed, which you can learn from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. When Joseph got the plates, the angel instructed him to carry them back to the hill Cumorah, which he did. Oliver says that when Joseph and Oliver went there, the hill opened, and they walked into a cave, in which there was a large and spacious room. He says he did not think, at the time, whether they had the light of the sun or artificial light; but that it was just as light as day. They laid the plates on a table; it was a large table that stood in the room. Under this table there was a pile of plates as much as two feet high, and there were altogether in this room more plates than probably many wagon loads; they were piled up in the corners and along the walls. The first time they went there the sword of Laban hung upon the wall; but when they went again it had been taken down and laid upon the table across the gold plates; it was unsheathed, and on it was written these words: “This sword will never be sheathed again until the kingdoms of this world become the kingdom of our God and his Christ.” I tell you this as coming not only from Oliver Cowdery, but others who were familiar with it, and who understood it just as well as we understand coming to this meeting, enjoying the day, and by and by we separate and go away, forgetting most of what is said, but remembering some things. So is it with other circumstances in life. I relate this to you, and I want you to understand it. I take this liberty of referring to those things so that they will not be forgotten and lost….

And again, remember that we need to take the JoD with a grain of salt, because much of it was altered from the speakers’ original words by the reporters.

But this story was repeated by W.W. Phelps, Heber C. Kimball, Orson Pratt, and others in addition to David Whitmer, Wilford Woodruff, and Brigham Young. Some said they heard it directly from Oliver Cowdery, one from Hyrum Smith, one from Don Carlos Smith, etc. Because there are so many accounts from so many reputable sources, we do have to consider this story as possible.

Joseph himself merely had this to say in the Joseph Smith—History:

…But by the wisdom of God, [the plates] remained safe in my hands, until I had accomplished by them what was required at my hand. When, according to arrangements, the messenger called for them, I delivered them up to him; and he has them in his charge until this day, being the second day of May, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight.

The Manuscript History of the Church skips straight from the translation “drawing to a close” in June of 1829 to a revelation from March of 1830, ignoring the return of the plates altogether.

And, according to Lucy Mack Smith:

After these [Eight] witnesses returned to the house, the angel again made his appearance to Joseph, at which time Joseph delivered up the plates into the angel’s hands.

So, from Joseph’s own words, all he says is that he returned the plates to Moroni. But from multiple second- and thirdhand sources, the story emerges of Joseph and Oliver returning the plates to the cave in the Hill Cumorah, sometimes with Hyrum and others joining them, and sometimes alone.

Surely the Church must be in possession of the plates as there is a visitor’s center at the Hill Cumorah.

Well, no. The Hill Cumorah in New York is almost certainly not the Hill Cumorah/Ramah from the Book of Mormon. Because the hill in New York is a drumlin made of gravel and dirt, it’s geologically impossible for it to hold a cave of the size needed to hold all of the Nephite records. Any cave of that size would collapse in on itself.

Mormon makes it clear that he buried all of the other Nephite records at Cumorah, not the golden plates. Moroni wandered for more than 30 years after losing the battle at Cumorah. Why would he go back just to bury the plates, when he could have buried them anywhere? It makes far more sense than he eventually made his way to New York by the direction of the Spirit and buried them in the hill in New York, where they waited for Joseph to be led to them.

And just because the Church has a visitor’s center at the hill we call Cumorah doesn’t mean they’ve done full excavations of the hill and have everything from inside it in their possession. What a silly argument. Besides, the Book of Mormon prophesies that the plates will be returned after they’re translated, and after the witnesses come forth to testify of its truthfulness:

Wherefore, when thou hast read the words which I have commanded thee, and obtained the witnesseswhich I have promised unto thee, then shalt thou seal up the book again, and hide it up unto me, that I may preserve the words which thou hast not read, until I shall see fit in mine own wisdom to reveal all things unto the children of men.

As far as the cave itself goes, it’s an interesting set of questions. Did that event happen the way the second- and thirdhand sources claim, or was it simply a hand-off to Moroni? If it did happen, where is the cave? What else is in there? And most importantly, when will we have access to the records and other artifacts inside?

Personally, I believe that the cave does exist and that Joseph and Oliver did place the plates inside when they returned them to Moroni. I believe, due to the composition of the hill in New York, that this event was one of two things: either a purely visionary, symbolic experience, or, much more interestingly, a literal, physical transportation to the original Cumorah.

1 Nephi 11:1 says:

For it came to pass after I had desired to know the things that my father had seen, and believing that the Lord was able to make them known unto me, as I sat ponderingin mine heart I was caught away*in the Spirit of the Lord, yea, into an exceedingly high mountain*, which I never had before seen, and upon which I never had before set my foot.

Maybe Joseph and Oliver were also “caught away in the Spirit of the Lord” and went somewhere they never had before seen, and upon which they never had before set their feet. The cave repository they stepped into seems to be the original Cumorah, and it seems to still be intact. We don’t know where that hill is, and that is probably with very good reason. The Lord is keeping it hidden from the knowledge of man until the time is right to bring the contents forth, as He promised He would.

And to me, that is just such a cool idea. That’s probably why I lean toward it, if I’m being honest, but it is what I believe likely happened. To me, it accounts for all of the evidence.

Switching topics now, we’re going to move on to the succession crisis after Joseph’s death. I told you there was no easy way to segue between the two!

Here’s what Faulk had to say about this topic:

The Succession Crisis

For roughly six months after Joseph and Hyrum Smith’s deaths, several people competed to assume the role as prophet and leader of the Church. Claiming to be the new rightful successor were: Sidney Rigdon, Brigham Young, James Strang, Samuel Smith, William Smith, Joseph Smith III and others.

Just to clarify, Joseph Smith III was a child and did not make this claim in the months after Joseph Jr.’s death. Some of his family members felt the position should be reserved for him until he was old enough, however. And he did obviously believe that the position had been given to him when he was an adult, but he did not publicly vie for the position as an 11-year-old boy.

After several hours of searching, I also can’t locate any instance where Samuel Smith put himself forward as the successor to Joseph or Hyrum. He was the one who retrieved their bodies from Carthage, and he had to evade a violent mob in order to arrive there. He wounded his side during the melee, and upon his return to Nauvoo, became very ill. He died about three weeks after Joseph and Hyrum did. The closest I can come to corroborating him as a potential successor is a note copied from William Clayton’s Nauvoo diaries and eventually published by who was then a BYU grad student named Andrew Ehat. According to Ehat’s Master’s thesis, when discussing who might take over as leader of the Church:

That [Newell K.] Whitney did not have in mind either of the two surviving members of the First Presidency, he made perfectly clear to Clayton, for he concluded his interview by saying that “Joseph…said that if he and Hyrum were taken away, Samuel H. Smith [the Prophet’s brother] would be his successor.” The week before, however, Lucy Mack Smith wanted Samuel to be the Patriarch.

I can’t corroborate this further with Clayton’s Nauvoo diaries, because while the Church Historian’s Press has announced that they will be published and transcribed, this has not yet happened.

And, just so we’re all clear how murky this information is, Newell K. Whitney reported it to Clayton, who recorded it in his journal. From the notes and comments about the Clayton diaries on the By Common Consent blog, it appears that historians James B. Allen and Dean Jessee transcribed the diaries either independently at the same time, or while working together on the project. Ehat apparently took his notes from the Allen/Jessee transcripts, not from the diaries themselves.

So, this one little nugget of information is coming to us at least fourth-hand, possibly fifth-hand if Ehat went through both Allen and Jessee to get the information. At this point, be cautious in taking that declaration of Joseph’s to be anything more than just a rumor. But even if he did say it, Joseph named several people as his successor at different times, and it was not his decision to make. It was the Lord’s.

Brigham Young also didn’t present himself as the next leader of the Church. Instead, he put forward the combined efforts of the Quorum of the Twelve, because together, they held all of the Priesthood keys necessary to lead the Church. In his journal, he wrote:

The first thing which I thought of was, whether Joseph had taken the keys of the kingdom with him from the earth; brother Orson Pratt sat on my left; we were both leaning back on our chairs. Bringing my hand down on my knee, I said the keys of the kingdom are right here with the Church.

The others on Faulk’s list, however, did indeed make a claim to Joseph’s now-vacated role.

Sidney Rigdon, first counselor in the First Presidency to Joseph Smith, argued that by virtue of revelation from the Prophet himself, he should be rightful heir to Joseph’s position.

Doctrine and Covenants 20:6:

And again, verily I say unto thy brethren, Sidney Rigdon and Frederick G. Williams, their sins are forgiven them also, and they are accounted as equal with thee in holding the keys of this last kingdom.

Um. Not exactly. D&C 20:6 actually says:

But after repenting, and humbling himself sincerely, through faith, God ministered unto him by an holy angel, whose countenancewas as lightning, and whose garments were pure and white above all other whiteness;

It’s about Joseph Smith and Moroni, not Sidney Rigdon. Faulk apparently meant to cite D&C 90:6 instead.

This revelation was given in March of 1833, 11 years before Joseph’s death. While Sidney was a member of the First Presidency all that time, Joseph did try to remove him but was outvoted. The historical record of Joseph’s reaction to this outcome is in dispute. The Times and Seasons reported that Joseph was glad of the outcome and hopeful that Sidney would rise up again to his calling. The History of the Church, however, says that Joseph washed his hands of the situation and of Sidney. It’s unclear which is the most accurate description or why the record was changed.

The other details, though, are correct. Sidney did use that revelation, as well as several others, in his attempts to wrest control of the Church away from the Twelve. He was obviously unsuccessful in this attempt.

James Strang asserted that, unlike the others, he had physical proof of his prophetic calling. He produced a 3-page letter, supposedly written by Joseph Smith, naming Strang as successor. While the wording of the letter is somewhat ambiguous and the handwriting does not match Joseph’s, it still convinced many members of the Church to follow Strang. Included were all the members of the 3 and 8 witnesses, and all members of the Smith family including Emma, except Samuel, and Joseph Sr.

Again, this is not very accurate. Yes, James Strang did indeed produce this letter and make those claims. However, there were also two exposés written by people who claimed to help him perpetrate his hoaxes.

It would have been pretty difficult for Samuel or Joseph Sr. to join Strang’s church, since both of them were dead by that point. And Oliver Cowdery never joined Strang’s church, either. There is only actual evidence of three of the Witnesses or Smith family members believing any of his claims: Martin Harris, John Whitmer, and William Smith—and all of them were short-lived. David Whitmer was listed as an antagonist by Strang himself. Katharine Smith Salisbury later disputed that any of the female members of her family ever followed Strang either, and any evidence to the contrary was manufactured during a time when they were consumed by grief. Emma also rejected Strang’s claims, as she initially favored Sidney taking over until her son was old enough to do it himself. After Sidney backed out of the fight, she remained religiously unaffiliated until her son joined the Reorganized Church of Latter-day Saints.

Fighting between individual competitors lasted 3 years until the most senior member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Brigham Young, was voted “President of the whole Church of Latter Day Saints” by the remaining members of the Twelve.

Three years? Not exactly, no. That vote took place on April 7th, 1845, 10 months after Joseph’s death. And on February 4th of that same year, they’d already voted Brigham “president of the Kingdom of God” and “legal successor of president Joseph as our head.” It wasn’t publicly known yet, but that’s when it happened.

While Joseph Smith and five others were imprisoned at Liberty Jail in Missouri, his young son, Joseph III, was brought to visit on several occasions. Imprisoned with Joseph was apostle Lyman Wight. Lyman did not agree with Brigham’s new position as leader of the Church because he witnessed Joseph Smith ordain his oldest son, Joseph III, to be his successor.

“Joseph called on me shortly after we came out of [Liberty] jail to lay hands with him on the head of a youth and heard him cry aloud, ‘You are my successor when I depart,’ and heard the blessings poured on his head. (Lyman Wight, Saints Advocate, Vol.7, September 1884) Who was the youth Lyman referred to? “The fifties assembled should have called on all the authorities of the church down to the lay members from all the face of the earth, and then have called on young Joseph, and held him up before the congregation of Israel to take his father’s place in the flesh!” (Lyman Wight, Gospel Herald, Voree, WI, August 31, 1848)

Yes, Lyman Wight did claim that he’d witnessed this blessing take place. Joseph III did also remember receiving a blessing when he visited his father in Liberty Jail, but was too young to remember its contents. The issue is, however, that Lyman Wight had a habit of reading his own wishes into revelations, according to Wilford Woodruff. He ignored conditional blessings and misremembered the wording of other blessings. That makes it impossible to know whether he was interpreting the blessing correctly or not. It may have been something of a patriarchal blessing or a father’s blessing, and not the Priesthood ordination Wight claimed it was. Because we don’t know what was said, and because Heavenly Father made His wishes known as to the identity of Joseph’s successor, we know we can’t accept the naming of Joseph III as Joseph’s successor as being valid.

None of the 3 scribes of the Book of Mormon, Emma Smith, Sidney Rigdon and Oliver Cowdery, wanted to be affiliated with the new Brigham Young-led Church. None of the 3 Witnesses wanted to be part of Brigham’s Church and none of the 8 Witnesses did either. While Samuel Smith and Joseph Sr. did not end up leaving the Church like the rest, it is important to note that the Church was financially supported them at the time. While Samuel Smith and Joseph Sr. did not end up leaving the Church like the rest, it is important to note that the Church was financially supported them at the time.

There were at least seven scribes for the Book of Mormon, as we covered a few weeks ago, and Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, both scribes, were also both rebaptized into the Brigham-led Church. Of the Eight Witnesses, all three Smith family Witnesses were dead by the time Brigham and the Twelve took over after Joseph’s death. So were Christian Whitmer and Peter Whitmer, Jr. That leaves a grand total of four Witnesses who were alive at the time of Joseph’s death and who never returned to the Church.

As for the claim that the Smith family members were being financially supported by the Church, I searched for an hour and didn’t find anything to support that claim. Thomas Faulk certainly didn’t present any evidence to back up his words.

Samuel Smith was an industrious farmer and a Nauvoo city alderman, among other things. Joseph Smith, Sr., was both financially devasted by the fall of the Kirtland Safety Society and in declining health for several years before he passed, so it’s entirely possible that the Church did support him financially for a time. But, whether true or not, I personally suspect that Joseph being their family member had a lot more to do with them supporting his calling as a prophet than anything else did.

Context
No scribe was allowed to see the plates.

Sure, unless you count Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, Christian Whitmer, John Whitmer, and Samuel Smith, all of whom were Book of Mormon Witnesses as well as scribes during the translation.

All of the witnesses saw the plates spiritually, not physically.

Sure, if you discount every firsthand account any of them ever made.

Signatures of the witnesses are the handwriting of Oliver Cowdery.

Sure, because the only full manuscript that still exists today is the printer’s manuscript, which was a copy made by Oliver and delivered to the printer in order to keep the original manuscript safe.

All witnesses of the plates left the Church; save 2 members of the Smith family.

Sure, unless you also count Hyrum Smith, who was a Witness and who didn’t leave the Church. Peter Whitmer, Jr. and his brother Christian both died as faithful members before the rest of their family left the Church, too. And let’s not forget that Oliver and Martin both later returned to the Church despite leaving for a time. Only four of the eleven Witnesses left and never returned in this lifetime, and none of them ever recanted their testimonies despite their differences with Joseph. They each continued to testify of the truthfulness of the statements they signed until the day they died.

How much credibility can we give the testimonies of those that have claimed to see the plates when the records show that it was seen in visions, not physically as the Church teaches? How much trust can we put in the statements of these witnesses when all of them that weren’t being financially supported by the Church ended up leaving?

Well, since none of those objections are true, I personally happen to think they have a lot of credibility. When I think about all that those men endured—the beatings, the near-death experiences, personal and professional blows, the loss of their reputations, in some cases the loss of their families and even their lives—the fact that they stood by their testimonies through everything tells me that they are men of integrity who were telling the truth about the things they saw and experienced. I find them to be entirely credible.

The post Letter For My Wife Rebuttal, Part 10: The Early Church – The Witnesses [C] appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Evangelical Questions: “Certain Women”by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC

Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about Women and their role in the church. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.

Today’s verse comes from Luke 8:1-3:

Soon afterward he went on through cities and villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. And the twelve were with him, 2 and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, 3 and Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s household manager, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them out of their means.

So here we have Jesus and his disciples going around doing what they do – and we also have a group of women who are supporting them financially, and though the text doesn’t say it they were probably offering lots of other practical means of support as well. And so the question presents itself about the role of women in various churches. This is not an easy question answer on a number of fronts, but one of the most complicating factors is that “Evangelical Churches” are not 1 single entity. “Evangelical” is not a denomination or formal group. Evangelicals are a subset of Protestants whose tradition and way of thinking developed about 75 years ago – around the time when the Billy Graham crusades began. But they can be of any denomination – like Baptists or Methodists – or they can be of no denomination at all. So when we say, “What is the Evangelical stance on women?” there is no one single answer to that. There are some general trends and I’ll talk about those, but there are also lots of exceptions. Explaining our LDS understanding is complicated for other reasons. Unlike Evangelicals who have a decentralized structure, we have a very centralized structure so the official list of what women can and can’t do isn’t hard to identify – the difficult thing for us is that there are a lot of feelings around this. And I’ll talk about that a little today too.

The Evangelical View on Women

First, let’s gain some understanding on how Evangelicals view women and why they see it like they do. And the first thing I’ll say is that I’m not talking about the characteristics of Evangelical women. The reality is that they’re not all that much different than Latter-day Saint women in many ways. They love Jesus, they serve their families and community tirelessly, and they want good things for their children. But I’m going to talk about how they’re viewed in their churches, what they’re allowed to do, and why.

I want so badly to be able to explain this to you in a simple way by saying, “there are two groups, and here is what they think,” but the on-the-ground reality is very different than that. I’m going to tell you how I understand it, even though it’s a bit messier. And I know that even though this series is aimed at Latter-day Saints that we have some Evangelical friends who are listening along and I’d love to hear your experience on this issue in the comments – there really is a wide variety of how this plays out here.

So, according to the Pew Research Center roughly 10% of American churches (in all their varieties) will ordain women and allow them to take the top leadership position in a church. And about half of those are Evangelical churches. So a pretty small minority of churches will say that women can be the lead pastor in a congregation. Of the largest 100 Churches in America – churches that have between 10,000 and 40,000 members (a few outliers have up to 100,000 members) 3 have a woman in the senior role, and 4 others have had one in the past, but not now. So the number of churches that have women in top leadership positions is very small, and we’re going to set that group aside for moment. The only reason I really point them out is that sometimes I think Latter-day Saint women look at other churches with a sort of misunderstanding that they all have women who are allowed to do as much as they want, and that’s just not true.

Public Role of Women

Of all the remaining churches, which is the vast majority, there are limits on what women are allowed to do, but those limits vary from church to church. Latter-day Saint women might find it amusing to hear that is that many, many of those churches women are not allowed to speak (meaning teaching or preaching) in a public service. I say that’s amusing because we let 12 year-old-girls teach us on Sunday morning on a regular basis. So sometimes when I hear Latter-day Saint friends complain about women not having enough of a role I just chuckle to myself because right out of the gate girls and women in our church already have a greater role than in many places. Churches that have this practice – women not being allowed to teach a mixed group in public – are doing so because they are trying to obey their understanding of Paul in the New Testament when he says, “a woman should remain silent in the church.” They take that very literally – this doesn’t mean that all of them like it, but they get respect for trying to take scripture seriously.

In other churches women are allowed to speak or teach, but they are restricted from doing other things like bless and serve communion, or perhaps are restricted from being on a governing board or something similar. And here is where women in our church have a lot in common with Evangelical women as girls and women in our church do not do these things either. And it is probably fair to say that Evangelical women have mixed feelings about this just as Latter-day Saint women do. And they manage those feelings much like women in our church do.

In terms of public worship outside of speaking/teaching Evangelical and Latter-day Saint women are pretty similar. In both traditions women are frequently found leading worship – for us that looks like a song leader helping the congregation with hymns, and for them it might look like a praise-band on a stage. In both traditions women are often found doing things like teaching Sunday School, leading youth, planning events, coordinating various service efforts, and more. We sometimes joke that our church would not run without the Relief Society, well their churches wouldn’t run without the women who do the equivalent work.

Ordination

When it comes to ordination it’s an interesting view. Many Evangelical churches don’t even practice ordination, so it’s not an easy comparison to make. Of those who do, they think about it differently. Ordination is usually not about being able to lead priesthood ordinances. There are a few minor exceptions to this and those have to do with who is authorized to do something like perform a wedding. But for the most part ordination is a process through which the community recognizes that a certain person has a call to some kind of ministry and they become ordained as a way for the congregation to say that they will sustain this person in their call. In function this is what we do too. I know that there are women – some whom I like and respect a lot – that would feel really frustrated with that explanation because they feel using the word “ordained” is important. And I sympathize with that pain. But in function, the callings that women experience in our churches work the same way that ordination works in most other churches. It’s recognition that someone is going to be filling a role and the community pledges their support.

Interestingly enough, Evangelical women do not usually receive this formal kind of calling and declaration of support or sustaining. If the 3rd grade class needs a Sunday School teacher, a woman might volunteer, get a bit of training and some materials to use, and that is that. There is no calling and setting apart, no sustaining. While we don’t use “ordination” language for women in our church, the apples-to-apples comparison puts us in a situation that is often better than is recognized.

Heavenly Mother

Another difference to point out is that only the most liberal of Evangelical or Protestant churches would talk about having a Heavenly Mother. And to be fair, it’s not like we know a lot about how to do with her or even have a very developed theology around her – but we do have the concept of her. The only comparison that comes close for Evangelical women is that they can sometimes talk about God having feminine qualities – maybe a reference to the verse about Jesus being like a “mother hen gathering her chicks under her wings.” But it stops there. Before I joined our church I did not know that Latter-day Saints had a belief in a Heavenly Mother. The way I found out went like this…I wasn’t even studying with the missionaries yet, but I wanted to visit a LDS service and just see what it was like. It happened to be Father’s Day. We sang the hymn “Oh my Father,” and I was shocked to see the line about, “I have a Mother there.” But I think I told myself that it was only a song and didn’t think too much about it. But one of the speakers that day was a middle aged man whose children were teenagers. He talked about the work of being a father with all its rewards and challenges, and admitted that he could not have begun that journey in any way without his wife. And then he said something like: It’s just like our Heavenly Father…a Mother is required for someone to become a Father and aren’t we grateful to have a Heavenly Mother.” To say that I was shocked was an understatement. Only the most liberal of liberal churches would talk about God in that way. I was very confused. Later I messaged a friend to ask about it – the only sense I could make of it was that this idea must have belonged to that individual man and he was saying something provocative but it was based in his own belief and logic – it couldn’t possibly be a teaching of the Church.

The Two Trees

Before we are done here I want to make one recommendation. I know this is a tough topic for some women in our church. If nothing else I hope this comparison has helped you see that when you compare like-to-like, we actually have quite a bit to be very pleased with. And still, I think any of us can struggle from time to time. And I have a thought for something that might help.

On the FAIR website (and YouTube channel) there is a talk called The Two Trees by Dr. Valerie Hudson. Dr. Hudson is a member of our church and also a professor at Texas A&M in the Department of International Affairs, previously she taught at BYU. Her list of impressive credentials is longer than my arm. I say all of that to say that this woman is no dummy. She is incredibly impressive. And she gave a talk called The Two Trees that addresses this topic so well. It’s a long and dense talk. I won’t do justice to it with this summary but her main point is that both men and women are required in this work. Without a woman (Eve) the whole human project would have never got off the ground. And without another woman (Mary), Jesus Christ could not have come to save us. But men have their role too. Without the man Jesus Christ we would be stuck in our sin forever. And without a priesthood bearing man we have no ability to accomplish ordinances. It took women to usher us into this world, and it takes men to usher us into the next. If this is at all interesting to you please go listen to Sister Hudson’s talk. It was the single most helpful thing for me to get all of this settled in my head.

So there you have it. There are many similarities – and some important differences between Latter-day Saint women and Evangelical women. I hope this conversation encouraged your faith and sparks something in you to learn more.

Join us next week and we’ll tackle another topic from the New Testament.

More Come, Follow Me resources here.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 13; Luke 8; 13 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Evangelical Questions: No Authority Needed?by Jennifer Roach, MDiv, LMHC

Welcome back to Come Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful answers to New Testament questions. My name is Jennifer Roach and today we’re going to talk about Authority. As you know we’re going through the Come Follow Me readings and addressing common questions that Evangelicals ask about our faith as we go along. Our purpose here is not to fuel debate but to help you understand where your Evangelical friends and family are coming from so that you can have better conversations with them, and perhaps even be able to offer them a bit of our faith in a way they can understand.

Today’s verse comes from Luke 9:1-2:

Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases. And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.

Why Authority?

A common Evangelical question that would come up here is something like: Why are Latter-day Saints obsessed with authority? In our church authority comes straight from Jesus.” And it’s interesting because there are several spots in this week’s readings, and in the readings coming up, where Jesus’ authority is questioned. People want to know under what authority he is doing this or that. And in our church we talk a lot about authority…proper authority…priesthood authority…general authorities. Who has authority to do what is an important question to us. We would say its part of how Jesus Christ has ordered his church. Evangelicals see questions of authority differently. I want to explain how they see authority and what they mean by it, so that we might see a way our church’s point of view might be thoughtful or a blessing to them.

First, I need you to set aside, just for a minute, the worry about the Bible being corrupted and translated incorrectly. Yes, those are true, but if that is your whole focus in conversation about the Bible you’re going to be butting heads with Evangelicals and not seeing a way to understand them, or to let them see the beauty in our beliefs. So, yes, there are issues in the Bible’s translation and transmission process. We will just let that sit to the side for a moment. In this video I want you to think of the parts of the Bible that are inspired, that truly show God, that are translated correctly – all the best parts of the Bible.

And this topic gets a little heady – and we need to geek out a bit to get to the point – stay with me there is a pay off, I promise.

If you’ve been following along with these videos you are starting to see that because Evangelicals hold a certain set of values, they prioritize different concepts differently.

When Evangelicals use the word “authority” it’s usually in the context of, “the authority of scripture.” And they put a lot of effort and priority into demonstrating how and why the Bible is the source of authority. They have a sincere desire to live in a way that is resisting the pull of culture (to some degree) and place themselves under the authority of scripture. This value goes all the way back to the earliest Protestant roots. At least part of what the Reformation was about was the question: Who or what gets the final say? Is it the Pope? Who?

The Reformation

Prior to the Reformation (which was not a singular event, but a process over many years) authority was contained in the Catholic Church. Few people had access to a physical Bible, few could read, and frankly few had time to devote to study as their lives were primarily about doing what needed to be done to sustain life. Leisurely sitting and studying the scriptures is not easily compatible with agrarian life. So before the Reformation the Catholic Church holds all the authority. The scriptures mean what they say it means – very few people could open up their Bible and check their work. And it wasn’t just Martin Luther who saw some of the contradictions between what the text said, and what the Catholic Church taught that the text said. Plenty of priests saw this, some were even writing about it. But it took a Martin Luther to have the courage to take the argument public. And he does it in spectacular fashion – and with excellent timing. If he had been born even 100 years earlier his argument wouldn’t have mattered much because there was no way to get scripture into the hands of average folks since the printing press had not been invented. But Luther comes along and makes a good point at a time in history when there is technology to actually apply it. And all of this is a very good thing. However, what happened when the Bible itself was given ultimate authority, and the church took a back seat. Anyone with enough education to read could access the Bible – their level of understanding the context of what they were reading didn’t matter much because the Bible itself was the ultimate authority. As long as they read with as “plain” a reading as they could, the Bible could replace the authority of the priest. This is referred to as Sola Scriptura – meaning “Scripture alone” has the final say. Today’s Evangelicals very much follow in this tradition. The idea for them is that God is the ultimate authority, and he has given us a book, therefore that book has to have authority too.

Did God come to us as a Book? Or did he send a Son?

But here’s the problem. We don’t say, “God so loved the world that he sent us a book.” That feels pretty cold, a bit lonely, kind of disconnected. We say, “God so loved the world that he sent us his son.” Sending his son came with all kinds of messiness and pain and difficulty, but the experience Jesus had while on Earth was very human so that is to be expected. It just seems odd that God would go to this great, messy length to send us a Son, and then expect those who come after that Son to be given a book to represent him and whose authority to follow, and not an actual real-live human being who can act in his authority.

We believe, as the first 1500 years of Christianity believed, that the authority to act in Christ’s name is best located in a human being who can understand the messiness of life – not in a book. Further – without even talking about the problems with translation and transmission of the Bible – all written words have to be interpreted. You have to take the written word and understand what it means. This requires a human mind. There is no bypassing this where God just dumps words straight from his mouth into your head. (Michael Ash’s book, “Rethinking Revelation: The Human Element in Scripture” is 700 pages explaining why this is true if you’re interested.) God’s project of communicating to us has to involve humans. Evangelicals want to place it in an object, a book.

What is the Authority of the Bible?

And it’s easy to see how some problems develop right away when a book is the container for God’s authority on the Earth, instead of a human being who represents him. The biggest question seems to be, How can an ancient narrative text hold authority over modern people who do not understand the culture and context from which it came?

Here is what Evangelicals do, and it’s interesting, they simply open the scripture, read what it says, and apply it to themselves. The end. Or so they think. They understand themselves to be doing a “plain reading” of scripture, and that they have within themselves all that is needed for understanding – anyone who understands differently is at best dull-minded, and at worst outright evil. But most of the Bible is not a list of things to do and things to avoid, or even a list of things to be believed. It’s a story, a narrative. And even when it lists things to be believed or things to do, those are in the context of some story. But if you can’t understand the story, you have no way to understand the do’s and don’ts. It can kind of be a grab-bag approach – just reach into the text and pull out some meaning, doesn’t really matter if it was ever intended to apply or not.

A low view of Scripture

Evangelicals then think about the Bible as something that represents God – He has placed his authority into the Bible. When they say, “authority of the Bible” it’s a kind of short-hand for, “God has authority and he has vested it into the book we call the Bible. We can turn to the Bible to learn what we need to learn.” But we think of it sort of the other-way around. And it’s the same point that NT Wright makes in some of his writing. We would say that according to the Bible itself authority is vested in God – and God gets to decide what to do with it – and the narrative of the Bible shows us, over and over, that God vests it in his representatives. To say that God now vests the authority in a book takes a complete left-turn away from where the story of the Bible is leading you. It’s actually a very low view of scripture because what it’s saying is that: God’s plan within the pages of the Bible is to cooperate with humans to do his work, but we feel ambivalent about that, so we’re going to change the plan and let God place it all in a nice neat book, not a messy human race. By taking the authority away from where God was pointing it, we disrespect him and the very book he gave us.

So what about your Evangelical friends? They want – desperately want – to get things right about God. And having everything all neat and tidy inside a book seems like a good way to do that. So they remove authority from human leaders and place it in a book. They’re trying to keep things “pure” and not let the humans mess them up. That’s an understandable desire and goal. But it’s not God’s desire. God partners with us to create, to organize, and to lead. And to remove authority from the humans God partners with, and placing that authority in a book might feel safe, but it’s not because it’s not God’s plan.

In other words, Jesus gives authority to his apostles in this story. That’s what we read in Luke 9. Evangelicals are saying, “That’s scary because humans mess things up – remember the Reformation.” And they’re not wrong. But the answer isn’t to change God’s way of operating in the world, the answer is to try and get better at following the very pattern the Bible has laid out for us – listening to God’s representatives on the Earth. The Evangelicals desperately want to have a high view of scripture. But they undermine themselves because they’re pivoting away from scripture when they place the Bible as God’s partner instead of the humans God has decided to partner with. Think of it this way, the Bible is kind of like a 5-act play…Creation, the Fall, the story of Israel, Jesus, and then the book we call, “The Acts of the Apostles,” where the gospel is taken to the ends of the Earth. And that is the stage we’re still in. We don’t call it, “The Acts of the Book.” Books don’t commit acts. They’re objects. Everything in the Bible is intended to teach us how to carry on the story of the Bible, and that includes placing authority in humans, not books.

I hope you’ve enjoyed this episode. Come back next week and we’ll look at some more.

More Come, Follow Me resources here.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR: Faithful Answers to New Testament Questions – Matthew 9–10; Mark 5; Luke 9 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Malachi and Turning the Hearts of the Children to Their Fathersby Craig Foster

While the Book of Malachi is the last book of the Old Testament, it is certainly not the least in terms of the eternal teachings within the book. The name Malachi means “My Messenger” and the Malachi certainly fulfilled the purpose of his name in his prophetic calling as he discussed the end-time which is currently being fulfilled.[1]

Malachi is filled with passages regarding pure and righteous offerings, repentance, and preparing for the Second Coming. But by far, the most important teaching contained within this concluding Old Testament book is the fourth and final chapter in which the reader is warned, “the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.”[2] Root refers to our ancestry while branch refers to posterity.

In other words, as Elder Jeffrey R. Holland explained, without proper eternal links, “no family ties would exist in the eternities, and indeed the family of man would have been left in eternity with ‘neither root [ancestors] nor branch [descendants].’”[3] All would be destroyed, leaving those who have experienced mortality without not only ancestors and heritage, but also posterity and name. Holland continued, “Inasmuch as such a sealed, united, celestially saved family of God is the ultimate purpose of mortality, any failure here would have been a curse indeed, rendering the entire plan of salvation ‘utterly wasted.’”

But when the reader is left wondering if all is for naught, comes the most powerful and beautiful promise of Malachi. In the final two verses:

5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord:

6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.[4]

When the Angel Moroni visited Joseph Smith, he quoted Malachi with a slight but significant variation:

Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.

And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.[5]

The Prophet Joseph Smith explained, “Now, the word turn here should be translated bind, or seal.”[6] Thankfully, the sealing powers were restored on the 3rd day of April, 1836 by the visitation of the prophet Elijah to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland Temple. President Russell M. Nelson explained, “The earth was created, and this Church was restored so that families could be formed, sealed, and exalted eternally.”[7]

What is bound on earth can and will be bound in heaven when performed by priesthood power in temples of the Lord. In an epistle from Joseph Smith giving further directions on baptism for the dead, he stated, “It may seem to be a very bold doctrine that we talk of—a power which records or binds on earth and binds in heaven.”[8] Relationships no doubt created in the premortal existence and continued in mortality will also continue in our post-mortal existence.

These eternal bonds are generational and multidimensional “for we without [our deceased loved ones] cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect.”[9] President Joseph Fielding Smith taught, “What was the promise made to the fathers that was to be fulfilled in the latter days by the turning of the hearts of the children to their fathers? It was the promise of the Lord made through Enoch, Isaiah, and the prophets, to the nations of the earth, that the time should come when the dead should be redeemed.”[10]

As we seek after our dead and perform the necessary saving ordinances, we are blessed. As Elder Gerrit W. Gong explained, “Connecting with our ancestors can change our lives in surprising ways. From their trials and accomplishments, we gain faith and strength. From their love and sacrifices, we learn to forgive and move forward. Our children become resilient. We gain protection and power. Ties with ancestors increase family closeness, gratitude, miracles. Such ties can bring help from the other side of the veil.”[11]

Truly, as we turn our hearts to our ancestors by searching after our deceased ancestors and performing the saving ordinances in temples of the Lord, we will feel the Spirit of Elijah which is the Holy Ghost and His guiding us as we participate in family history and temple work. Everyday, millions, and soon billions, on both sides of the veil benefit from Elijah’s restoring the sealing powers as prophesized in the Book of Malachi.

More Come, Follow Me resources here.

The author would like to thank Suzanne L. Foster and David S. Young.

[1] See “Malachi” at https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/come-follow-me-for-individuals-and-families-old-testament-2022/51?lang=eng.

[2] Malachi 4:1.

[3] Jeffrey R. Holland, Christ and the New Covenant: The Messianic Message of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1997), 297–98.

[4] Malachi 4:5-6.

[5] Joseph Smith—History 1:38-39.

[6] Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2007), 472.

[7] Russell M. Nelson, “Celestial Marriage,” October General Conference, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2008/10/celestial-marriage?lang=eng.

[8] Doctrine and Covenants 128:9.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Bruce R. McConkie, comp., Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1954–56), 2:154.

[11] Gerrit W. Gong, “We Each Have a Story,” April 2022 General Conference, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2022/04/26gong?lang=eng.

Craig L. Foster earned a MA and MLIS at Brigham Young University. He is also an accredited genealogist and worked as a research consultant at the Family History Library in Salt Lake City for over thirty years before retiring in December 2021. He has published multiple books and articles about different aspects of Mormon history, including co-editing the Persistence of Polygamy series with Newell G. Bringhurst and co-authored American Polygamy: A History of Fundamentalist Mormon Faith with Marianne T. Watson. Craig is also on the editorial board of the John Whitmer Historical Association Journal.

The post Come, Follow Me Week 51 – Malachi appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

General Conference is now just 2 days away! It will be held October 1-2, and will have morning and afternoon sessions on Saturday and Sunday, along with an evening session for everyone on Saturday. More information is available here. In preparation, we are doing a daily countdown with posts from different people explaining how they […]

The post FAIR’s Countdown to Conference – 2 Days! appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Seven years ago, a FAIR conference presentation identified a harmful ideology among some members of the Church of Jesus Christ. It claims that God gives revelations, visits, and special priesthood ordinations to individuals outside of church leadership, and that faithful church members should follow and obey those individuals, and believe the truth of their purported […]

The post Evaluating Claims that Contradict the Prophets appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Scriptural Mormonism Podcast Episode 14, cross-posted with permission. Robert Boylan interviews Brian Hales and Craig Foster about Mormon Fundamentalism and the Netflix show “Keep Sweet: Pray and Obey,” and specifically comparing FLDS to LDS, and Warren Jeffs to Joseph Smith. Also join us at the 2022 FAIR Conference where Craig Foster will speak on “Under […]

The post Keep Sweet: Pray and Obey – Mormon Fundamentalism with Brian Hales and Craig Foster appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Trying to Serve the Lord Without Offending the Devil By Nick Galieti (Originally published on February 11, 2015 as part of our “Rise Up” podcast for youth) When it comes to living our lives, we have a lot of choices placed before us. We have our choice of schools to attend after high school, or even […]

The post Come, Follow Me Week 22 – Joshua 1–8; 23–24 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Rejecting the Living Prophets by Following Future Prophets by J. Max Wilson (Adapted from his post at Sixteen Small Stones) One of the key doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that we have living prophets and apostles today who are authorized by God to receive revelations for the Church and […]

The post Come, Follow Me Week 20 – Numbers 11-14; 20-24 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

This podcast series features past FAIR Conference presentations. This presentation is from our 2021 conference. If you would like to watch all the presentations from that conference, you can still purchase the video streaming. Derek Sainsbury, “We mean to elect him”: Electioneer Experiences during Joseph Smith’s 1844 presidential campaign Derek’s book, Storming the Nation: The Unknown […]

The post FAIR Conference Podcast #79 – Derek Sainsbury, “We mean to elect him”: Electioneer Experiences during Joseph Smith’s 1844 presidential campaign appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

The Abrahamic Covenant, Its Influence on Scriptures, and What that Has to Do with Us by Kerry Muhlestein, author of God Will Prevail: Ancient Covenants, Modern Blessings, and the Gathering of Israel The Abrahamic covenant is a central theme of the Old Testament, and really of all scripture. Every prophetic writer, whether in the Old […]

The post Come, Follow Me Thoughts to Keep in Mind – The Covenant appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

This podcast series features past FAIR Conference presentations. This presentation is from our 2021 conference. If you would like to watch all the presentations from that conference, you can still purchase the video streaming. Jennifer Ann Mackley, Discovering Church History: The Wilford Woodruff Papers Project Jennifer’s book is available from the FAIR Bookstore. Jennifer Ann […]

The post FAIR Conference Podcast #77 – Jennifer Ann Mackley, “Discovering Church History: The Wilford Woodruff Papers Project” appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

[Reprinted with permission from The Interpreter Foundation] by Taylor Halverson “Noah built an ark; and…the Lord smiled upon it.” (Moses 7:43) Introduction The great cataclysmic[1] flood wherein “Noah…prepared an ark to the saving of his house” is one of the most well known stories in the Judeo-Christian world. It is story that most of us can remember […]

The post Come, Follow Me Week 6 – Genesis 6–11; Moses 8 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

The Two Trees by V.H. Cassler (This is from a presentation given at the 2010 FAIR Conference) The Restored Gospel teaches me that the term “God” means an exalted woman and an exalted man married in the new and everlasting covenant (and we also get that from D&C 132). We are taught that there is […]

The post Come, Follow Me Week 3 – Genesis 3–4; Moses 4–5 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

This biography of Dallin H. Oaks was written by Richard E. Turley, Jr., who has been associated with Oaks throughout most of his (Turley’s) professional life. Turley has served as the Director of the Church History Department (originally selected to work for the department by Oaks), Assistant Church Historian, and Director of Public Affairs. He […]

The post Book Review: “In the Hands of the Lord: The Life of Dallin H. Oaks” appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

We Believe All that God Has Revealed by Cassandra Hedelius On social media and other discussions, it’s very common for LGBT activists/allies to invoke the ninth Article of Faith. They take for granted that the church’s teachings on marriage and sexuality are wrong, and assert that God will soon change them. After all, “we believe […]

The post Come, Follow Me Week 50 – Articles of Faith and Official Declarations 1 & 2 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

What Do We Do with Section 132? By Brian C. Hales Doctrine and Covenants section 132 is undoubtedly the most controversial of all of Joseph Smith’s revelations because it mentions the practice of plural marriage. Ironically, it is also one of the least discussed of all of Joseph’s official teachings for the same reason. The […]

The post Come, Follow Me Week 46 – Doctrine and Covenants 129-132 (additional post) appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Reading D&C 107 as a Daughter of Eve by V.H. Cassler D&C 107 contains many interesting elements. We learn Noah was ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood when he was but age 10, for example. We learn quite a lot about various levels of hierarchy in the Church, differences between the lesser and greater priesthoods, and […]

The post Come, Follow Me Week 39 – Doctrine and Covenants 106–108 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Priesthood Power by Wendy Ulrich Doctrine and Covenants Section 84 is designated by Joseph Smith as a revelation on priesthood. Although several sections of the Doctrine and Covenants discuss priesthood administration, offices, organization, and ordinances, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes priesthood, in its fullest sense, is the very power of God, […]

The post Come, Follow Me Week 31 – Doctrine and Covenants 84 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

A House of Order, a House of God: Recycled Challenges to the Legitimacy of the Church by Cassandra Hedelius (This is from a presentation given at the 2015 FairMormon Conference) I. Introduction to Mormon Gnosticism Apologetics is a very broad field and different topics can involve extremely different audiences. My topic today is a little […]

The post Come, Follow Me Week 18 – Doctrine & Covenants 45 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

by John Gee Many years ago, a friend reported to me on a mutual friend’s conversation with his bishop. Our mutual friend wanted to ordain his twelve-year-old son to the Aaronic Priesthood. The bishop said to him: You do not believe that angelic messengers appeared to Joseph Smith. What exactly do you think you will […]

The post Come Follow Me Week 7 – Doctrine and Covenants 12–13; Joseph Smith—History 1:66–75 appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Valerie M. Hudson is a University Distinguished Professor and holds the George H.W. Bush Chair at The Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University, where she directs the Program on Women, Peace, and Security. She has previously taught at Brigham Young, Northwestern, and Rutgers universities. Her research foci include foreign policy […]

The post FAIR Voice Podcast #28: Valerie Hudson on Women and the Priesthood appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Hanna talks with Tarik D. LaCour about his experience as a Black man in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, coming to terms with the priesthood ban and how he has faith in our Latter-day prophets. The official position from the Church is that we don’t know why there was a priesthood ban. […]

The post FAIR Voice Podcast #23: Race and the Priesthood with Tarik D. LaCour appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

2020 Interpreter Foundation Conference Tracing Ancient Threads in the Book of Moses September 18-19, 2020 Brigham Young University, Tanner Building, Room 251 (If temporary COVID-19 restrictions preclude gathering on campus, we will hold the conference virtually. For late-breaking news, watch this website.) Presented by The Interpreter Foundation Brigham Young University Department of Ancient Scripture […]

The post Tracing Ancient Threads in the Book of Moses appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

Newel Knight lived from September 13, 1800 to January 11, 1847. He met Joseph Smith in 1826 and remained close friends with him until Joseph’s death. He was directly involved in some of the early events in church history, so his autobiography and journals are valuable to historians. However, these have only been available in […]

The post Book Review: The Rise of the Latter-day Saints: The Journals and Histories of Newel Knight appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

As my contribution to your home centered study of 1 and 2 Thessalonians this week, I theorize about what happened to early Christianity after the death of the apostles. As leadership in the early Church transitioned from apostles to local bishops, the priesthood keys[1] bestowed on Peter(Matthew 16:19) and the apostles (Matthew 18:18) were lost. […]

The post A Guide to the First Century Apostasy appeared first on FAIR.

View Details

This podcast series features past FairMormon Conference presentations. This presentation is from our 2019 conference held in August. If you would like to watch the presentations from our 2019 conference, you can still purchase the video streaming. Wendy Ulrich, Women, Men, and Priesthood Power Transcript available here. Wendy Ulrich, Ph.D., M.B.A., has been a psychologist […]

The post FairMormon Conference Podcast #45 – Wendy Ulrich, “Women, Men, and Priesthood Power” appeared first on FAIR.

Priesthood Archives - FAIR: Recent Episodes

FAIR