When is a Plan not a Plan?

Class, the Teacher has been very busy at work lately. I realize that this post is coming too late to help anyone teaching the lesson tomorrow, and I apologize. I will try to do better in the future.

Lesson 19 is a little unusual in the Doctrine & Covenants curriculum in that, well, it does not really come from the Doctrine & Covenants. The lesson is on the Plan of Salvation, and while it quotes from the D&C, it contains a lot of material from other sources, including the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price and Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.

I got wondering about why this was and realized something about the Plan of Salvation that I had never really focused on before: The Plan of Salvation is the great framework of our belief system. But, it was never really presented to Joseph Smith as a framework. He did not receive a revelation on “The Plan of Salvation.” It was never presented to him (that we know of from his writings and statements) as a coherent system of doctrine. It was never presented as a plan.

Sure, the Book of Mormon talks about the plan of salvation (or happiness, or redemption, or mercy). But the “plan” in the BoM is about the fall and the atonement. There is a suggestion of some kind of premortality, because this “plan” was laid from the foundation of the world. The BoM also talks about foreordination (Alma 13), and certainly covers death, judgment and resurrection fully.

There are other sources of material for the the Plan of Salvation, too. When Joseph received the Book of Moses over a series of months in 1830, he learned a lot about the creation, the fall and the atonement. There was even a passing discussion of the War in Heaven and premortality. “The Vision” (Section 76, received in 1832) spells out the three degrees of glory, one of the defining characteristics of the LDS view of Salvation. Section 93 of the D&C (received in 1833) expressly states that “[m]an was also in the beginning with God,” making clear that we lived before we were born into mortality. The Book of Abraham, translated in 1835, provides details about the War in Heaven, the pre-existence and foreordination. Salvation of dead surfaces in 1836 with Section 136, and in the 1840s, when Joseph starts discussing baptism for the dead and temple work.

From all these disparate parts emerges a plan. At some point, Joseph perceived these mosaic pieces as the Plan of Salvation, “one of Heaven’s greatest gifts to mankind,” and taught that it “should occupy our strict attention.” (See Sunday School Manual at 106). This makes it all the more interesting to me that the Plan of Salvation came to us the way it did. A piece at time. Maybe line upon line?

I love the Plan of Salvation. It is one of those bedrock beliefs that is foundational to my world view. I would wager that most members of the Church feel that way. So, what do you make of this funny way of presenting The Plan? What does it say about revelation? About the restoration? About the Plan?

Poll: Have you Ever Experienced a D&C Section 9 Stupor of Thought?

I know this appears to be a blatant attempt to generate traffic. It is that. But I am also kicking around a post idea (and a SS class discussion) on Section 9 of the Doctrine & Covenants and personal revelation. So, take the poll and leave your comments.

Oliver Cowdery was Punked!

When you hear the name Oliver Cowdery, you probably think of the story that culminates in the revelation that became Section 9 of the Doctrine & Covenants. This section uses Oliver as a (bad) example of how to seek and receive personal revelation.

But, the poor guy. I can't help but thinking that Oliver felt a bit like the rug was pulled out from under him. In sections 6 and 8, the Lord seems very encouraging of Oliver's desires to help with the work and even to actually translate. "If you ask of me, you will receive; if you knock it shall be opened unto you" the Lord says. (6:5). "Even as you desire of me, so it shall be done unto you" the Lord says (6:8). "If thou wilt enquire, thou shalt know mysteries," Oliver is promised. (6:8). Whatsoever you shall ask me . . ., that will I grant unto you," the Lord tells him. (8:9). Then, the Lord gets very specific. He tells Oliver that if he asks to translate, by his faith "it shall be done unto [him.]" (8:11).

How could Oliver not feel like it was done deal? Oliver Cowdery was no slouch in the personal revelation department. He learned of the Prophet Joseph and the translation of the Book of Mormon while living with the Smith Family. He prayed for his own confirmation of the truth and saw the plates in a vision, before he ever met Joseph. Clearly, he was a very faithful, believing person. Why else would he essentially abandon his life to go help translate the Book of Mormon?

But we know the rest of the story. Oliver tries to translate, and fails. The Lord famously tells Oliver that he did not get it; it was not just going to be given to him. Oliver had to work for it. He needed to study it out and seek confirmation. (9:7-9). "Behold, you have not understood; you have have supposed that I would give it to you when you took no thought save it was to ask me." (9:7).

Huh? What is going on here? Despite my ironic title, I do not think God fooled Oliver Cowdery. God is by definition just and fair. But, I can tell you this: I am not as faithful a person as Oliver Cowdery. And, I have already mentioned that I am pretty lazy. If Sections 6 and 8 had been directed to me, I would have assumed that I was going to get what I wanted if I asked. Why did the Lord put Oliver in this situation?

Book of Mormon as Prophetic Boot Camp

I mentioned that I would share some thoughts about the importance of the Book of Mormon. I am kind of intrigued by what a demonstrably powerful force, despite few obvious doctrinal deviations for the bible and Christianity in general. For me, there is something pure and powerful about its teachings on the gospel of repentance and Christ’s mission and atonement.

I wonder, though if in addition to its more universal purpose and appeal, it had a very personal and particular purpose for Joseph Smith. In some of the reading material for lesson 4, the Lord tells him that translating the Book of Mormon is the gift he should be focusing on. In Section 5, verse 4, Joseph is told that translation is “the first gift I bestowed upon you; and I have commanded that you should pretend to no other gift until my purpose is fulfilled in this.” Later, the Lord instructs Joseph Smith to stop translating for a time, and makes this interesting statement: “Stop, and stand still until I command thee, and I will provide the means whereby thou mayest accomplish the thing which I have commanded thee.” Sec. 5, v. 34.

I get the feeling that the translation of the Book of Mormon was the critical, initial training Joseph received to prepare him to be a prophet. He had to learn to be obedient to God, to be humble, to ignore the voices of the powerful and influential and listen to the voice of the Spirit. When Joseph made mistakes in connection with his assignment to translate the Book of Mormon, the Lord reprimanded him and gave him a “time out.” Because Joseph was humble and repentant, the Lord forgave him and helped him. What would Joseph Smith have been without the Book of Mormon? Interesting to think about.

Why Do We Need the Book of Mormon?

The focus of Lesson 4 is the importance of the Book of Mormon. But, the Book of Mormon does not discuss critical doctrines like baptism for the dead or eternal marriage. It does not provide any specificity about the Plan of Salvation (i.e., no premortality, no three degrees of glory, etc.) or priesthood organization. Many of its teachings about the Godhead are ambiguous and confusing, without the benefit of further inspired interpretation. All of this information is provided, or greatly fleshed out, by the Doctrine & Covenants and other modern revelation. it teaches much about Christ and the atonement, but so do the Bible, the Doctrine & Covenants and modern revelation.

So do we really need the Book of Mormon? Why? Why isn’t the Doctrine & Covenants, along with modern prophets, enough? What does the Lord mean when he tells us to “remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon,” when it contains no information about the mother-of-all-covenants, the new and everlasting covenant of marriage?

I have some thoughts about this, but am interested to hear yours, first. I am also interested to hear other notable doctrines or ideas absent in the Book of Mormon.

How Dumb Did He Think She Was?

We all know the story of Marin Harris and the lost 116 pages. Martin Harris believed in Joseph Smith as a prophet and that the translation of the Book of Mormon was an important and inspired project. He believed so much that he lent Joseph Smith financial assistance and acted as a scribe. Martin's wife, Lucy, did not believe, and it sounds like she made Martin's life kind of difficult. In fact, Steven Harper (Making Sense of the Doctrine & Covenants) says that once, to make a point, she moved her furniture out of their house just so Martin would not sell it to finance Joseph Smith's crazy schemes.



Lucy's skepticism about Joseph and the Book of Mormon led to one of the most dramatic chapters in LDS history. Martin begs to be able to take the manuscript of the Book of Mormon home to show Lucy and others. The Lord, through Joseph, tells Martin, "No" several times, but finally relents. Martin takes the 116-pages document home and, of course, loses it. Martin and Joseph suffer mental and spiritual anguish for their foolishness and disobedience, and are severely chastened by the Lord. Joseph loses the ability to translate fro a time, but is eventually forgiven.



But here is the part of the story that has never made sense to me: Did Martin really think that by showing his wife a manuscript of the Book of Mormon, she would believe that Joseph was a prophet? Why? I can imagine Lucy seeing the manuscript and saying, "Dear, I never doubted that your friend Joseph had a vivid imagination or that he was writing a book. It is the golden plates, the angels and the whole prophet thing that sounds a little far-fetched. Keep your hands off my sideboard."



Maybe I don't have much faith, but I have never really understood why Martin thought he was going to get anywhere just by showing his wife the manuscript. Maybe he thought Lucy would read it and gain her own testimony. But, Joseph was so early in the translation process that I am not sure he even fully understood how the text could be used or how it would effect people. Maybe showing her that they really were working on a book was going to be enough. I don't know. Lucy Harris just sounds like the kind of woman who was not going to be convinced of the restoration of the gospel because she saw several pages of handwritten manuscript.