Lesson 19: What Worked?

So, this week I tried a modified version of the "attention activity" suggested in the manual. I used a picture puzzle, but instead of using it to talk about understanding the whole plan, I used it to talk about how and when different pieces of the Plan of Salvation were revealed or otherwise learned by Joseph Smith. We talked about the creation, fall, free agency and inklings of premortality in the Book of Mormon, specific revelations in the D&C, and aspects of temple ordinances taught in Nauvoo. With each component of the plan, I showed a part of the puzzle. Then I talked about how our understanding of the Plan of Salvation followed the same pattern as the restoration generally. I think it made for an interesting discussion of how we now understand the "Plan."

What about you? How did you teach the lesson? What worked for you?

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?

Gospel Doctrine Lesson 18: Walking in Darkness at Noon-day

Lesson 18 focuses on the temple, and in terms of chronology, the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. Much has been written of the great sacrifice required of the Kirtland saints in building the Temple, and of the amazing spiritual manifestations that accompanied its completion and dedication. Sections 109 and 110 of the Doctrine & Covenants are inspired and inspiring, representing some of the true pinnacles of the restoration.

But for me, at least this time through the D&C, section 95 has really caught my interest. The section begins with the Lord chastening the saints for their failure to construct the Temple as he had directed in Section 88. In fact, the Lord tells the Saints that their procrastination is a grievous sin. To put in perspective, Section 88 preceded Section 95 by little more than months. Not a long time, in the eternal scheme of things.

But the Lord grew impatient with and chastened the Saints. They lacked diligence and urgency building the His house. Contentions occurred among Church leaders. Members of the Church were disobedient and failed to keep the commandments. In a beautiful and poetic verse, the Lord tells Joseph that some of those ordained to build the Kingdom of God had “sinned a very grievous sin, in that they are walking in darkness at noon-day.” D&C 95:6.

What an image. Here they were, members of God’s restored church. They had new scripture and a prophet receiving revelation from Heaven. The members of the Church could have been enjoying a noon-day sun unknown to the world for hundreds of years. And yet they, surrounded by light, were walking in darkness because of their lack of focus, their disobedience, their selfishness and laziness.

It is easy to see how it happened. They were poor. It was winter and spring in Ohio - - not the ideal time to start a major construction project. They were trying to build Zion almost three states away in Missouri. The resources available to the Church and the Saints during this period were stretched to the breaking point. Building a Temple - - especially the Temple Joseph envisioned - - must have seemed overwhelming. Who can blame them for losing focus? Who would not have been tempted to wait for more favorable circumstances to start such a task?

But God chastened them because he loved them. Their grievous sin was choosing to stay in the darkness when he wanted them in His light. How often do we commit that same sin? In what ways to we choose to walk in our own darkness instead into the noon-day sun? Section 95 has given me a new insight into disobedience, sin and forgiveness. Whom the Lord loves he chastens because his joy is seeing us walk not in darkness, but in light.

Section 59: Death, Babylon and the Abundant Life

One of the fascinating things about studying the Doctrine & Covenants is having relatively ready access to the historical context of the revelations received by the Prophet Joseph Smith. For me, it is interesting to think about what was happening in the lives of the Prophet and the early Church members, and how that influenced the way they sought God and they way they understood what he spoke to them. In learning a bit about Section 59, it seems that there were at least three major dynamics influencing Joseph Smith’s thoughts. If I had to put name tags on these three influences, I guess I would say they were death, Babylon and the abundant life.

First, I think death was very much on Joseph’s mind when he received section 59. He had attended that day the funeral of a faithful sister, Polly Peck Knight. Polly Knight was one of the Colesville saints, and along with her husband Joseph, an early and constant supporter of the Prophet and the Restoration. She was quite ill when she left Ohio for Jackson County, and her strong desire was to see Zion and, if she were to die, be buried there. In fact, she died within days of arriving in Missouri, and her passing must have poignant for Joseph Smith. It certainly makes verse 2 poignant to me:

For those that live shall inherit the earth and those that die shall rest from
their labors, and their works shall follow them; and they shall receive a crown
in the mansions of my Father, which I have prepared from them.

Joseph was also struck by societal conditions in Jackson County in August 1831. Most Church members at this point were relatively civilized New Englanders. Suddenly, they were living on the frontier, neighbors to a pretty rough crowd. Law, order and genteel society were not the hallmarks of Jackson County. Joseph and many of the members of the Church were somewhat taken aback by conditions and the people there. My guess is, Joseph was wondering how he was going to build God’s Kingdom - - Zion - - in the middle of Babylon. How would he keep the Saints unspotted from the world around them? One answer came in Section 59 and the instruction to set aside a day for holiness and recommitment to God’s service. See verses 9-10.

Finally, Joseph was pretty enchanted with the land itself in Jackson County. He described the area almost as a literal paradise, where crops and herds raised themselves, surrounded by natural beauty. The last third of section 59 reflects Joseph’s feeling that Zion would be a place where the saints would live an abundant life, enjoying the earthly blessings that God had designed for them. “The fullness of the earth is yours,” the revelation states, “Yea, all things which come of the earth, in the season thereof, are made for the benefit and the use of man, both to please the eye and gladden the heart; Yea, for food and for raiment, for taste and for smell, to strengthen the body and to enliven the soul.” See verses 16, 18-19.

What else do you see? What connections are there in Section 59 to these influences and themes? Are there other influences you find in this section?

(Much of the background for this post comes from Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, chap. 8, and Harper, Making Sense of the Doctrine and Covenants, pp. 207-09).

Gospel Doctrine Lesson 16: Getting Started

Here are some resources to get you started on Lesson 16. Here is a lesson I like it because it provides historical information on Polly Peck Knight. Joseph attended her funeral the same day he received Section 59. Unfortunately, I cannot figure out who wrote it. And, while I am not a Meridian Magazine kind of guy, I thought this article by Breck England had a pretty thorough exposition of the Sabbath. Feast Upon the Word does a serious verse-by-verse analysis of Section 59 here.

If you know of other good sources, please feel free to post them here.

Seek Ye Earnestly the Best Gifts? Really?

I am going to say something that might be a little controversial. I think we in the LDS Church have a complicated relationship with gifts of the spirit.

Spiritual gifts get a lot of lip service in the church. On paper, we really like them, and section 46 is prime evidence of that. What’s more, certain gifts of the spirit are very accepted among Mormons. The gifts of healing and being healed are very big. People have great faith in them, and most families have multiple stories of these gifts blessing their lives. The gift of prophesy is also very highly regarded, especially to the extent it refers to gaining a testimony of Christ and his church. Even beyond that, most people are very comfortable with the gift of prophesy as it relates to promptings and premonitions that keep us and our families safe from physical or spiritual harm, or that help us serve those around us who are in need. The gifts of wisdom, teaching, discernment, etc. - - all very well accepted.

But other spiritual gifts are viewed with some, well, hesitation. Although no one would rule them out, the gifts of ministering angles and working miracles would be exercised and talked about very rarely. Maybe I lack faith, but if my neighbor told me (s)he had seen angels, I would wonder what was really going on. And the gift of tongues? Well, unless you are talking about missionaries or general authorities being able to learn and speak a language more easily than expected, I think you should proceed with caution. Can you imagine if someone started speaking in an allegedly angelic language in sacrament meeting? Even if someone there was allegedly able to interpret? How would your Bishop respond?

This ambivalence about spiritual gifts started early in our history. As the saints started gathering to Kirtland, many experienced and exhibited some fairly extreme spiritual manifestations. Speaking in strange languages, seeing visions, acting in unusual ways supposedly under the influence of the spirit - - it was all going on in Kirtland. Joseph was not always comfortable with these demonstrations, and often tried to rein them in. In fact, a theme of the Doctrine & Covenants is how to avoid deception by false spiritual experiences and manifestations.

It seems to me, the more subtle or understated the spiritual gift, the more readily accepted it is in the Church. Remarkable and emotional displays of spiritual fervor, or claims of special spiritual endowment, while commonly accepted by some Christians as gifts of the Spirit, would cause discomfort if not downright suspicion among most members of the Church.

So, are some gifts better than others? What are the “best gifts” referred to in Section 46, and how do we earnestly seek them? And if we earnestly seek them, what should we really expect to find?

Gospel Doctrine Lesson 14: What Worked?

Lesson 14 generated some really interesting comments and discussion here at GDU. How did the lessons go? What angles did you try? What did you think worked particularly well?

Joseph Smith and Wealth Redistribution

I have concluded that I am about a week ahead of most other readers of GDU. And, I am a week ahead of my own class. As a result, I have decided to continue this week with Lesson 14, The Law of Consecration. All those in favor may manifest it; all those opposed by the same sign. (Seriously, if a significant number of you are a week ahead of that, let me know and I will move ahead. It just seems that most are about a week behind where GDU has been).

The Law of Consecration offers a lot of interesting discussion topics and ideas. As a political junkie, one of the most interesting concepts tied up in consecration is the idea of equality. The Book of Mormon has some interesting passages regarding equality; I cannot help thinking that they got Joseph thinking about economics and righteousness. Or, the impact of temporal things upon righteousness, anyway.

So, when the Lord gives the newly organized Church his Law, equality is a big issue. Nowhere is this more powerfully stated than in Section 78, where the Lord tells his people that the time has come , “[t]hat you may be equal in the bonds of heavenly things, yea, and earthly things also, for the obtaining of heavenly things. For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things; For if you will that I give unto a place in the celestial world you must prepare yourselves by doing the things which I have commanded you and required of you.” (D&C 78:5-7).

The idea just has the ring of revelation. If we were all equal, think of the problems we could avoid. There would be no poor, at least in the relative sense within the Church. There would be less pride and envy and greed. It would be much easier to avoid materialism if everyone was on an even plane, economically. Equality is a great idea, right?

On the other hand, as Joseph soon learned, voluntary consecration is hard to achieve. As an initial practical matter, there must be a “critical mass” of wealth to sustain the group. But once that is achieved, not everyone will easily overcome their temporal desires. For those who can, it is hard to be equal with someone who is not particularly interested in being equal with you. If you don’t have everyone on board, the whole system is destined for failure. As Richard Bushman points out in Rough Stone Rolling (p. 183),

The system never worked properly. The lack of property to distribute among the poverty-stricken early saints hampered the system’s effectiveness from the start. Joseph struggled on, aided by [Edward] Partridge and loyal Colesville Saints, who made up a large part of the Mormon population in Zion. In 1833, the Mormon’s expulsion from Jackson County would close down everything. The system’s two year existence was about average for the various communal experiments being undertaken in the period.

So what about consecration for you and me, today? I have to say, many members of my ward are kind and generous and charitable - - much more so than I. I truly believe that they take their commitment to consecration seriously. But, I do not see any big push to be “equal in earthly things.” In fact, most of my ward members seem downright resistant to the wealth equalization, Obama-style. (I know, I know, it’s not the same, but still . . .)

So what do you think? Is earthly equality a something to shoot for? Or is it a heavenly aspiration we cannot achieve in the real world? Could Joseph ever have made it work by free will alone, without an economic or political system to reinforce (enforce?) it? Why has the Church implemented it in only the loosest sense? And, would Joseph have voted for the Obama tax and budget plans?

Gospel Doctrine Lesson 14: Revelation by Committee

Section 42 of the Doctrine & Covenants is a fulfillment of the Lord’s promise to give the newly restored church his “Law.” It was revealed to Joseph Smith in the presence of twelve elders of the Church. According to Steven C. Harper, author of “Making Sense of the Doctrine & Covenants,” (Deseret Book, 2008) ("Making Sense"), section 42 is actually a series of revelations (most of which end with “Amen”), which were then compiled into a cohesive document. What’s more, the earliest manuscripts of the revelation(s) contain questions that were posed to the Lord, whose answers constitute the reveled text. The questions were subsequently removed prior to printing.

It is interesting to know the questions that led to Section 42. Verses 1-10 answer the question, “Shall the Church come together into one place or remain as they are in separate bodies?” Verses 11-69 answer the question, “What is the Law regulating the Church in her present situation till the time of her gathering?” Verses 70-73 describe the obligations of priesthood leaders to their families while serving in the Church. The rest of section 42 was actually received two weeks after the preceding verses and directs Church leaders how to act according to some parts of the revealed law. See “Making Sense” at 140.

Does knowing the specific questions posed by the early Church leaders change your understanding of section 42? How? It sounds like this revelation was received by Joseph Smith responding on behalf of the Lord to the questions of a committee of Church members. What do you think of this mode of revelation?

Gospel Doctrine Lesson 13: What Worked?

Here is your chance to share your successes with Lesson 13. What approach seemed to work? What topics generated intersting discussion? Did you try something new?

If you taught an earlier lesson, you can share your experiences here.

Give us your input!

Discussion Forum: Getting the Word Through Joseph Smith

So, I am having a really busy week at work, and have not had much time to think about a post for this week's lesson. I am hoping you all will help out. The lesson focuses on what we have obtained from the Lord through the Prophet Joseph Smith. Some of the obvious things include:

1. A knowledge of the nature of God and the Godhead

2. An understanding of personal revelation

3. The Book of Mormon, and other modern scripture

4. The Inspired Version of Bible

5. A more complete understanding of the creation and the fall

6. The Plan of Salvation, with all that entails

7. The Priesthood

8. Temples

Not a bad list. But, what would you focus on? What other things do you think we in our dispensation know or understand because of the Joseph Smith? How would you elicit meaningful discussion of his role? As a teacher, what do you think our objective should be with this lesson?

And, this is Gospel Doctrine Underground, so I have to ask: Like all of us, Joseph was a mixed bag of strengths and weaknesses. What do you think of Joseph Smith as the Lord's conduit? What were his greatest gifts? What were his greatest challenges/stumbling blocks? And do you talk about those during the lesson? How?

I look forward to your comments.

Getting Started: Gospel Doctrine Lesson 13

Lesson 13 focuses on Joseph Smith and his role in bringing forth scripture and “plain and precious” doctrines as part of the restoration. If you are not familiar with it, the Church’s website has a collection of presentations on Joseph Smith given at a 2005 International Academic Conference sponsored by the US Library of Congress. I especially liked Terryl Givens' and Elder Oaks' presentations. I have tried to find it in print form online, but so far, no luck.

Jim F. at Times & Seasons did his usual and masterful, verse-by-verse analysis of some of the scriptural material here. It contains some good discussion questions. Brad Constantine includes a great story (from Our Heritage) about two young women’s efforts to save unbound pages of Book of Commandments from the mobs in Missouri, here.

Hope that gets you all thinking. Feel free to share any resources you have, and don't forget to comment on what worked well in your past lessons, here.

So, Does "Gathering" Work?

Gathering is a big Mormon theme. Almost from its modern foundation, the Church has gathered. As insiders, we tend to think of gathering in pretty positive terms. We gather together for affirmation, strength and safety. We gather together in stakes to strengthen each other and to build the Kingdom. We gather to the temple to learn and save our ancestors. Examining it from the inside, gathering is all good, right?

To the outside observer, I am not sure are gathering has always been successful. The first commandment to gather to a specific location directed the Saints to Kirtland, Ohio. (See D&C 37). But then, almost immediately, Jackson County, Missouri was identified as Zion and gathering began there, too. Unfortunately, both gatherings were temporary and did not provide much peace or safety. Persecution and apostasy (fueled by the collapse of a Church sponsored bank) plagued Kirtland. Responding to the perceived threat of a concentration of (arguably arrogant) Mormons, mobs and an all-out war drove the Mormons from Missouri.

The story in Nauvoo is not that different. The Saints gathered there, almost out of default. They built a very successful city and started a temple. Soon, however, understandable Mormon efforts to consolidate power and defend themselves led to more fear and persecution, and the martyrdom of the Prophet and his brother. Another gathering place was abandoned.

The Mormons moved west and gathered in an isolated valley - - this time away from the rest of society. From around the world, members of the Church were commanded to gather to the latest Zion, in the Rocky Mountains. At incredible sacrifice, Saints left families, livelihoods and homes and dragged themselves across a continent. For fifty years or so, the gathering continued. Many died and were impoverished. Wards and branches in Europe emptied. Salt Lake City grew into a major city. But, maybe that was just the law of averages. You know, third (or fourth) time the charm.

So, does gathering work? It clearly has accomplished amazing things. Cities and temples and a place for God’s Church to grow. But it has almost always engendered fear and suspicion, pride and persecution. Could there have been another way of doing this? Or, to paraphrase Winston Churchill’s famous statement on democracy, is gathering the worst system for building the Kingdom of God, except all others that have been tried?

Is He Talking to Me?

One of my ongoing challenges with the Doctrine & Covenants is trying to decide what, exactly, I am supposed to do with it. So many of the revelations, particularly the earlier ones, seem to be directed to specific individuals, facing specific situations. Section 25 is a perfect example. This revelation closes with the Lord telling Emma Smith, “[T]his is my voice unto all.” Yet, the section is a tangle of general admonitions to avoid pride and worldliness and keep the commandments, along with very specific directives that were clearly intended for Emma and her unique situation. She was told to support Joseph in his calling, act as his scribe and compile a hymn book. These were not instructions for “all”; they were personal instructions for her.

The challenge repeats itself over and over in the D&C. Many of the sections are in response to specific questions or directed to specific individuals. Yet they have become scripture, supposedly with broad - - even universal - - application. See D&C 1:38; 25:16. How do you interpret these revelations and decide what they really mean to us? Is it reasonable to conclude that Lord’s instructions to Oliver Cowdery on translating the gold plates are a pattern for how I seek answers to my prayers? Does the direction to Emma to support Joseph in his calling as a prophet and “rejoice in her husband, and the glory which shall come upon him” really have application to how I should treat my wife? What am I to make of the Lord’s instructions regarding whether specific missionaries were to travel by land or water?

I wonder if our attempts to "liken the scriptures unto ourselves" are sometimes a bit too superficial. Maybe Emma’s instruction to rejoice in her husband was more about accepting and embracing the challenges the Lord had given her. Maybe it teaches us more about submission and gratitude than about marriage and family relations. For me, that is the challenge of the Doctrine & Covenants - - trying to understand what the real message is for us. For that, I think we need to know the context and background, in addition to the words. We cannot always take things as they appear on the surface, but need to think and study and work at it. Realizing this makes me appreciate Joseph Smith all the more. Understanding revelation is hard work.

Talk Amongst Yourselves: Emma Smith

As the wife of Joseph, Emma Smith was witness to many of The Restoration's key events. She has been the center of controversy almost from the beginning, although she seems to have experienced something of a rehabilitation in the LDS Church during the past 20 years or so. She is the key figure in Lesson 10. Here are some snippets from other sources relating to Emma:

D&C 25:3-4 Behold, thy sins are forgiven thee, and thou art an elect lady, whom I have called. Murmur not because of the things which thou hast not seen, for they are withheld from thee and the world, which is wisdom in me in a time to come.


“I feel very anxious to see you all once more in this world. The time seems long that I am deprived of your society, but the Lord being my helper, I will not be much longer. … I am filled with constant anxiety and shall be until I get home. I pray God to spare you all until I get home. My dear Emma, my heart is entwined around you and those little ones. I want you to remember me. Tell all the children that I love them and will come home as soon as I can. Yours in the bonds of love, your husband.” (Letter from Joseph to Emma Smith, January 20, 1840, from Chester County, Pennsylvania).


“Joseph used to say that he would have [Emma] hereafter, IF HE HAD TO GO TO HELL FOR HER, AND HE WILL HAVE TO GO TO HELL FOR HER AS SURE AS HE EVER GETS HER.” (Statement of Brigham Young in the Journal of Discourses, Volume 17, page 159).

So, what are your thoughts on this interesting woman?

The Power of Godliness

The reading material for Lesson 8 contains one of my favorite passages from the Doctrine & Covenants, D&C 84:19-21. This passage explains that in the ordinances of the Melchizedek Priesthood, the “power of godliness is manifest.”

This passage is interesting for a number of reasons. At its most basic level, I like the idea that the power of godliness is manifest in priesthood ordinances. For those of us who have been in the Church for a while, it is easy to take the sacrament, see a child baptized or attend a wedding and think it is pretty routine, ordinary stuff. This passage reminds me that it is not. Priesthood ordinances show us God’s power and bind us to him as we covenant to obey, receive remission of sins, and renew promises to always have His spirit to be with us. And what greater manifestation of God’s power can we see than the creation of a family that will continue into beyond death?

I think it is interesting, though that this passage does not refer to the power of God, but the power of godliness. As mentioned above, the power of God is manifest in priesthood ordinances that save us and bless our lives. But I think the power of godliness is also manifest in priesthood ordinances in at least a couple of ways. First, there is an obvious synergy between a priesthood-holder’s righteousness and discipleship, and the priesthood power he is able to exercise. This connection between worthiness or godliness and priesthood power is pretty clear. See, e.g., D&C 121:36-42. Second, I think that each individual achieves greater levels of godliness as they receive priesthood ordinances and enter into covenants with God. Our own personal power of righteousness grows as we progress and come closer to God, assisted by ordinances like baptism, confirmation, the endowment and marriage.

Finally, I think it is pretty intriguing that Joseph received this revelation in 1832, relatively early in the restoration timeline. This was well before the sealing power was restored or temple ordinances were understood. In fact, although I am no historian, I do not believe that the Church at this time was really performing any Melchizedek Priesthood ordinances, unless you count ordinations to offices in that priesthood. I wonder what Joseph thought that phrase meant. Did he understand this as a foreshadowing of additional knowledge and ordinances?

How do you think the power of godliness manifest in the ordinances of the priesthood? Is there a difference between the power of God and the power of godliness? And what (if anything) does Section 84 say about Joseph’s understanding of the restoration process?

PS: Mormon Matters had a recent post on ordinances with some interesting discussion. You can find it here.

Priesthood Restoration: When Did It Happen?

One thing about the restoration of the priesthood has always seemed a little strange to me. We know with precision when and how the Aaronic Priesthood was restored. It happened on May 15, 1829 when John the Baptist appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery on the banks of the Susequehanna River. The Melchizedek Priesthood? Well, that’s a different story.

We do not really know when it was restored. We know that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery say that they were visited by Peter, James and John. We know these three restored to Joseph and Oliver the keys of the apostleship. But unlike John the Baptist, Peter, James and John do not get their own section of the Doctrine & Covenants with a handy date.

Putting a date on this appearance has been difficult. “Ben” at The Juvenile Instructor wrote a very interesting post a while ago on dating the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood. You can find his post here. Richard Bushman, in Rough Stone Rolling, fleshes out his opinion (referred to in the JI post) that the three apostles may have appeared to Joseph and Oliver when they were fleeing a mob near Colesville, Ohio in June 1830. Does it matter when it happened? If so, why? Why the specificity with respect to some important visions and manifestations, but not this one?

To add to the uncertainty, Bushman suggests that it is not entirely clear that the Melchizedek Priesthood, per se, was restored by Peter, James and John in that original vision. Bushman notes that at a June 1831 conference, Joseph ordained several men to the “high priesthood.” At least in some sources, Joseph and others state that this was the first time the Melchizedek Priesthood had been conferred in this dispensation. In fact, Bushman says Joseph himself was ordained to the “high priesthood” that day by Lyman Wight.

If Peter, James and John had restored the Melchizedek Priesthood in 1829 or 1830, why was Joseph ordained to the “high priesthood” by Lyman Wight in 1831? And what about those statements that the 1831 conference was the first time the Melchizedek Priesthood had been conferred in the last dispensation? I have some thoughts about this, but would like to hear yours.

Dividing Asunder Joint and Marrow

Several early sections of the Doctrine and Covenants begin with the same (or almost identical) verses. See, e.g., D&C 11:1-9. This same introduction is included in revelations directed at Oliver Cowdery, Hyrum Smith, Joseph Knight and others. In this passage the Lord reveals that a “great and marvelous work is about to come forth.” He advises the recipient of the revelation that the “field” is ready to harvest, and that there is plenty of work for anyone who wants to help. Ask and ye shall receive, keep the commandments, seek to establish Zion, etc., etc. Frankly, it gets a little repetitive, and it is easy to gloss over in an effort to get to the good (i.e., more personal, specific) stuff.

There is one verse, though, that I think is kind of intriguing. It is verse 2, where the Lord says:

“Behold, I am God; give heed to my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joint and marrow; therefore, give heed unto my word.”

This verse definitely has the sound of God speaking through a prophet - - an Old Testament prophet. It uses powerful, even violent language to get the recipient’s attention. The most striking image is the two-edged sword, dividing asunder joint and marrow. What does this mean? Certainly, the Lord is trying to convey that his word is swift and strong, living and powerful. You get the sense that what He says goes, so you better listen. But is there more?

Another interesting aspect of this passage is that it is often in striking contrast to other parts of the same revelations, where the Lord adopts a very personal, intimate and gentle tone with the recipient, calling him by name and giving encouragement and advice. Why do you think the Lord uses this sometimes abrupt change in tone?

Finally, I think it is interesting that this distinctive passage appears in a number of early revelations, then drops out of use. Why do you think that is? I do a lot of writing at work, and I have noticed that, if I can just get started on a document, the rest often follows. I have developed the habit of using some common catch phrases and introductory “throat clearing” to get my writing started (thankfully, this often gets edited out). Were these verses just a device Joseph or the Lord used to get Joseph’s revelatory juices flowing? Perhaps as Joseph became more experienced with receiving revelation, he did not need this phrase to get him going.

What do you think? What is the message the Lord is conveying? Is it good news or bad news? Why does he say it over and over to various people? And, why does He not say it in later revelations?

How Much Revelation Do You Really Need?

Section 9 of the Doctrine & Covenants has got to be one of the most well-known passages in Mormon scripture. In it, the Lord chastens Oliver Cowdery for failing to exert himself intellectually in attempting translation of the Book of Mormon. He explains to Oliver that, when seeking revelation, you have to study the question out in your mind, decide what you think, then ask the Lord. If you are right, he will cause your bosom to burn as a confirmation. If you are wrong, you will have a stupor of thought and forget what you had decided.

This pattern for personal revelation is completely ingrained in Mormon culture. Ask any Mormon how revelation works, and they will probably describe this process. But here is the rub, for me. I am pretty familiar with the burning bosom phenomenon, but I really don't think I have ever experienced a stupor of thought. What does that mean for me and Section 9? Well, maybe a couple of things.

First and foremost, I believe Section 9 was delivered to Oliver Cowdery in response to a very specific situation. He was attempting to translate the Book of Mormon, and he had not done the spiritual groundwork. God could not allow Oliver to bumble through on this project. It was too important. So at that time, under those circumstances, a stupor of thought was a critical way to let Oliver know he was on the wrong track. More importantly, it prevented Oliver from including any of his own thoughts in the Book of Mormon. I think the Lord rarely needs to stop us in our tracks like that.

In addition, I think relying on a strict formula for revelation comes dangerously close to seeking for a sign. If I think, ponder, read my scriptures and pray, I get a burning in the bosom or a stupor of thought. It just sounds a little too simple, doesn't it?

One of my favorite talks on personal revelation in Elder Scott's talk, "Recognizing Answers to Prayer" (which I had not remembered discusses sections 6, 8and 9!). In the talk, he discusses when and why the Lord might answer prayers in a certain way. Elder Scott says,

"When He withholds an answer, it is to have us grow through faith in Him, obedience to His commandments, and a willingness to act on truth. We are expected to assume accountability by acting on a decision that is consistent with His teachings without prior confirmation. We are not to sit passively waiting or to murmur because the Lord has not spoken. We are to act. Most often what we have chosen to do is right. He will confirm the correctness of our choices His way."

This statement is much more consistent with my experience with personal revelation. Sometimes I get a feeling that something is right or wrong. Mostly, I feel like I need to try and figure out what to do based upon what I already know, then move ahead. Generally speaking, if I am keeping the commandments, trying to be humble, studying the scriptures and seeking to build Zion (see D&C 6:5-7), how much more revelation do a I really need?

This is not to say that I don't think section 9 is useful, or that the formula does not work. It can and does. But I think the Lord uses the right tool for the situation; and for me, revelation is usually a pretty subtle thing.

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.