Today marks the 164th anniversary of the martyrdom of the Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum. This is always a difficult anniversary for me because of the manner in which it happened. It seems that each year as this anniversary rolls around, and I refresh my memory of the events by reading in the D&C or History of the Church, I continue to be touched as I read the events.
Elder John Taylor, an eyewitness to the events, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and later the 3rd President of the Church wrote the following which is now verse 7 in Section 135 of the Doctrine & Covenants:
“They were innocent of any crime, as they had often been proved before, and were only confined in jail by the conspiracy of traitors and wicked men; and their innocent blood on the floor of Carthage jail is a broad seal affixed to “Mormonism” that cannot be rejected by any court on earth, and their innocent blood on the escutcheon of the State of Illinois, with the broken faith of the State as pledged by the governor, is a witness to the truth of the everlasting gospel that all the world cannot impeach; and their innocent blood on the banner of liberty, and on the magna charta of the United States, is an ambassador for the religion of Jesus Christ, that will touch the hearts of honest men among all nations; and their innocent blood, with the innocent blood of all the martyrs under the altar that John saw, will cry unto the Lord of Hosts till he avenges that blood on the earth. Amen.”
As I think about the events of that day and those following, I can’t help but think of how it all could have been avoided if it weren’t for the actions (or lack thereof) of the Governor of Illinois. I don’t know a lot about Governor Thomas Ford, but my thoughts on him mirror a similar sentiment he said about himself in his book History of Illinois, as quoted in Carthage Conspiracy:
“In his history Ford lamented the possibility that the names of “Nauvoo, and the Carthage Jail, may become holy and venerable names, places of classic interest, in another age; like Jerusalem, the Garden of Gethsemane, the Mount of Olives, and Mount Calvary to the Christian…” Ford wrote that, if this were to be the case, he felt “degraded by the reflection, that the humble governor of an obscure State, who would otherwise be forgotten in a few years, stands a fair chance, like Pilate and Herod, by their official connection with the true religion, of being dragged down to posterity with an immortal name, hitched on to the memory of a miserable imposter.”
I am a little unsure about the statement “miserable imposter”, whether he means himself or Joseph. If he means himself, it’s a pretty accurate statement seeing as how his pretended protection and cowardly acts brought about the martyrdom; however, if he is referring to Joseph, then I guess he considers the Savior a “miserable imposter” as well, since he is comparing himself to those men who helped bring about the Savior’s death.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Haply Fighting Against God
For the past several months I have participated in and observed “discussions” (to put it nicely) between members of the Church and those who oppose it. Among their many reasons for attacking the church, they cite scriptures that seemingly command them to “attack” the church, like the following scripture:
“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” (Jude 1:3)
So, our critics feel like they have a need to “earnestly contend” with us constantly, instead of just preaching what they believe. I think there is a distinction between preaching what you believe and attacking what others believe. It’s fairly obvious that the LDS Church has an extensive missionary program, and some might see that as “attacking” others’ religious beliefs. Actually, the Church is very respective of others’ beliefs, and does not proselyte in countries where it is forbidden, and trains missionaries to respect those laws. LDS Missionaries go out to preach the gospel, and not to attack others. Now, there may be some who feel they need to ignore this advice, but they are acting of their own accord and contrary to established Missionary rules.
So why do critics of the LDS Church feel they have to attack our beliefs instead of simply preaching theirs? I’m not sure, but there was a non-Christian who had a pretty good alternative solution almost two thousand years ago.
In Acts, chapter 5, the apostles Peter and John are (yet again) cast into prison and are miraculously delivered from prison by an angel, who then tells them to “Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life.” The next day, the two apostles go to the Temple and preach the gospel. The High Priest and his council, after discovering that they are not in the prison, and “the keepers standing without before the doors” as they had been the night before, send forth to have the apostles brought before the council. After asking why they continued to preach the gospel after being “straitly commanded” not to, Peter stated that he would obey God, not man and then indicted the council with the death of Jesus. Upon hearing this, “they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them”.
At this point a man “in the council” stood up to defend the apostles; “a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people”. In other words, this man was a very intelligent and respected man among his peers in the Sanhedrin. In fact, Gamaliel was the Saul’s teacher, before he became Paul the Apostle.
Gamaliel recited two incidents from the past of people who had drawn many men unto them and their cause, and ended up failing and losing their followers. The first he mentions is Theudas. Josephus describes who Gamaliel may have been referring to.
“Now it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus's government.” (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, 5:1)
The next example was Judas of Galilee. Again, according to Josephus, Judas “became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity.”
Judas resented the fact that some Roman rulers came into Judea to “take an account of their substance”. Most of the Jews would have normally despised the idea of taxation, too, but because of the teachings of Joazar, a high priest, they submitted to the taxation; all except for Judas and his group of followers. On the surface, Judas fighting against taxation seems like a justifiable action. However, revolting against taxation wasn’t his only “crime”.
“They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one another in such councils as might be successful, and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same so men received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height. All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; one violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends which used to alleviate our pains; there were also very great robberies and murder of our principal men. This was done in pretense indeed for the public welfare, but in reality for the hopes of gain to themselves; whence arose seditions, and from them murders of men, which sometimes fell on those of their own people, (by the madness of these men towards one another, while their desire was that none of the adverse party might be left,) and sometimes on their enemies”. (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, 1:1)
These men were robbers pure and simple. They hid their atrocities behind their so-called religious beliefs. We are not told how Judas dies or how his sedition is crushed, but we know from Gamaliel’s words (and history, really) that he did fail in his attempt.
Gamaliel’s reasons for describing the outcomes of these seditionists was that, eventually, they were discovered for what they purported to be; charlatans and deceivers. Applying this same concept to the apostles, he states “And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.” (Acts 5:38-39)
Gamaliel was so respected, that what he had to say appeased the council that was ready to kill the two apostles. Instead, the Sanhedrin released them (but not before giving them a good beating) and commanded them not to preach anymore.
The reason why Gamaliel’s words are so interesting to me, is that some people spend so much time and energy fighting against the LDS Church, bringing up old arguments and quoting scriptures (most, if not all of the time, out of context) to try to prove that either they are right or we are wrong or both. And really all they need to do is follow Gamaliel’s council to “let them alone; for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought.”
Maybe that’s why they fight so hard; because after more than 150 years, it has not “come to nought” and that makes them very uncomfortable, maybe to the point where they think they can make it come to nought. So I guess, in a way, Gamaliel’s words have been proven true, which is a pretty harrowing realization to come to if you expected this work to come to nought. What does that tell us about whose work this is?
“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” (Jude 1:3)
So, our critics feel like they have a need to “earnestly contend” with us constantly, instead of just preaching what they believe. I think there is a distinction between preaching what you believe and attacking what others believe. It’s fairly obvious that the LDS Church has an extensive missionary program, and some might see that as “attacking” others’ religious beliefs. Actually, the Church is very respective of others’ beliefs, and does not proselyte in countries where it is forbidden, and trains missionaries to respect those laws. LDS Missionaries go out to preach the gospel, and not to attack others. Now, there may be some who feel they need to ignore this advice, but they are acting of their own accord and contrary to established Missionary rules.
So why do critics of the LDS Church feel they have to attack our beliefs instead of simply preaching theirs? I’m not sure, but there was a non-Christian who had a pretty good alternative solution almost two thousand years ago.
In Acts, chapter 5, the apostles Peter and John are (yet again) cast into prison and are miraculously delivered from prison by an angel, who then tells them to “Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life.” The next day, the two apostles go to the Temple and preach the gospel. The High Priest and his council, after discovering that they are not in the prison, and “the keepers standing without before the doors” as they had been the night before, send forth to have the apostles brought before the council. After asking why they continued to preach the gospel after being “straitly commanded” not to, Peter stated that he would obey God, not man and then indicted the council with the death of Jesus. Upon hearing this, “they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them”.
At this point a man “in the council” stood up to defend the apostles; “a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people”. In other words, this man was a very intelligent and respected man among his peers in the Sanhedrin. In fact, Gamaliel was the Saul’s teacher, before he became Paul the Apostle.
Gamaliel recited two incidents from the past of people who had drawn many men unto them and their cause, and ended up failing and losing their followers. The first he mentions is Theudas. Josephus describes who Gamaliel may have been referring to.
“Now it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus's government.” (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, 5:1)
The next example was Judas of Galilee. Again, according to Josephus, Judas “became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity.”
Judas resented the fact that some Roman rulers came into Judea to “take an account of their substance”. Most of the Jews would have normally despised the idea of taxation, too, but because of the teachings of Joazar, a high priest, they submitted to the taxation; all except for Judas and his group of followers. On the surface, Judas fighting against taxation seems like a justifiable action. However, revolting against taxation wasn’t his only “crime”.
“They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one another in such councils as might be successful, and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same so men received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height. All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; one violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends which used to alleviate our pains; there were also very great robberies and murder of our principal men. This was done in pretense indeed for the public welfare, but in reality for the hopes of gain to themselves; whence arose seditions, and from them murders of men, which sometimes fell on those of their own people, (by the madness of these men towards one another, while their desire was that none of the adverse party might be left,) and sometimes on their enemies”. (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, 1:1)
These men were robbers pure and simple. They hid their atrocities behind their so-called religious beliefs. We are not told how Judas dies or how his sedition is crushed, but we know from Gamaliel’s words (and history, really) that he did fail in his attempt.
Gamaliel’s reasons for describing the outcomes of these seditionists was that, eventually, they were discovered for what they purported to be; charlatans and deceivers. Applying this same concept to the apostles, he states “And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.” (Acts 5:38-39)
Gamaliel was so respected, that what he had to say appeased the council that was ready to kill the two apostles. Instead, the Sanhedrin released them (but not before giving them a good beating) and commanded them not to preach anymore.
The reason why Gamaliel’s words are so interesting to me, is that some people spend so much time and energy fighting against the LDS Church, bringing up old arguments and quoting scriptures (most, if not all of the time, out of context) to try to prove that either they are right or we are wrong or both. And really all they need to do is follow Gamaliel’s council to “let them alone; for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought.”
Maybe that’s why they fight so hard; because after more than 150 years, it has not “come to nought” and that makes them very uncomfortable, maybe to the point where they think they can make it come to nought. So I guess, in a way, Gamaliel’s words have been proven true, which is a pretty harrowing realization to come to if you expected this work to come to nought. What does that tell us about whose work this is?
Monday, June 9, 2008
You Can't Not Know
I just read “In the Lord’s Own Way” by Elder Russell M. Nelson from the May 1986 Ensign. Interestingly, his talk was the third Welfare talk in a row in this conference and was followed by another talk on Welfare. What was going on in 1986 to cause such emphasis on Welfare? (I was only 11 years old at the time; I was only interested in baseball and getting into trouble, so I probably wasn’t too aware of the current events…)
During this talk, Elder Nelson quotes a scripture from Proverbs 29:7, which reads, “The righteous considereth the cause of the poor: but the wicked regardeth not to know it.” I read that as "the wicked pretend that there are no poor" so they don't have to assist them.
As I read this, the first thing that came to my mind was the Parable of the Good Samaritan. While I was in college, I took an Institute course on Parables, and learned that this parable in the Inspired Version of the Bible has some additional insight. The Inspired Version, which I believe is still used today by the RLDS Church, was the culmination of the Prophet Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible, although it was never published during his lifetime.
Compare these verses from the King James Version of the Bible and Joseph Smith's Inspired Version.
King James Version:
Luke 10
31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
Joseph Smith Translation – Inspired Version:
Luke 10
32 And by chance, there came down a certain priest that way; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side of the way.
33 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked upon him, and passed by on the other side of the way; for they desired in their hearts that it might not be known that they had seen him.
(Emphasis mine; unfortunately, these verses are not included in the LDS JST, only the full Inspired Version).
This addition: “for they desired in their hearts that it might not be known that they had seen him” seems to corroborate the scripture in Proverbs. In other words, the Priest and the Levite, while fully knowing the suffering of the “poor” man who had been beaten, “regardeth not to know it”.
I believe this means that the “wicked” just don’t want to acknowledge poor people or that there is a problem. It really is impossible to "not know" about the poor among us, especially those who are "temporally" poor. To not want to acknowledge it is a shameful thing. Kind of a sobering set of scriptures when used together and should cause each of us to reflect on our own efforts in assisting the poor among us.
During this talk, Elder Nelson quotes a scripture from Proverbs 29:7, which reads, “The righteous considereth the cause of the poor: but the wicked regardeth not to know it.” I read that as "the wicked pretend that there are no poor" so they don't have to assist them.
As I read this, the first thing that came to my mind was the Parable of the Good Samaritan. While I was in college, I took an Institute course on Parables, and learned that this parable in the Inspired Version of the Bible has some additional insight. The Inspired Version, which I believe is still used today by the RLDS Church, was the culmination of the Prophet Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible, although it was never published during his lifetime.
Compare these verses from the King James Version of the Bible and Joseph Smith's Inspired Version.
King James Version:
Luke 10
31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
Joseph Smith Translation – Inspired Version:
Luke 10
32 And by chance, there came down a certain priest that way; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side of the way.
33 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked upon him, and passed by on the other side of the way; for they desired in their hearts that it might not be known that they had seen him.
(Emphasis mine; unfortunately, these verses are not included in the LDS JST, only the full Inspired Version).
This addition: “for they desired in their hearts that it might not be known that they had seen him” seems to corroborate the scripture in Proverbs. In other words, the Priest and the Levite, while fully knowing the suffering of the “poor” man who had been beaten, “regardeth not to know it”.
I believe this means that the “wicked” just don’t want to acknowledge poor people or that there is a problem. It really is impossible to "not know" about the poor among us, especially those who are "temporally" poor. To not want to acknowledge it is a shameful thing. Kind of a sobering set of scriptures when used together and should cause each of us to reflect on our own efforts in assisting the poor among us.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Comparison and Commendation
While reading in Rough Stone Rolling a few days ago, I came across a description of the Prophet Joseph Smith: "By his own account, Joseph frequently felt cast down, lacking or falling short, never enjoying all that he needed, whether wealth or spiritual assurance." Bushman continues, "Joseph's 'History' contains more pleading with God than excitement about revelation." In writing about Josephs personal journal entries, Bushman states that they "reveal a striving young man uncertain of his standing with God, yearning to be worthy, grateful when he finds peace."
These descriptions of the Prophet, seemingly struggling with his own spirituality, cast a different light on him than I, and, I think, most members of the Church, previously held. I have always thought of the Prophet as almost a mystical legend of a man who was so near to perfection that any comparison to him was simply futile and impossible. Seeing him as a “mere mortal” does not diminish him as a prophet, but it actually makes him more real to me, if that makes sense.
I have struggled with many of the same things that Joseph did, and to know that someone of the spiritual capacity of Joseph Smith could struggle and overcome the feelings of discouragement, spiritual assurance and yearning for God’s acceptance, is very comforting to me. Now, I in no way am comparing myself to his spiritual standing, but I can now compare myself to him in knowing that he at least struggled and overcame his insecurities and “spiritual disabilities”. It’s a great hope.
I think I have a pretty good idea of why we have these feelings, and overcoming them is part of life. The tricky part is to remember the need to overcome them while in the “valleys of sorrow”.
Last night I started to read the May 1986 Ensign; President Benson’s first talk as the President of the Church, makes a statement in one little sentence, and this great man, who I consider to be the Prophet of my age (he was the one who “signed” my mission papers), said “I commend those of you who are present here this morning, as well as you who are listening or watching these proceedings and those who will later take the opportunity to hear or read the messages of this conference.”
I have been reading these Ensigns for a few years now, and for some reason reading this little “commendation” from “my” prophet reassured me that despite my failings and discouragements at times, that I’m doing my best and trying to follow the Savior as best as I know how.
I just want to make one last comment so I am not misunderstood. I don’t think I can ever really compare with the Prophet Joseph Smith; I don’t aspire to it, and even though he did has faults, they are not the same as mine, so don’t take that the wrong way. I also don’t want to be found “boasting” by posting this “commendation” from President Benson. I just needed to make a note for myself so the next time I am feeling discouragement or the yearning to be found acceptable, I can remember that we all have these feelings and that one of the purposes of this life is to figure out how to overcome those moments and strive to come closer to God. Hopefully this little comparison and commendation will help me do that.
These descriptions of the Prophet, seemingly struggling with his own spirituality, cast a different light on him than I, and, I think, most members of the Church, previously held. I have always thought of the Prophet as almost a mystical legend of a man who was so near to perfection that any comparison to him was simply futile and impossible. Seeing him as a “mere mortal” does not diminish him as a prophet, but it actually makes him more real to me, if that makes sense.
I have struggled with many of the same things that Joseph did, and to know that someone of the spiritual capacity of Joseph Smith could struggle and overcome the feelings of discouragement, spiritual assurance and yearning for God’s acceptance, is very comforting to me. Now, I in no way am comparing myself to his spiritual standing, but I can now compare myself to him in knowing that he at least struggled and overcame his insecurities and “spiritual disabilities”. It’s a great hope.
I think I have a pretty good idea of why we have these feelings, and overcoming them is part of life. The tricky part is to remember the need to overcome them while in the “valleys of sorrow”.
Last night I started to read the May 1986 Ensign; President Benson’s first talk as the President of the Church, makes a statement in one little sentence, and this great man, who I consider to be the Prophet of my age (he was the one who “signed” my mission papers), said “I commend those of you who are present here this morning, as well as you who are listening or watching these proceedings and those who will later take the opportunity to hear or read the messages of this conference.”
I have been reading these Ensigns for a few years now, and for some reason reading this little “commendation” from “my” prophet reassured me that despite my failings and discouragements at times, that I’m doing my best and trying to follow the Savior as best as I know how.
I just want to make one last comment so I am not misunderstood. I don’t think I can ever really compare with the Prophet Joseph Smith; I don’t aspire to it, and even though he did has faults, they are not the same as mine, so don’t take that the wrong way. I also don’t want to be found “boasting” by posting this “commendation” from President Benson. I just needed to make a note for myself so the next time I am feeling discouragement or the yearning to be found acceptable, I can remember that we all have these feelings and that one of the purposes of this life is to figure out how to overcome those moments and strive to come closer to God. Hopefully this little comparison and commendation will help me do that.
Friday, May 9, 2008
The Vision and Vessels of Wrath
I am currently reading Rough Stone Rolling, a biography of the Prophet Joseph Smith by Richard L. Bushman and at the same time my scripture study focus is the Doctrine and Covenants.
As I was studying D&C 76, referred to as “The Vision”, I came across a very interesting phrase. But first, for those who do not know about this section of the D&C, it was a vision received by Joseph Smith & Sidney Rigdon regarding the resurrection. Joseph and Sidney were translating the Bible and they had read John 5:29, which says “And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” The prophet says this about the verse: “From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of man had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled. It appeared self-evident from what truths were left, that if God rewarded every one according to the deeds done in the body, the term ‘Heaven,’ as intended for the Saints’ eternal home, must include more kingdoms than one.”
It was while they were pondering on this verse that they received the revelation found in the D&C. This revelation reveals that there are three degrees or kingdoms in the afterlife and one “kingdom” with no glory, known simply as “outer darkness” and those who will “reign” there are known as “sons of perdition”.
This is where it gets interesting. D&C 76:33, refers to these sons of perdition as “vessels of wrath”, a chilling term which makes me think of someone who is full of anger constantly. At the same time I was reading this section, I just happened to be reading about this time frame in the Prophet's life in Rough Stone Rolling.
“The Vision” was received on February 16, 1832 and Bushman states that “William Phelps immediately published ‘The Vision’ in the church newspaper in Missouri.” (Rough Stone Rolling, 200) It is this publication that, I think, ties together this revelation with some of the unfortunate aftermath.
On March 24, 1832, a month after “The Vision” had been received and published in the paper by Phelps, Joseph and Sidney are taken from their homes and beaten. Sidney was dragged by his heels and lay unconscious about 150 yards away from Joseph. Joseph was taken from his bed, stripped naked, administered poison (the attempt failed, but the mob broke the bottle of poison against Joseph’s teeth) and finally tarred and feathered him and left for dead.
The anger, or wrath, shown by this mob, some of whom were former members of the Church, is what strikes me as interesting. As I read the 33rd verse of section 76, “vessels of wrath”, this scene stood out to me. As the preverbal icing on the cake, one of the mobsters “fell on the naked Joseph, and ‘scratched my body with his nails like a mad cat’ muttering ‘God dam ye, that’s the way the Holy Ghost falls on folks.’” (Rough Stone Rolling, 179)
It might be a stretch to connect the publishing of “The Vision” by Phelps and the tarring and feathering episode since the paper was published in Missouri and Joseph and Sidney were living in Hiram, Ohio at the time, but because of the puzzling way that “The Vision” was received by some members of the church, and how this doctrine flies in the face of “fundamental Christianity©”, I can’t help but think that this revelation caused such a fervor that it boiled over and caused Joseph’s enemies to take these drastic actions.
Bushman, probably correctly, doesn’t make the connection between this beating and the publishing of “The Vision” by Phelphs, but rather blames the beating on some letters that were printed by anti-Mormon Ezra Booth. I personally think that even during that time frame, word of "The Vision" through either Phelps' publication or word of mouth, could have been an additional cause for the beating.
It’s not my position to judge these individuals, what their status will be after this life, but personally I think it interesting that those who not receive any glory are known as “vessels of wrath” and that was the state of this mob during this brutal beating.
As I was studying D&C 76, referred to as “The Vision”, I came across a very interesting phrase. But first, for those who do not know about this section of the D&C, it was a vision received by Joseph Smith & Sidney Rigdon regarding the resurrection. Joseph and Sidney were translating the Bible and they had read John 5:29, which says “And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” The prophet says this about the verse: “From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of man had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled. It appeared self-evident from what truths were left, that if God rewarded every one according to the deeds done in the body, the term ‘Heaven,’ as intended for the Saints’ eternal home, must include more kingdoms than one.”
It was while they were pondering on this verse that they received the revelation found in the D&C. This revelation reveals that there are three degrees or kingdoms in the afterlife and one “kingdom” with no glory, known simply as “outer darkness” and those who will “reign” there are known as “sons of perdition”.
This is where it gets interesting. D&C 76:33, refers to these sons of perdition as “vessels of wrath”, a chilling term which makes me think of someone who is full of anger constantly. At the same time I was reading this section, I just happened to be reading about this time frame in the Prophet's life in Rough Stone Rolling.
“The Vision” was received on February 16, 1832 and Bushman states that “William Phelps immediately published ‘The Vision’ in the church newspaper in Missouri.” (Rough Stone Rolling, 200) It is this publication that, I think, ties together this revelation with some of the unfortunate aftermath.
On March 24, 1832, a month after “The Vision” had been received and published in the paper by Phelps, Joseph and Sidney are taken from their homes and beaten. Sidney was dragged by his heels and lay unconscious about 150 yards away from Joseph. Joseph was taken from his bed, stripped naked, administered poison (the attempt failed, but the mob broke the bottle of poison against Joseph’s teeth) and finally tarred and feathered him and left for dead.
The anger, or wrath, shown by this mob, some of whom were former members of the Church, is what strikes me as interesting. As I read the 33rd verse of section 76, “vessels of wrath”, this scene stood out to me. As the preverbal icing on the cake, one of the mobsters “fell on the naked Joseph, and ‘scratched my body with his nails like a mad cat’ muttering ‘God dam ye, that’s the way the Holy Ghost falls on folks.’” (Rough Stone Rolling, 179)
It might be a stretch to connect the publishing of “The Vision” by Phelps and the tarring and feathering episode since the paper was published in Missouri and Joseph and Sidney were living in Hiram, Ohio at the time, but because of the puzzling way that “The Vision” was received by some members of the church, and how this doctrine flies in the face of “fundamental Christianity©”, I can’t help but think that this revelation caused such a fervor that it boiled over and caused Joseph’s enemies to take these drastic actions.
Bushman, probably correctly, doesn’t make the connection between this beating and the publishing of “The Vision” by Phelphs, but rather blames the beating on some letters that were printed by anti-Mormon Ezra Booth. I personally think that even during that time frame, word of "The Vision" through either Phelps' publication or word of mouth, could have been an additional cause for the beating.
It’s not my position to judge these individuals, what their status will be after this life, but personally I think it interesting that those who not receive any glory are known as “vessels of wrath” and that was the state of this mob during this brutal beating.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
“…that such things should be done away”
When the Savior visited the Nephites in the New World, he taught them the Gospel as he had in the Old World. One thing that He taught the Nephites that isn’t explicitly taught in the Bible is the subject of contentions and disputations. After teaching the Nephites the true order of baptism, He then cautioned:
“And according as I have commanded you thus shall ye baptize. And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been. For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.” (3 Nephi 11:28-30)
The Savior taught that contentions and disputations were of the devil and (obviously) not of Him and that not only should there be no contentions, but if such existed, they “should be done away” or put to an end. This is an interesting teaching, and a theme, coincidentally, that is prevalent in the Book of Mormon. Many of the Nephite leaders were already aware of this and practicing and teaching the concept as the examples below will show.
Lehi (588-570 BC)
The prophet Lehi, just before his death, spoke with each of his sons, giving advice, counsel and warnings. To his last-born son Joseph, Lehi taught him about the prophecies of his ancestor, Joseph who was sold into Egypt. Among the prophecies he taught, was this one about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon; “Wherefore, the fruit of thy loins shall write; and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to the knowledge of their fathers in the latter days, and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord.” (2 Nephi 3:12)
Alma (148-145 BC)
Alma was at one time a wicked priest under King Noah, until he heard the prophet Abinadi teach the Gospel. Alma then fled the King’s rule and took some believers with him. Among the things he taught them, was to avoid contention; “And he commanded them that there should be no contention one with another, but that they should look forward with one eye, having one faith and one baptism, having their hearts knit together in unity and in love one towards another.” (Mosiah 18:21)
Alma reinforced this teaching later during his ministry; Alma’s people wanted him to be a king among them. Alma, reminding the people of the iniquity of King Noah, and of their current liberated condition, stated that “I desire that ye should stand fast in this liberty wherewith ye have been made free, and that ye trust no man to be a king over you. And also trust no one to be your teacher nor your minister, except he be a man of God, walking in his ways and keeping his commandments. Thus did Alma teach his people, that every man should love his neighbor as himself, that there should be no contention among them.“ (Mosiah 23:15).
Alma the Younger & Korihor (74 BC)
Alma’s son, Alma, had a confrontation with an anti-Christ named Korihor. Korihor taught that that there was no God, no fall of man, no penalty for sin, and no Christ, and “lead away the hearts of many”. Korihor was finally brought before Alma and after some initial debate, Korihor demanded a sign to prove the existence of God and was struck dumb. The record then states “And it came to pass that they were all convinced of the wickedness of Korihor; therefore they were all converted again unto the Lord; and this put an end to the iniquity after the manner of Korihor.” (Alma 30:58)
Moroni (67 BC)
Moroni was a Nephite captain; during this time, a group of Nephites, who referred to themselves as king-men – because they wanted to be ruled by a king – refused to take up arms against the Lamanites who were coming down to battle. Moroni was “exceedingly wroth; his soul was filled with anger against them” and consequently (and legally) he established and sent a petition, which he had confirmed “by the voice of the people”, to the governor of the land, desiring that he (the governor) would give Moroni the “power to compel those dissenters to defend their country or to put them to death.” And here is the key verse: “For it was his first care to put an end to such contentions and dissensions among the people; for behold, this had been hitherto a cause of all their destruction. And it came to pass that it was granted according to the voice of the people.” Moroni and his army then went to battle with these king-men and more than 4,000 were slain, the leaders were put into prison (for there was no time for their trials at this period) and the remainder, “rather than be smitten down to the earth by the sword, yielded to the standard of liberty, and were compelled to hoist the title of liberty upon their towers, and in their cities, and to take up arms in defence of their country. And thus Moroni put an end to those king-men, that there were not any known by the appellation of king-men; and thus he put an end to the stubbornness and the pride of those people who professed the blood of nobility; but they were brought down to humble themselves like unto their brethren, and to fight valiantly for their freedom from bondage.” (Alma 51:21)
Nephi & Lehi (20-7 BC)
Nephi & Lehi were Nephite brothers who were given the names of their “first parents” so that “when you remember your names ye may remember them; and when ye remember them ye may remember their works; and when ye remember their works ye may know how that it is said, and also written, that they were good.” During this time, there was peace in the land, “save it were a few contentions concerning the points of doctrine which had been laid down by the prophets. And in the seventy and ninth year there began to be much strife. But it came to pass that Nephi and Lehi, and many of their brethren who knew concerning the true points of doctrine, having many revelations daily, therefore they did preach unto the people, insomuch that they did put an end to their strife in that same year.” (Helaman 11:23)
Nephites (21-26 AD)
There were many signs in the New World of the coming of the Son of God into the world. And after these signs, many Nephites “they knew that it must be expedient that Christ had come.” The entire Nephite nation believe in the signs and “Therefore they did forsake all their sins, and their abominations, and their whoredoms, and did serve God with all diligence day and night.” Apart from personal righteousness, they also refused to tolerate any wickedness among them, and the robbers and prisoners who refused to repent were cast into prison and they “did cause the word of God to be preached unto them.” Those who would not enter into a covenant “and who did still continue to have those secret murders in their hearts” were punished according to their law. “And thus they did put an end to all those wicked, and secret, and abominable combinations, in the which there was so much wickedness, and so many murders committed.” (3 Nephi 5:6)
After the Savior visited the Nephites and taught the Gospel, the people dwelt in peace for more than 100 years. “And it came to pass that there was no contention in the land, because of the love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people. And there were no envyings, nor strifes, nor tumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor any manner of lasciviousness; and surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God. There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God. And how blessed were they! For the Lord did bless them in all their doings; yea, even they were blessed and prospered until an hundred and ten years had passed away; and the first generation from Christ had passed away, and there was no contention in all the land.” (4 Nephi 1:15-18)
“And according as I have commanded you thus shall ye baptize. And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been. For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.” (3 Nephi 11:28-30)
The Savior taught that contentions and disputations were of the devil and (obviously) not of Him and that not only should there be no contentions, but if such existed, they “should be done away” or put to an end. This is an interesting teaching, and a theme, coincidentally, that is prevalent in the Book of Mormon. Many of the Nephite leaders were already aware of this and practicing and teaching the concept as the examples below will show.
Lehi (588-570 BC)
The prophet Lehi, just before his death, spoke with each of his sons, giving advice, counsel and warnings. To his last-born son Joseph, Lehi taught him about the prophecies of his ancestor, Joseph who was sold into Egypt. Among the prophecies he taught, was this one about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon; “Wherefore, the fruit of thy loins shall write; and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to the knowledge of their fathers in the latter days, and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord.” (2 Nephi 3:12)
Alma (148-145 BC)
Alma was at one time a wicked priest under King Noah, until he heard the prophet Abinadi teach the Gospel. Alma then fled the King’s rule and took some believers with him. Among the things he taught them, was to avoid contention; “And he commanded them that there should be no contention one with another, but that they should look forward with one eye, having one faith and one baptism, having their hearts knit together in unity and in love one towards another.” (Mosiah 18:21)
Alma reinforced this teaching later during his ministry; Alma’s people wanted him to be a king among them. Alma, reminding the people of the iniquity of King Noah, and of their current liberated condition, stated that “I desire that ye should stand fast in this liberty wherewith ye have been made free, and that ye trust no man to be a king over you. And also trust no one to be your teacher nor your minister, except he be a man of God, walking in his ways and keeping his commandments. Thus did Alma teach his people, that every man should love his neighbor as himself, that there should be no contention among them.“ (Mosiah 23:15).
Alma the Younger & Korihor (74 BC)
Alma’s son, Alma, had a confrontation with an anti-Christ named Korihor. Korihor taught that that there was no God, no fall of man, no penalty for sin, and no Christ, and “lead away the hearts of many”. Korihor was finally brought before Alma and after some initial debate, Korihor demanded a sign to prove the existence of God and was struck dumb. The record then states “And it came to pass that they were all convinced of the wickedness of Korihor; therefore they were all converted again unto the Lord; and this put an end to the iniquity after the manner of Korihor.” (Alma 30:58)
Moroni (67 BC)
Moroni was a Nephite captain; during this time, a group of Nephites, who referred to themselves as king-men – because they wanted to be ruled by a king – refused to take up arms against the Lamanites who were coming down to battle. Moroni was “exceedingly wroth; his soul was filled with anger against them” and consequently (and legally) he established and sent a petition, which he had confirmed “by the voice of the people”, to the governor of the land, desiring that he (the governor) would give Moroni the “power to compel those dissenters to defend their country or to put them to death.” And here is the key verse: “For it was his first care to put an end to such contentions and dissensions among the people; for behold, this had been hitherto a cause of all their destruction. And it came to pass that it was granted according to the voice of the people.” Moroni and his army then went to battle with these king-men and more than 4,000 were slain, the leaders were put into prison (for there was no time for their trials at this period) and the remainder, “rather than be smitten down to the earth by the sword, yielded to the standard of liberty, and were compelled to hoist the title of liberty upon their towers, and in their cities, and to take up arms in defence of their country. And thus Moroni put an end to those king-men, that there were not any known by the appellation of king-men; and thus he put an end to the stubbornness and the pride of those people who professed the blood of nobility; but they were brought down to humble themselves like unto their brethren, and to fight valiantly for their freedom from bondage.” (Alma 51:21)
Nephi & Lehi (20-7 BC)
Nephi & Lehi were Nephite brothers who were given the names of their “first parents” so that “when you remember your names ye may remember them; and when ye remember them ye may remember their works; and when ye remember their works ye may know how that it is said, and also written, that they were good.” During this time, there was peace in the land, “save it were a few contentions concerning the points of doctrine which had been laid down by the prophets. And in the seventy and ninth year there began to be much strife. But it came to pass that Nephi and Lehi, and many of their brethren who knew concerning the true points of doctrine, having many revelations daily, therefore they did preach unto the people, insomuch that they did put an end to their strife in that same year.” (Helaman 11:23)
Nephites (21-26 AD)
There were many signs in the New World of the coming of the Son of God into the world. And after these signs, many Nephites “they knew that it must be expedient that Christ had come.” The entire Nephite nation believe in the signs and “Therefore they did forsake all their sins, and their abominations, and their whoredoms, and did serve God with all diligence day and night.” Apart from personal righteousness, they also refused to tolerate any wickedness among them, and the robbers and prisoners who refused to repent were cast into prison and they “did cause the word of God to be preached unto them.” Those who would not enter into a covenant “and who did still continue to have those secret murders in their hearts” were punished according to their law. “And thus they did put an end to all those wicked, and secret, and abominable combinations, in the which there was so much wickedness, and so many murders committed.” (3 Nephi 5:6)
After the Savior visited the Nephites and taught the Gospel, the people dwelt in peace for more than 100 years. “And it came to pass that there was no contention in the land, because of the love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people. And there were no envyings, nor strifes, nor tumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor any manner of lasciviousness; and surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God. There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God. And how blessed were they! For the Lord did bless them in all their doings; yea, even they were blessed and prospered until an hundred and ten years had passed away; and the first generation from Christ had passed away, and there was no contention in all the land.” (4 Nephi 1:15-18)
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
First Post & Explanation
First, let me just say this; I am not a good writer. I try to follow established guidelines and such, but sometimes I don't use 100% accurate grammar, and I sometimes tend to ramble on (as you can see...). So please bear with my writing style.
I enjoy studying the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ and as I read the scriptures, and other good books and talks, there are occasions where teachings jump out at me. In high school (Seminary), we called these "a-ha moments". When this happens, I'll try to explain my thoughts and feelings in a way that, perhaps, may be of benefit to others.
It's my hope that this will be a nice way to get my thoughts down in some sort of a Journal type style that might be of use for 'the fam' in the future, while at the same time someone who may stumble upon this blog, may see the truth that I have come to see in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I enjoy studying the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ and as I read the scriptures, and other good books and talks, there are occasions where teachings jump out at me. In high school (Seminary), we called these "a-ha moments". When this happens, I'll try to explain my thoughts and feelings in a way that, perhaps, may be of benefit to others.
It's my hope that this will be a nice way to get my thoughts down in some sort of a Journal type style that might be of use for 'the fam' in the future, while at the same time someone who may stumble upon this blog, may see the truth that I have come to see in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)