Tag: Joseph Smith

Our Contingent Constitution

On September 17, 1787 (236 years ago this month), thirty-nine delegates signed the United States Constitution. It begins with these words:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It took four months of intense and divisive closed-door debates in Philadelphia to get the Constitution signed, and that was only the first precarious step in a long, high-stakes fight over whether it would ever become the basis of our government. 

One state had refused to send delegates to the convention at all. Many delegates had left the convention early. Three delegates who stayed refused to sign. Once the Constitution was signed it still had to be ratified by at least nine of the thirteen states. And some of America’s most persuasive and patriotic leaders were outspokenly opposed to it, including Samuel Adams, George Mason, and Patrick Henry.  

James Madison was a proponent of the Constitution. He realized mid way through the convention that he could not get everything he wanted. So he had to choose between getting some of what he wanted or none of what he wanted. Wisely, he chose to compromise. He had argued that the Constitution did not need a bill of rights, but he lost that fight and, in the end, saw the wisdom of including ten amendments to the Constitution that forbade the government from encroaching on freedom of religion, of speech, of assembly, and to petition or protest, among others.

President Dallin H. Oaks taught, 

Without a Bill of Rights, America could not have served as the host nation for the Restoration of the gospel, which began just three decades later.

James Madison’s example, and the June 1, 2023 letter from the First Presidency together with recent teachings from President Nelson and President Oaks, highlight the point I want to make in this post. It is that we need to live in tension without giving way to contention. In other words: In order to form a more perfect union, we must do the difficult work of holding firmly to what the Lord called “just and holy principles” while we humble ourselves, learn from other children of God whose views differ from ours, and find common ground for the general welfare.  

President Oaks taught, “on contested issues, we should seek to moderate and unify.” He models how to do that while upholding just and holy principles. Some people have been critical of him for it. They are free to be so. But it was only by making concessions and accepting the wisdom of others’ points of view that James Madison got the Constitution through both the convention and the ratification process. 

The Constitution is contingent. It always hangs by what Joseph Smith called “a brittle thread” (Burgess, James. Journal, 1841–1848. CHL. MS 1858). That thread is vulnerable to being severed when we the people pridefully choose parties over principles. President Oaks’s 2021 General Conference talk, “Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution” uses the word principle(s) 22 times. There is something important for us to understand about standing on principles.  

Many troubling studies have shown that people (of all parties) tend to be more loyal to their party than to their principles.Voters are even more willing to sacrifice democratic principles for partisan interests when the electorate is highly polarized, as ours is. And lots of troubling evidence shows that unprincipled, partisan voters support candidates who violate the voter’s principles. We often overlook or justify the evil of our candidate when we would condemn or vilify the same behavior in the opposing candidate.  

Living prophets have encouraged us to participate in politics, including in political parties, but they urge us to put revealed principles above all party loyalties. In 1833 the Lord revealed one principle that should always transcend party loyalty: “When the wicked rule,” he said, “the people mourn. Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil. And I give unto you a commandment, that ye shall forsake all evil and cleave unto all good.” 

Earlier this year the First Presidency declared that “merely voting a straight ticket or voting based on ‘tradition’ without careful study of candidates and their positions on important issues is a threat to democracy and inconsistent with revealed standards (see Doctrine and Covenants 98:10).”

So the prophets have urged us “to spend the time needed to become informed about the issues and candidates you will be considering. Some principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties, and members should seek candidates who best embody those principles. Members should also study candidates carefully and vote for those who have demonstrated integrity, compassion, and service to others, regardless of party affiliation.”

At the recent Joseph Smith Papers Conference, Spencer McBride, the best informed historian of Joseph Smith’s political thoughts and actions, said and illustrated that Joseph Smith’s politics were motivated by two principles above all others, namely political independence (not being the pawn of any party), and liberty and justice for all. 

Before the 14th Amendment was added to the the Constitution and the Supreme Court interpreted its equal protection clause to apply to state and local governments, Missouri or any other state could issue executive orders to exterminate Latter-day Saints and the federal government said it would not, and maybe could not, do anything about it. That defect in the Constitution peeved Joseph Smith, and he vowed to do something about it. He was motivated by the principles the Lord had revealed to him earlier, in 1833, when the saints were driven–by men who owned other human beings–from their legally owned and occupied land in Jackson County, Missouri. 

That detail about slavery is not tangential to understanding what the Lord revealed about the Constitution. It is at the heart of what the Lord revealed. He said that he had let it be established and that it “should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles.” The inclusion of all flesh, not just Americans, not just white people, not just men, is important and intentional. In the next verses the Lord highlights a major shortcoming of the Constitution that conflicts with his plan. He says that all flesh should be protected in their rights according to just and holy principles so that every person “may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every [one] may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment. Therefore, it is not right that any [one] should be held in bondage one to another. And for this purpose,” the Lord continues, “have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose” (D&C 101).

This important revelation shows us that the Lord is bigger than the Constitution. He established it, not the other way around. President Oaks taught:

Our belief that the United States Constitution was divinely inspired does not mean that divine revelation dictated every word and phrase . . . . The Constitution was not “a fully grown document,” said President J. Reuben Clark. “On the contrary,” he explained, “we believe it must grow and develop to meet the changing needs of an advancing world.” For example, inspired amendments abolished slavery and gave women the right to vote. 

In this sense the Lord himself compromised with the framers of the Constitution and didn’t originally get everything he wanted in it (or taken out of it). President Oaks continued: 

What was God’s purpose in establishing the United States Constitution? We see it in the doctrine of moral agency. In the first decade of the restored Church, its members on the western frontier were suffering private and public persecution. Partly this was because of their opposition to the human slavery then existing in the United States. In these unfortunate circumstances, God revealed through the Prophet Joseph Smith eternal truths about His doctrine.

God has given His children moral agency—the power to decide and to act. The most desirable condition for the exercise of that agency is maximum freedom for men and women to act according to their individual choices. Then, the revelation explains, “every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment” (Doctrine and Covenants 101:78). 

“Therefore,” the Lord revealed, “it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another” (Doctrine and Covenants 101:79). This obviously means that human slavery is wrong. And according to the same principle, it is wrong for citizens to have no voice in the selection of their rulers or the making of their laws.

Joseph Smith taught that the time could come when “even this Nation will be on the very verge of crumbling to peices and tumbling to the ground and when the constitution is upon the brink of ruin this people will be the Staff up[on] which the Nation shall lean and they shall bear away the constitution away from the <​very​> verge of destruction.”

We can fulfill that prophecy, but unless we do it by following our living prophets, we are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. President Oaks warned about “threats that undermine the inspired principles of the United States Constitution.” He said:

“The stature of the Constitution is diminished by efforts to substitute current societal trends as the reason for its founding, instead of liberty and self-government. The authority of the Constitution is trivialized when candidates or officials ignore its principles. The dignity and force of the Constitution is reduced by those who refer to it like a loyalty test or a political slogan, instead of its lofty status as a source of authorization for and limits on government authority.” 

The contingent Constitution hangs in the balance. Latter-day Saints are supposed to be among the people who preserve it.  What can we do in order to form a more perfect union? We can follow the examples of our greatest presidents and the teachings of our living prophets. 

Constitutional scholar Justin Collings recently showed how George Washington’s vital role in creating and preserving the Constitution hangs on five principles we can espouse. In addition to these, George Washington had what an eminent historian called a sense for power. Washington could could have seized power several times but he always laid it down instead. He surrendered his command of the Continental Army when the war of independence was won. He could have made himself a king like Napoleon did. Instead he handed power peacefully to his duly elected successor. He exemplified the Constitutional principle President Oaks described in these words: 

We are to be governed by law and not by individuals, and our loyalty is to the Constitution and its principles and processes, not to any office holder. In this way, all persons are to be equal before the law. These principles block the autocratic ambitions that have corrupted democracy in some countries.

George Washington’s principled leadership showed us how to live by just and holy principles. Abraham Lincoln’s leadership extended those just and holy principles to all flesh, or at least to more of God’s children than ever before.  

President Lincoln steered us safely through our greatest Constitutional crisis by followed a nearly perfect recipe of faithfulness to the just and holy principles of the divinely inspired Constitution, the humility to eagerly listen to others whose views differed from his, and the courage to act decisively for a more perfect union, the general welfare, the common defence, and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. 

When his army won the war and his party won the White House for the second time, Abraham Lincoln could have put party over principles. He did just the opposite. He said to the deeply wounded country, “With malice toward none with charity for all with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right let us strive on to finish the work we are in to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan ~ to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

Lincoln was doing what Joseph Smith had taught years earlier when he read 1 Corinthians 13 on charity and said:

Don’t be limited in your views with regard to your neighbors’ virtues, but be limited towards your own virtues; and not think yourselves more righteous than others; you must enlarge your souls toward others if yould [you would?] do like Jesus, and carry your fellow creatures to Abram’s bosom.

This is akin to what President Oaks taught in October 2020 when he urged us to act on the Savior’s teaching to love our enemies. He said: 

Knowing that we are all children of God gives us a divine vision of the worth of all others and the will and ability to rise above prejudice…. . As I have lived for many years in different places in this nation, the Lord has taught me that it is possible to obey and seek to improve our nation’s laws and also to love our adversaries and our enemies. While not easy, it is possible with the help of our Lord, Jesus Christ. He gave this command to love, and He promises His help as we seek to obey it.

President Nelson recently taught us the Savior’s command to be peacemakers: 

… Venomous contention . . . infects our civic dialogue and too many personal relationships today. Civility and decency seem to have disappeared during this era of polarization and passionate disagreements. . . . 

Too many pundits, politicians, entertainers, and other influencers throw insults constantly. I am greatly concerned that so many people seem to believe that it is completely acceptable to condemn, malign, and vilify anyone who does not agree with them. . . . 

Anger never persuades. Hostility builds no one. Contention never leads to inspired solutions.  . . . .As disciples of Jesus Christ, we are to be examples of how to interact with others—especially when we have differences of opinion. One of the easiest ways to identify a true follower of Jesus Christ is how compassionately that person treats other people. . . . . 

The Savior’s message is clear: His true disciples build, lift, encourage, persuade, and inspire—no matter how difficult the situation. True disciples of Jesus Christ are peacemakers. . . . One of the best ways we can honor the Savior is to become a peacemaker. . . . 

Contention drives away the Spirit—every time. Contention reinforces the false notion that confrontation is the way to resolve differences; but it never is. Contention is a choice. Peacemaking is a choice. You have your agency to choose contention or reconciliation. I urge you to choose to be a peacemaker, now and always.

Brothers and sisters, we can literally change the world—one person and one interaction at a time. How? By modeling how to manage honest differences of opinion with mutual respect and dignified dialogue.

We almost didn’t get a Constitution. We have almost lost it several times. The Constitution is contingent. It always hangs by what Joseph Smith called “a brittle thread” (Burgess, James. Journal, 1841–1848. CHL. MS 1858). 

The biggest threat to our divinely inspired Constitution is us–the petty, partisan, prideful worst parts of each of us. The good news is that the greatest hope for our divinely inspired Constitution is also us–the best parts of us; the principled, prayerful, and patriotic parts. If we choose to let God prevail, we can be fully faithful to just and holy principles including the extension and preservation of moral agency for all flesh, and we can do so with charity for all and malice toward none.

That’s how we’ll defend our divinely inspired Constitution. 

Three Lines from Hymn 26: Joseph Smith’s First Prayer

Required Reading: First Vision Accounts

Optional Reading: Richard L. Bushman, “What Can We Learn from the First Vision”

 

Memorize and internalize concepts in bold typeface.

When the powers of sin assailing filled his soul with deep despair, Joseph Smith sought the God of love. His humble prayer was answered. He found the living, loving, God. So can you. 

 

George Manwaring, a British convert and self-taught composer, was inspired by a painting of Joseph Smith’s first vision by the Danish artist C.C.A. Christensen. So Manwaring composed a hymn about it that begins like this:  

Oh, how lovely was the morning!

Radiant beamed the sun above.

Bees were humming, sweet birds singing

Music ringing thru the grove,

When within the shady woodland

Joseph sought the God of love. . . 

Humbly kneeling, sweet appleaing—

‘Twas the boy’s first uttered prayer—

We will read the accounts of Joseph Smith’s first vision together in class, and later lessons will introduce source criticism (how we know what we know) of them. This lesson shows how three lines from George Manwaring’s hymn go right to the heart of Joseph’s experience. 

The powers of sin filled Joseph with deep despair

In 1832, Joseph wrote a brief autobiography including this passage about his early teens

“At about the age of twelve  years my mind become seriously imprest with regard to the all importent concerns of for the well fare of my immortal Soul which led me to search ing the scriptures believeing as I was taught, that  they contained the word of God thus applying  myself to them and my intimate acquaintance  with those of differant denominations led me to  marvel excedingly for I discovered that <they did not adorn>instead of  adorning their profession by a holy walk and Godly conversation agreeable to what I found contained in that sacred depository this was a grief to my Soul thus from the age of twelve years  to fifteen I pondered many things in my heart  concerning the sittuation of the world of mankind the contentions and divi[si]ons the wicke[d]ness and  abominations and the darkness which pervaded the of the minds of mankind my mind become excedingly distressed for I become convicted of my sins . . . “

Have you ever wondered why Joseph Smith said that his “mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them” (Joseph Smith-History 1:8)

Or why he told his mother after his first vision, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true” (Joseph Smith-History 1:20)

Until I studied other Christian theologies and histories, Joseph’s words meant nothing to me. Now I realize that those two lines are enormously meaningful. They say so much about what Joseph was looking for. They reveal the terrible dilemma Joseph struggled to resolve. The nature of God is at stake in that dilemma. So is salvation. To get a sense of Joseph’s dilemma we will need a sampling of both Presbyterianism and of Methodism

As we learned in our last lesson, the Presbyterian God is sovereign. That’s the most important thing about Him. He is in control. He might decide to save you but he is much more likely to damn you. And there is nothing you, in your totally depraved fallenness, can do about it. His will is mysterious, arbitrary, sovereign. And he abhors you….

Remember the haunting line from the famous Jonathan Edwards sermon, “The God that holds you over the Pit of Hell, much as one holds a Spider, or some loathsome Insect, over the Fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked; his Wrath towards you burns like Fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the Fire . . . “

It’s overly simple to say that the Presbyterian God abhorred people and the Methodist God didn’t, but the contrast helps us see a difference that meant a lot to Joseph. Methodists emphasized that God so loved the world that He sent His Only Begotten Son, and people could choose to come to Christ and receive a gift of His grace. When they did they would be born again. A few would see visions, more would feel pure joy, and many would shout for joy. That’s what this image depicts:

Joseph Sought the God of Love

Now try to imagine what it was like to be Joseph. He knows he is sinful and needs Jesus Christ. He does not know whether (the Presbyterian) God had already damned him to eternal hell by his arbitrary sovereign will. As the heir of Adam’s fall, Joseph somehow deserved hell, though he did nothing to cause his own fall and there was nothing he could do to change it. Joseph didn’t like Presbyterianism but his teenage sinfulness lead him to think–even fear– it was probably true. 

Joseph attended Methodist revival meetings where he was called to come to Christ. Everyone around him felt the power of God and Joseph said he “wanted to get Religion too wanted to feel & shout like the Rest but could feel nothing.”[1]  

His family tradition told him that the scriptures and sound reason led to truth, but he faced a terrible conflict between his head and his heart. His heart had him hoping that Methodism (Arminian theology) was right, but he tried and tried and couldn’t produce any evidence to support that hope. He wanted to feel and shout, but felt nothing.

So his head led him to believe that Presbyterianism (Calvinist theology) must be right—but that’s an awful possibility and he didn’t want to conclude it was true if any better option was open.

He tells himself over and over that maybe they’re all wrong, but he doesn’t dare let that thought sink into his heart because he’s convicted of his sins and desperately in need of the Savior’s forgiveness (Joseph Smith-History 1:10, 18). He can’t figure out this dilemma. Then he experiences the epiphany that comes from reading James 1:5. 

He realizes that he can ask of God, and he makes an early morning trip to the woods to ask in faith. In his 1838/39 Manuscript History, Joseph described it this way: 

“In the midst of this war of words, and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself, what is to be done? Who of all these parties are right? Or are they all wrong together? and if any one of them be right which is it? And how shall I know it? While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, First Chapter and fifth verse which reads, “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him.[”] Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man that this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did, for how to act I did not know and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had [I] would never know, for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same [p. 2] passage of Scripture so differently as <to> destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible. At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness and confusion or else I must do as James directs, that is, Ask of God. I at last came to the determination to ask of God, concluding that if he gave wisdom to them that lacked wisdom, and would give liberally and not upbraid, I might venture.”

Joseph’s Humble Prayer was Answered: He Saw the Living (Loving) God

In a November 1835 journal entry, Joseph’s scribe recorded this telling:

“being wrought up in my mind, respecting the subject of religion and looking upon <​at​> the different systems taught the children of men, I knew not who was right or who was wrong and concidering it of the first importance that I should be right, in matters that involved eternal consequences; being thus perplexed in mind I retired to the silent grove and bowd down before the Lord, under a realising sense that he had said (if the bible be true) ask and you shall receive knock and it shall be opened seek and you shall find and again, if any man lack wisdom let him ask of God who giveth to all men libarally and upbradeth not; information was what I most desired at this time, and with a fixed determination I to obtain it, I called upon the Lord for the first time, in the place above stated or in other words I made a fruitless attempt to pray, my toung seemed to be swolen in my mouth, so that I could not utter, I heard a noise behind me like some person walking towards me, <​I​> strove again to pray, but could not, the noise of walking seemed to draw nearer, I sprung up on my feet, and [p. 23] and looked around, but saw no person or thing that was calculated to produce the noise of walking, I kneeled again my mouth was opened and my toung liberated, and I called on the Lord in mighty prayer, a pillar of fire appeared above my head, it presently rested down upon my <​me​> head, and filled me with joy unspeakable, a personage appeard in the midst, of this pillar of flame which was spread all around, and yet nothing consumed, another personage soon appeard like unto the first, he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee, he testifyed unto me that Jesus Christ is the son of God . . . “

When the powers of sin assailing filled his soul with deep despair, Joseph sought the God of love. His humble prayer was answered. He found the living, loving God. 

Joseph recorded his testimony of this experience often. His earliest accounts emphasize his successful quest for God’s forgiveness.

When the power of sin has assailed my soul, I have also sought the living, loving God. My prayers have been answered less dramatically than Joseph’s but with the same redeeming love. I testify that Joseph sought and found the God of love. So can you. 

So much is at stake over whether his testimony of this experience is true or not. Seekers should become the best informed analysts of Joseph’s vision accounts. So in class we will introduce the known accounts of Joseph Smith’s first vision and practice source criticism. 

How Apostasy Shaped a Family that was Ripe for Restoration

Required Reading: Terryl L. Givens, “Lightning Out of Heaven”

Optional Reading: “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”

 

Memorize and internalize concepts in bold typeface.

Remember: “Long before Joseph Smith offered his first prayer, thousands and millions of people must have yearned, as Sarah did, for the assurance that God was not the severe, distant, impersonal deity of Jonathan Edwards, but the kind, loving, and very personal God that Joseph found in the Sacred Grove” (Terryl L. Givens, “Lightening Out of Heaven”) 

 

In 1741, Presbyterian minister Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) delivered the most famous sermon in American history: 

The God that holds you over the Pit of Hell, much as one holds a Spider, or some loathsome Insect, over the Fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked; his Wrath towards you burns like Fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the Fire; he is of purer Eyes than to bear to have you in his Sight . . . . and yet ‘tis nothing but his Hand that holds you from falling into the Fire ever Moment . . . .  

John Calvin (1509-1564)

The 16th century (1500s) reformation of Christianity produced variant theologies. The ones that most concern us are Calvinism and Arminianism.

 

Presbyterians like Jonathan Edwards were Calvinist. Their soteriology, or doctrine of salvation, is a variant of the theology of John Calvin (1509-1564). 

 

Followers of John Calvin (1509-1564) emphasize God’s complete and total sovereignty: They use the acronym TULIP:  

 

Total depravity of mankind: all people are completely fallen and powerless

Unconditional election: God will (mercifully) save few and (justly) damn most

Limited atonement: Christ atoned only for the few who will be saved

Irresistible grace: No one to whom God gives grace can opt out of it 

Perseverance of the saved: If God elects you to be saved you will be saved

Joseph Smith’s ancestors were British Calvinists (Puritans, Pilgrims). Puritans wanted to purify or restore the Church of England (Anglican). They settled in New England (Massachusetts, Connecticut) in the 1600s and 1700s.

Jonathan Edwards was a young divinity student at Yale in the early 1700s. He wrote a note in the front of his Greek grammar book about the rumors he’d heard about Sarah Pierrepont: 

“They say there is a young lady in [New Haven] who is loved of that Great Being, who made and rules the world, and . . . this Great Being, in some way or other invisible, comes to her and fills her mind with exceeding sweet delight; and that she hardly cares for anything, except to meditate on Him. . . .” (Quoted in Iain H. Murray, Jonathan Edwards: A New Biography [Banner of Truth, 1987], 92).

In 1727, Sarah (17) married Jonathan (27). They both loved God, but Sarah thought of him differently than her husband did:

One day while listening to a prayer she had a deep desire to “call God my Father” and wondered whether she really could. When she prayed privately she felt “the presence of God was so near, and so real, that I seemed scarcely conscious of any thing else. God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, seemed as distinct persons, both manifesting their inconceivable loveliness, and mildness, and gentleness, and their great . . .love to me.”  Sarah struggled to communicate, as Joseph would a century later, “the peace and happiness, which I hereupon felt.”  It “was altogether inexpressible” (Sarah Edwards, in Works of President Edwards, vol. 1, pp. 172–73; italics in original; see also George M. Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2003), 243–44.

Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609)

Methodists and many Baptists are Arminian. Their soteriology follows the Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609), who started out Calvinist but changed his views.

Calvinism emphasizes the fallen nature of mankind, so does Arminianism (so does the Book of Mormon at 2 Nephi 2:29, Mosiah 3:19, and Ether 3:2). But where Calvinism teaches that God will save a few from the fall unconditionally, Arminianism emphasizes scriptures that make God’s blessings conditional (think of James 1:5-6).

So Arminians believe Christ performed an unlimited atonement so that all who choose to act on God’s conditions may be saved.

Calvinists believe that a person cannot resist God’s grace (because then God wouldn’t be sovereign); Arminians believe a person can choose to receive God’s grace.

John Wesley (1703-1791)

In May 1738, an Anglican minister in his mid-30s, John Wesley, was listening to a sermon in London when he felt the Holy Ghost assure him that Christ had atoned for his sins. He became a powerful preacher of Arminianism. After his death in 1791, Wesley’s followers founded the Methodist Church. 

In the 1770s when Joseph Smith’s parents were born and his grandparents were trying to figure out which church to join, Universalism began to gain popularity. Universalism is the doctrine that God will save everyone. 

Calvinism was justified by a selective reading of Paul’s teachings. Universalism was justified by a selective reading of John’s teachings. God is love. Why would a loving God with power to save people damn anyone? 

It may seem like Universalism and Calvinism are complete opposites but they both assert that God does all the decision making. Neither includes what Latter-day Saints call agency. In both Calvinism and Universalism, people don’t choose to accept or reject God’s plan of salvation through Christ, God makes all the choices.

Deism is the idea that God created the universe and lets it run, but he doesn’t reveal himself through prophets or scriptures. Reason is the revelation of Deism. Unlike the other isms, Deism doesn’t begin with the story of fallen Adam and Eve, and if there was no fall, there’s no need for a redeemer. Deism is more philosophy than religion. Deism’s Jesus is more philosopher than Savior. 

These isms and others competed with each other, creating conflict, instability, anxiety, fear, and leading to faith in the lives of Joseph Smith’s grandparents and parents.

Between the dates when and places where his parents were born, there was a shot heard round the world that sparked the American Revolution. Political and spiritual doctrines of self-determination swept America at the same time. We can see that expansion of individual liberty, economic opportunity, and religious freedom were wonderful, but people who lived through it were as anxious and unsettled as we are in our uncertain times. By the time Lucy Mack gave birth to Joseph twenty-five years later, a second great awakening had many people asking anew what, if anything, they could do to obtain salvation in Christ. 

By the time Joseph went into the grove, Methodism was the largest Church in the country (Gaustad, Historical Atlas of Religion in America, 2d ed. 1976, p. 4). That growth curve is staggering.

What would it have been like for Joseph Smith’s future parents, whose world underwent political, religious, and economic revolution in their first 30 years?

If you’re Lucy (Joseph’s mother), your Calvinist mother has been your stabilizing force. Your father is wildly unpredictable, though he recently converted to Christianity after years of what was called “infidelity,” meaning a lack of faith.

 

If you’re Joseph Senior, your father has also made a dramatic change from belonging to a Congregational (Calvinistic) Church to Universalism. He taught you that God loves you and that you should love God, pray earnestly, be pious, and have contempt for self-righteousness. He taught that the way to truth is a combination of “scripture and sound reason.” God is no respecter of persons and that Jesus Christ “can as well save all as any”  

If you’re newly-wed Joseph and Lucy you have no church. You are, in fact, the first members of your family for several generations to not belong somewhere. You have Calvinism and Universalism and Deism in your blood and Arminianism in the air. Each of them is contending for your attention and your soul, but you don’t belong to any of them. 

You worry about how you’ll support your growing family and what you’ll tell the children when they ask you if they need to be saved, and if so how. 

You’re Christian—you believe that the answer will center on Jesus Christ, but whose Christ? Which doctrine of salvation will you teach them? You don’t agree—with your parents, with each other, or even with yourself:

Lucy

  • feared dying before conversion
  • promised God she’d seek true Church and tried several options
  • some church is better than no church

Joseph Sr

  • dreamed anxious dreams
  • disgusted with “formalist” clergy
  • no church is better than the wrong church

Lucy wrote a really important memoir. In it she described how the conflict between her and her husband came to a head:

“My mind became deeply impressed with the subject of religion. . . .  I endeavored to persuade my husband to attend the Methodist meeting with me he went a few times to grat[ify] me for he had so little faith in the doctrines taught by them that my feelings were the only inducement for him to go— But as soon as his Father and brother Jesse [Smith] heard that we were attending methodist meeting they were much displeased and his father came to the door one day and threw Tom Pain’s age of reason into the house and angrily bade him read that untill he believed it they also told him that he ought not to let his wife go to the meetings and it would be far better for him to stop going . . . My husband requested me not to go . . . .  I was very much hurt by this but did not reply to him then but retired to a grove of handsome wild cherry trees and prayed to the Lord that he <would> do so influence the heart of my husband that he would be <one day> induced to rec[ei]ve the Gospel whenever it was preached. I [s]pent some time in prayer and returned to the house much depressed in spirits. That night I had the following dream—”

“. . . I stood in a large and beautiful meadow, . . . I discovered two . . . trees . . . on the same side of the stream. These trees were very beautiful: they were well proportioned, and towered with majestic beauty to a great hight; . . . and after beholding them a short time, a bright light surrounded one of them. . . .  Presently a gentle breeze passed by; and the trees encircled with this golden zone, bent gracefully before the wind and waved its beautiful branches [p. 49] in the light air. . . .” 

“I turned my eyes upon its fellow . . . but it was not surrounded with the belt of light . . . no matter how strong the wind blew over it, not a leaf was stirred, not a bow was bent; but obstinately stiff it stood . . . .  I wondered at what I saw, and said in my heart, what can be the meaning of all this. And the interpretation given me was, that these [trees] personated my husband and his oldest brother (Jesse Smith); that the stubborn unyielding tree, was like Jesse, and the other, more pliable and flexible one, was Joseph [Smith Sr.] (my husband): that the breath of heaven which passed over them, was the pure and undefiled gospel of the son of God; which gospel— Jesse would always resist; but, when Joseph should be more advanced in life, that [p. 50] he would hear the pure gospel, receive it with his whole heart, and rejoice therein . . .” (“Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1845,” p. 48, The Joseph Smith Papers).

Remember: “Long before Joseph Smith offered his first prayer, thousands and millions of people must have yearned, as Sarah did, for the assurance that God was not the severe, distant, impersonal deity of Jonathan Edwards, but the kind, loving, and very personal God that Joseph found in the Sacred Grove.” (Givens, “Lightning Out of Heaven“)

And remember that among the revelators who experienced manifestations of God’s love and assurances that restoration was on the way, there were women including Sarah Pierrepont and Lucy Mack Smith.

Joseph’s parents were among the seekers who were ripe for restoration. In the next lesson we will see how three lines from hymn 26 highlight the way the restoration got started.

Starting Right: How an Assumption Led to Apostasy

Required Reading: “Becoming Like God”

Optional Reading: Matthew J. Grey, “The Apostolic Fathers as Witnesses to the Early Christian Apostasy” 

Memorize and internalize concepts and dates in bold typeface.

 

Professor Stephen Webb (1961-2016) was a devout Christian but not a Latter-day Saint. He wrote the book Mormon Christianity: What Other Christians Can Learn from the Latter-day Saints (2013). It says:

“The traditional view, which is often called classical theism, holds that God is utterly unique. God is not one of the things of this world. He is absolutely transcendent, and as such, God is utterly beyond the stretch of our imagination, let alone the range of our knowledge. We can know God only if and when God reveals himself to us, but even then we do not know God’s substance (or essence). . . .  Classical theists think the idea that God is embodied is nonsensical. It is like saying squares are round. If it is the nature of God to be pure spirit, then by definition God cannot have or be a body. Classical theism was slow to develop in the church [Christianity] and did not receive its most systematic treatment until the work of Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), but most Christians today share its assumption that God is immaterial” (pages 4-5).

The most important thing to internalize from this lesson is the contrast between the restored truths God revealed about himself to Joseph Smith and classical theism

How classical theism’s assumption that God is immaterial came to have a hold on Christianity: 

      • Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was born of a virgin, crucified for the sins of the world, resurrected, and ascended into heaven after promising to return someday
      • That, at least, was the testimony of eyewitnesses of his majesty–apostles he chose and ordained
      • They contributed to biographies of Jesus and a history of their acts as apostles
      • The epistemology (or way of knowing) of these records is eyewitness testimony–they knew because they were witnesses. That is a posteriori knowledge, a little Latin that means based on experience
      • Eyewitness accounts were compiled and recorded in the Bible–we know their testimonies because they were recorded in historical records
      • In their historical records, apostles prophesied apostasy
      • In their letters to Christians, apostles documented apostasy
      • By about 100 AD there were no more active apostles
      • Theologians replaced apostles and theology replaced experience and eyewitnesses
      • Theology is typically a priori, a little Latin that describes knowledge gained from reasoning and deduction
      • Theologians reasoned and deduced based on teachings of Parmenides (born about 515 BC)
      • Philosophy professor James Faulconer wrote: “As he is usually interpreted, Parmenides gave careful, rational arguments that the transcendent ultimate must not only be unchanging, it must be unmoving, indivisible, unaffected, and outside time–since each of those things implies change.” 
      • “When later thinkers began to think about the Jewish and Christian God philosophically–as they had to from at least the second century on–they tended to do so in Parmenides’s terms. Those were, after all, the intellectual common currency of the time, the ideas available to early Christian thinkers for explaining their belief to others. They could no more have thought in other terms than we could explain how our houses are lit without using the language of electricity.”
      • “Parmenides’s way of thinking about reality became an embedded cultural assumption. In fact, the Parmedian assumption was all the more powerful because it was unconscious. Not knowing they were making that assumption made it difficult for early Christians to avoid it” (Faulconer, Thinking Otherwise, 5-8).
      • Beginning in 325 AD, Roman emperors convened councils of bishops who were theologians
      • The councils agreed on creeds that codified the nature of God and Christ
      • Based on the Parmedian assumption, theologians decided, using words not found in scripture, that God and Christ were of one uncreated substance
      • This implied that God is immutable (does not ever change in any way) and impassible (cannot experience emotion, pleasure, pain, or anything that seems human)
      • When your Christian friends ask you if you are a Christian, they are asking if you accept these ideas about who and what God is. They are asking if you believe in the Christ of the Christian creeds

 

Artist’s depiction of Joseph Smith preaching at conference in Nauvoo in April 1844.

Imagine it’s April 7, 1844 in Nauvoo, Illinois. The Mississippi River is rolling along. The prairie grass and the trees are green. It smells like spring. It’s a very pleasant morning and by 10 AM thousands of saints have gathered in the open air to listen to the last General Conference talk Joseph Smith will ever give.

  • Joseph knows that he does not have long to live.[1] What will he say? He decides to speak in memory of “Beloved Brother King Follet” who recently died in an accident. Joseph asks the saints to pray that he would have the Holy Ghost and that the Lord would strengthen his lungs. Find the sources of this King Follett discourse, as it became known, and some source criticism, on The Joseph Smith Papers website. The sources include Wilford Woodruff’s journal entry. It’s Wilford’s best effort to reconstruct Joseph’s sermon.[2]
Joseph Smith’s journal entry for April 7, 1844.
  • “It is necessary for us to have an understanding of God at the beginning,” Joseph says. “If we get a good start first we can go right, but if you start wrong you may go wrong.” 
  • Joseph asked: “What kind of a being is God? . . . have any of you seen or herd him or communed with him[?] . . . . The scriptures inform us that this is eternal life to know the ownly wise God & Jesus Christ whome He has sent. [So] . . . if you dont know God you have not eternal life. [So] . . . . find out what kind of a being God is.” 

 

Joseph then testified: “God who sits in yonder heavens is a man like yourselves That GOD if you were to see him to day that holds the worlds you would see him like a man in form, like yourselves.”

Wilford Woodruff’s April 7, 1844 journal entry.

 

  • That radical, restored truth challenged classical theism. Joseph learned from God that the creeds were wrong (JSH 1:19 and Manuscript History A1). So Joseph rejected the assumption on which traditional Christianity is based. The God Joseph knew was not a theological abstraction. The God Joseph knew was mutable or capable of change, of becoming God. He was also passible, meaning that he not only had a body, he had passions. He could suffer.  The God who revealed himself to Joseph Smith became God and was perfectly passible. Joseph taught that all people are children of God, with potential to become like him.  Joseph taught that God, and later Christ, had become exalted, and that because of them we could become exalted too, but not overnight. “It will take a long time after the grave,” he said.  Joseph taught: “You have got to learn how to make yourselves God, king and priest, by going from a small capacity to a great capacity to the resurrection of the dead, to dwelling in everlasting burnings . . . to be an heir of God & joint heir of Jesus Christ enjoying the same rise exhaltation & glory untill you arive at the station of a God.”

Joseph knew that he was speaking to converted Protestant Christians who might find his teachings challenging to their assumptions about God. So he turned to the first verse of the Bible and showed that his teachings were grounded in the Bible, not in Greek philosophy. He taught that the verb translated as created in Genesis 1:1 refers to organizing both spiritual and elemental matter into divine beings with power to become exalted as God is. From his Hebrew studies and from the Book of Abraham, Joseph knew that the word translated as God in Genesis 1:1 is plural–Gods. Gods created. “The Gods came together & concocked the plan of making the world & the inhabitants,” he said. 

So Joseph rejected the traditional Christian–but not Biblical–doctrine that God created out of nothing, or ex nihilo. Wilford and thousands of others must have been on the edges of their seats, if they even had seats. 

Joseph used the ring on his finger to illustrate what the Lord had revealed to him. There are two basic kinds of stuff–element and intelligence. Neither was created or made. They can’t be (DC 93). They’re like a ring, Joseph said, with no beginning and no end. God and people are made out of this stuff. God made people out of this stuff but did not make the stuff. 

“The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge,” Joseph said. The Lord had taught him over the years that intelligence is the same as light, truth, life, law, glory, and power (DC 88, 93). God offers us intelligence on terms and conditions (laws of God). And we can accumulate intelligence by choosing to obey God’s laws (DC 51, 88, 93, 130). Put another way, we are endowed with God’s power when we keep covenants.

As Joseph put it, “God has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences that they may be exalted with himself.” Joseph declared that he knew these truths “by the revelations of Jesus Christ.”

In the quest for truth, we will start right if we understand that we belong to a Heavenly Family. We are here on purpose. We are children of Heavenly Parents, whose divine Son, Jesus Christ, was part of the plan from the very beginning to exalt us in their image—if that is what we want. 

Professor Webb was really great at identifying and interrogating the assumption on which Christianity is based. He asked, “What if Joseph Smith’s vision of God really does have something important to say to all Christians today? What if his insight into the materiality of the divine is what the world today most needs to hear?” (Mormon Christianity, 8-9). 

The assumption about God that is embedded in the creeds of Christianity led to apostasy. In the next lesson we will see how apostasy shaped a family that was ripe for restoration. 

Notes

[1] “Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1845,” p. 241, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed May 18, 2022, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1845/249; https://www.churchhistorianspress.org/the-first-fifty-years-of-relief-society/part-1/1-2/1-2-7?lang=eng; Woodruff, Journal, Apr. 9, 1842, and July 28, 1844.

[2] “Discourse, 7 April 1844, as Reported by Wilford Woodruff,” p. [133], The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed May 18, 2022, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-7-april-1844-as-reported-by-wilford-woodruff/1.

Come, Follow Me: Doctrine & Covenants 137, 138

Section 137

Soteriology (so·te·ri·ol·o·gy) is theology about salvation. Christianity’s  soteriological problem is based on three premises: 

  • God loves all people and desires their salvation (1 Timothy 2:3-4)
  • Salvation comes to those who knowingly and willfully accept Jesus Christ as their Savior (John 3:16)
  • Most people live and die without accepting Christ, or even knowing that they could or should

The problem says that all three premises are true but they can’t be reconciled. Proposed solutions tend to discredit one of the premises. Maybe God doesn’t desire the salvation of all people. Or maybe Jesus saves people who don’t knowingly and willfully accept Him. 

The first Christians didn’t have this problem because they didn’t make the unstated assumption that makes it a problem in the first place. In other words, the first Christians didn’t believe that death was a deadline that determined a person’s salvation. Peter taught that Jesus Christ preached His gospel to the dead so they could be judged as justly as the living (1 Peter 3:18-20, 4:6). Paul taught that Christians could be baptized for the dead (1 Corinthians 15:29). 

Rohan Hellmouth. Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des manuscrits, Latin 9471, fol. 76r.

Jeffrey Trumbower’s very cool book Rescue for the Dead (Oxford 2001) traces the doctrine of redemption for the dead through Christian history. It turns out that it was Augustine, not Jesus or his apostles, who decided that death should be a deadline that determined a person’s salvation. But Augustine’s view prevailed in Christ’s church, at least in the West. Many medieval Christians continued to believe that (after his death and before his resurrection) Christ opened the spirit prison. They called this event the harrowing of Hell, and they created a lot of art depicting it.[1] My favorite images are the ones in which Hell is an awful monster, and Christ causes it to cough up its captive dead (as in 2 Nephi 9). However, the Protestant reformers, for all the good they did, generally followed Augustine on this point. Then along came Joseph Smith. 

He was immersed in Protestant culture and assumptions. His big brother died painfully in 1823. The loss was heartbreaking to Joseph. It stung even worse when Reverend Benjamin Stockton implied pretty strongly at Alvin’s funeral that he would spend eternity in Hell. Joseph couldn’t reconcile Alvin’s goodness, Rev. Stockton’s doctrine, and a just and merciful God. 

Fast forward twelve years to 1836. Joseph now knows from the Book of Mormon that unaccountable infants who die are not damned, but as distasteful as Rev. Stockton’s doctrine still sounds, Joseph doesn’t know that adults who die before embracing the Savior’s gospel are not automatically damned. Sincere and devout but mistaken theologians have caused this problem.

If you’re the Lord Jesus Christ, how will you solve it? How will you inform a world that has already decided otherwise that your saving grace reaches beyond death and saves all who choose to embrace your gospel? Joseph hasn’t even thought to ask. He is so thoroughly acculturated by Protestantism. So how do you get him to become open to it? How do you help him become aware of things he doesn’t know that he doesn’t know?

You show him a vision of the future, and of heaven, and you make sure he sees Alvin there. That makes him marvel and wonder. How will Alvin get past the flaming gates of God’s kingdom? Having purposely provoked the question, you answer it:

Visions, 21 January 1836. Image courtesy of josephsmithpapers.org.

All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it, if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God— also all that shall die henceforth, without​ a knowledge of it, who would have received it, with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom, for I the Lord ​will​ judge all men according to their works according to the desires of their hearts (D&C 137).[2]

Desire, not death, is the determinant of salvation through Jesus Christ. He saves all who desire to be saved by Him once they know that good news. Which side of death they are on makes no difference. By removing the assumption that death determines salvation, Jesus resolved the soteriological problem for Joseph and for everyone else. There is no conflict between the premises now. 

Section 138

Early Christians believed that people were not saved or damned based on when they lived or died, but based on what they decided to do with Christ’s offer of salvation when they learned about it.  Over the subsequent centuries, however, death became “a firm boundary of salvation” in western Christianity.[1]

Based on teachings of Peter and Paul, medieval Christians continued to believe in what they called the “harrowing of hell,” Christ’s disembodied descent into the spirit world between his crucifixion and resurrection to redeem the captives. A rich tradition of drama and art depict the Savior’s mission of “deliverance” in which he declared “liberty to the captives who had been faithful” (D&C 136:18).[2]

A thousand years later, in 1918, the problem of death had not diminished and the aged Prophet Joseph F. Smith contemplated the same teachings of Peter and Paul. The Great War, known to us as World War I, was claiming more than nine million lives. A global influenza pandemic dwarfed that total. Worldwide the virus reaped a grim harvest of perhaps 50 million souls or more. It killed over 195,000 Americans in October 1918, the deadliest month in American history, the month the Lord revealed section 138.[3]

In the midst of the dead and dying was Joseph F., His father Hyrum had been brutally shot to death when Joseph was five. “I lost my mother, the sweetest soul that ever lived,” Joseph wrote, “when I was only a boy.”[4] His first child, Mercy Josephine, died at age two, leaving Joseph “vacant, lonely, desolate, deserted.” His eldest son died unexpectedly in January 1918, leaving President Smith “my overwhelming burden of grief.” In between those deaths, President Smith buried a wife and eleven other children.[5]

President Smith was ill as General Conference approached in October 1918. He surprised the Saints by attending on October 4 and speaking briefly. “I have dwelt in the spirit of prayer, of supplication, of faith and of determination; and I have had my communications with the Spirit of the Lord continuously.”[6] The day before, the Lord had given him the visions described in section 138.[7]

Section 138 is a Christ-centered testimony from beginning to end. It starts with President Smith pondering the Savior’s atonement, continues with a witness of Christ’s “harrowing of hell,” proceeds with the gospel of Jesus Christ being preached to departed spirits, and concludes in the name of Jesus. “I saw” (11), “I beheld” (15, 57), “I understood” (25), “I perceived” (29), “I observed” (55),  “I bear record, and I know that this record is true,” Joseph F. declares (60).  

He used powerful verbs to describe how he sought revelation. “I sat in my room pondering over the scriptures; And reflecting upon the great atoning sacrifice that was made by the Son of God, for the redemption of the world.” He intellectually “engaged” the soteriological problem of Christian theology and the most terrible questions of his time in which “the sheer, overwhelming quantity of death awakened individual and communal grief on an unprecedented scale. With the loss came questions: What is the fate of the dead? Do they continue to exist? Is there life after death?”[8] He returned to relevant Bible passages he already knew well and “pondered over these things which are written” (11).  

That resulted in a series of visions. Joseph F. saw an innumerable gathering of the righteous dead, those who had been faithful Christians in life, “rejoicing together because the day of their deliverance was at hand” (15). They had been eager waiting for Christ to deliver them from the bondage of being disembodied, what verse 23 calls the “chains of hell” (cross reference D&C 45:17 and 93:33). The Savior arrived and preached the gospel to them but not to those who had rejected the warnings of prophets in life.  

This vision led President Smith to wonder and inquire further. Christ’s miraculous three-year mortal ministry resulted in few converts. How could his short ministry among the dead be effective? What did Peter mean by writing that the Savior preached to the spirits in prison who had been disobedient? These questions brought another revelation, a recognition “that the Lord went not in person among the wicked and disobedient” but sent messengers. He mustered an army to wage war with death and hell. He “organized his forces” and armed them “with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead” (30).[9] Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and Wilford Woodruff all taught that the Savior unlocked the spirit prison and provided for redemption of the dead.[10] Not until Joseph F.’s vision, however, did mankind know how Christ “organized his forces,” “appointed messengers,” and “commissioned them to go forth” (D&C 138:30). That made it possible for the dead to act for themselves, to be fully developed free agents who were accountable for their new knowledge. The teaching fulfilled God’s just plan of salvation, making each individual responsible to receive or reject “the sacrifice of the Son of God” (35). 

President Smith saw “our glorious Mother Eve, with many of her faithful daughters who had lived through the ages and worshiped the true and living God” (39). He must have moved to see his father, Hyrum Smith, together with his brother Joseph, “among the noble and great ones” (55). Most comforting to me is his vision of “the faithful elders of this dispensation, when they depart from mortal life, continue their labors in the preaching of the gospel of repentance and redemption, through the sacrifice of the Only Begotten Son of god, among those who are in darkness and under the bondage of sin in the great world of the spirits of the dead” (57).  As both orphaned son and grieving father, President Smith appreciated the vision’s confirmation of “the redemption of the dead, and the sealing of the children to their parents” (48).  

A survivor of the influenza pandemic repeatedly asked, “where are the dead?” Section 138 “answers this question and speaks to the great, worldwide need that underlies it.”[11] On October 31, 1918, ailing President Smith sent his son Joseph Fielding to read the revelation to a meeting of the First Presidency and quorum of the twelve apostles. They “accepted and endorsed the revelation as the word of the Lord.”[12] The Deseret Evening News published the revelation about a month later. In the meantime Joseph F. passed from life to death knowing better than anyone else what he could expect on arrival. 

Section 137 notes

[1] David L. Paulsen, Roger D. Cook, Kendel J. Christensen, “The Harrowing of Hell: Salvation for the Dead in Early Christianity,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 19:1 (2010): 56-77.

[2] “Visions, 21 January 1836 [D&C 137],” p. 136-137, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed December 7, 2020, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/visions-21-january-1836-dc-137/1.

Section 138 notes

[1] Jeffrey A. Trumbower, Rescue for the Dead: The Posthumous Salvation of Non-Christians in Early Christianity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 3-9, 126-40.

[2] K.M. Warren, “Harrowing of Hell,” The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII. (New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910).

[3] George S. Tate, “The Great World of the Spirits of the Dead: Death, the Great War, and the 1918 Influenza Pandemic as Context for Doctrine and Covenants 138,” BYU Studies 46 no. 1 (2007): 27, 33.

[4] Joseph F. Smith, “Status of Children in the Resurrection,” in Messages of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, compiled by James R. Clark, 6 volumes (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-75), 5:92.

[5] Joseph Fielding Smith, compiler, Life of Joseph F. Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1938), 476.

[6] Joseph F. Smith, 89th Semi-Annual Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1918), 2.

[7] Joseph Fielding Smith, compiler, Life of Joseph F. Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1938), 466.

[8] George S. Tate, “The Great World of the Spirits of the Dead: Death, the Great War, and the 1918 Influenza Pandemic as Context for Doctrine and Covenants 138,” BYU Studies 46 no. 1 (2007): 21.

[9] The insight belongs to George S. Tate.  See, “The Great World of the Spirits of the Dead: Death, the Great War, and the 1918 Influenza Pandemic as Context for Doctrine and Covenants 138,” BYU Studies 46 no. 1 (2007): 34.

[10] See Ehat and Cook, Words of Joseph Smith, 370.  Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. (Liverpool: F.D. Richards, 1855-86), 4:285, March 15, 1857, and Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 1833-1898, Typescript., ed. Scott G. Kenney, 9 vols., (Midvale, Utah: Signature, 1983-84), 6:390.

[11] George S. Tate, “The Great World of the Spirits of the Dead: Death, the Great War, and the 1918 Influenza Pandemic as Context for Doctrine and Covenants 138,” BYU Studies 46 no. 1 (2007): 39-40.

[12] James E. Talmage, Journal, October 31, 1918, L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Brigham Young University. Anthon H. Lund, Journal, October 31, 1918, Church History Library, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Come, Follow Me: Doctrine & Covenants 135, 136

Section 135

It was “a deliberate political assassination, committed or condoned by some of the leading citizens of Hancock County.”[1] That’s how law professor Dallin H. Oaks and co-author Marvin S. Hill described the murder of Joseph Smith, who was butchered with his brother Hyrum on June 27, 1844. 

Apostles John Taylor and Willard Richards were voluntarily with Joseph and Hyrum in jail when he was murdered on June 27, 1844. They survived as witnesses of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, the Prophet Joseph Smith who restored it, and of his brutal martyrdom. Their witness is declared in section 135

Section 135 is a eulogy of the Prophet and an indictment of the state and nation that allowed them to be slain. As such, its tone is a rich mixture of reverence and disdain, praise and contempt. Attributed to John Taylor, who was himself shot repeatedly in the massacre, the document has an apostolic air. It declares a witness in certain terms. It announces Joseph Smith’s significance to mankind, his translation of the Book of Mormon and spreading of the gospel, his receipt of revelations, gathering of Israel, founding of Nauvoo, and, with Hyrum, the sealing of his testimony with his life. 

Though critics have knowingly manipulated the language of verse 3 to make it sound as if Latter-day Saints value Joseph Smith more than Jesus Christ, the text does not say that, nor do Latter-day Saints believe it. Rather, they praise Joseph Smith because he revealed Jesus Christ, which no one had done for more than a millennium. Section 135 testifies that Joseph and Hyrum died innocent, and that their deaths put their testaments in full force. It testifies that the Lord will avenge their deaths and that honest hearted in all nations will be touched by their testimony of Jesus Christ.  

Section 135 emphasizes the enduring significance of Joseph Smith and his testimony.  Joseph regarded himself as “obscure,” a “boy of no consequence” (Joseph Smith-History 1:23), but at age seventeen he received from an angel named Moroni the improbable news that “my name should be had for good and evil among all nations” (Joseph Smith-History 1:33). In his own lifetime his name became known for good and evil in Nauvoo, in Illinois, the United States, and now globally. However unlikely, Moroni’s prophecy has been fulfilled. Bostonian Josiah Quincy visited Joseph shortly before he went to Carthage. Quincy wrote that Joseph Smith was “born in the lowest ranks of poverty” and came of age “without book-learning and with the homeliest of all human names,” and that by the end of his shortened life he had become “a power on earth.”[2]

It is not remarkable that a flawed, teenage Joseph sought forgiveness in the woods and at his bedside, nor that he had to repent relentlessly and grow into his demanding calling, nor that he often felt frustrated at both himself and the saints, nor that his testimony deeply touched the hearts of some and antagonized others, nor that it continues to do so. The remarkable thing about Joseph Smith, as section 135 emphasizes, is what he did. Who else has brought forth the equivalent of the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants? Who else restored the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ? “He left a fame and a name,” no matter how plain, “that cannot be slain” (D&C 135:3). In every way he gave his life for the Lord’s work. What a life! 

“Fanatics and imposters are living and dying every day,” Josiah Quincy wrote, “and their memory is buried with them; but the wonderful influence which this founder of a religion exerted and still exerts throws him into relief before us, not as a rogue to be criminated, but as a phenomenon to be explained. The most vital questions Americans are asking each other today have to do with this man and what he has left us.”[3] That is Joseph Smith’s significance and his appeal: he revealed the answers to the ultimate questions: Why am I here? Where did I come from? Where am I going? Is there purpose in life? What is the nature of people? Are individuals free agents or determined? What is the nature of the Savior’s atonement? Does it reach those who do not hear the gospel in mortality? And perhaps above all, what is the nature of God?  

“if I am so fortunate as to be the man to comprehend God, and explain or convey the principles to your hearts, so that the Spirit seals them upon you,” Joseph taught just a few weeks before he was murdered, “then let every man and woman henceforth sit in silence, put their hands on their mouths, and never lift their hands or voices, or say any thing against the man of God, or the servants of God again.”[4] Joseph answered the ultimate questions as a witness. He beheld angels, translated by the power of God, received visions and revelations. He knew God and Christ. He thus died as a testator—a witness. Section 135 announces that a testator had been killed, but his testimony endures forever.

Section 136

Of all the would-be successors to Joseph Smith, only Brigham Young understood what was at stake. He explained that no one could lead the Church without the keys of the holy priesthood Joseph had received from ministering angels. Joseph had conferred those keys on Brigham and eight other apostles. 

Joseph had gathered them three months before his death and said, “It may be that my enemies will kill me, and in case they should, and the keys and power which rest on me not be imparted to you, they will be lost from the earth; but if I can only succeed in placing them upon your heads, then let me fall a victim to murderous hands if God will suffer it, and I can go with all pleasure and satisfaction, knowing that my work is done, and the foundation laid on which the kingdom of God is to be reared in this dispensation of the fullness of times. Upon the shoulders of the Twelve must the responsibility of leading this church hence forth rest until you shall appoint others to succeed you. . . .  Thus can this power and these keys be perpetuated in the Earth.” 

Joseph and his brother Hyrum then confirmed the ordinations of each of the apostles who were present and Joseph gave them a final charge. “I roll the burthen and responsibility of leading this church off from my shoulders on to yours,” he declared. “Now, round up your shoulders and stand under it like men; for the Lord is going to let me rest.”[1]

As president of the twelve apostles, Brigham Young explained these principles to the Saints on August 8, 1844. Many, including Martha Tuttle Gardner, received a confirming witness from the Lord. She testified that Brigham Young “told the people that although Joseph was dead, Joseph had left behind the keys of the Kingdom and had conferred the same power & authority that he himself possessed upon the Twelve Apostles and the Church would not be left without a leader and a guide.” 

Martha had written reverently of witnessing the capital P Prophet Joseph Smith and she now confidently transferred that designation to “the Prophet Brigham Young.” She wrote that he “had the Nauvoo Temple finished” and endowed her with power there early in 1845. Then, under Brigham’s leadership, she and many other Saints fled Nauvoo for peace and safety somewhere in the West.[2]

President Young led them across Iowa Territory and they camped for the winter on the banks of the Missouri River. There, in a January 1847 council meeting, the Prophet Brigham Young asked the Lord to reveal “the best manner of organizing companies for emigration.” The Lord answered. “President Young commenced to give the Word and Will of God concerning the emigration of the Saints,” section 136.[3] It is concerned with three basic issues: governing authority, camp organization, and individual behavior.[4]

The key words in the early verses of Section 136 are organized and covenant. The Saints were to be organized into companies “under the direction of the Twelve Apostles” (3). “And this shall be our covenant—that we will walk in all the ordinances of the Lord” (4). Like Martha, many of them had recently made temple covenants in Nauvoo. Section 136 tells them how to consecrate their lives to Zion. It reiterates the principles of consecration that pervade so many of Joseph Smith’s revelations. The first principle is agency. Section 136 tells the Saints how to act relative to organization, preparation, property, contention, the commandments to not covet and or take the Lord’s name in vain, alcohol, fear, sorrow, and ignorance. The Lord prescribes specific behaviors for each of these. 

Another principle of consecration is stewardship. Free agents act upon stewardships, or what the Lord gives them to act upon. “Thou shalt be diligent in preserving what thou hast,” He commands in verse 27, “that thou mayest be a wise steward; for it is the free gift of the Lord thy God, and thou art his steward.” Section 136 gives commands that tell the saints how to act relative to stewardships that include draft animals, seeds, farming tools, widows, orphans, the families of the men who have joined the United States Army, houses, fields, and the saints who will follow in later waves of migration. He adds instructions for the use of “influence and property” (10) and even for borrowed and lost property.  

Another principle of consecration is accountability. Verse 19 declares the consequence of failing to keep one’s covenant to walk in the ordinances of the Lord: “And if any man shall seek to build himself up, and seeketh not my counsel, he shall have no power, and his folly shall be made manifest,” suggesting that one’s endowment of power is dependent on keeping the covenants made in the endowment ordinance (4, 19).  

The motif of pilgrims in search of a promised land, of exodus as a sanctifying precondition to finding and becoming Zion, is common in scripture and the backbone of section 136. It casts the saints as a modern Camp of Israel (1), following the “God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob” as they are led through the wilderness by a modern Moses in search of a promised land (21-22). They are wanderers, exiles even from the United States, upon which the Lord prophesies a imminent punishment for rejecting the Saints’ testimony and killing the prophets “that were sent unto them” (34-36). In these ways Section 136 includes the Latter-day Saints with all the former faithful of past dispensations, those Section 45 describes as “pilgrims on the earth” who wandered in search of Zion and “obtained a promise that they should find it” (D&C 45:12-14).

Finally, section 136 explains Joseph Smith’s martyrdom from the Lord’s perspective. “Many have marveled because of his death,” the Lord omnisciently knows, “but it was needful that he should seal his testimony with his blood, that he might be honored and the wicked might be condemned” (39). From the Lord’s vantage, allowing Joseph to die as a testator was a wise move that left an enduring witness of His name even as it delivered the Saints, including Joseph, from their enemies (40). The revelation ends with a poetic covenant in verse 42, promising deliverance on the condition that the Saints choose to diligently keep commandments. 

Section 136 resulted in the best organized and executed overland emigration in American history. However, it may be more important for the way it established Brigham Young as a revelator. Saints exercised faith to see in him their capital P Prophet, and it required personal sacrifice. Section 136 confirmed the correctness of their choice. There was much outspoken criticism of Brigham before and after section 136. The saints had other options besides him.[5]

Apostle Heber Kimball noted in his journal that section 136 was the first revelation “penned since Joseph was killed. . . . The Lord has given it through the President for the good of this people as they are traveling to the west.”[6] Jedediah Grant voiced what many Saints felt. “Since the death of Joseph, [I] have believed that the keys of revelation were in the Church. When I heard that [section 136] read I felt a light and joy and satisfied that the Holy Ghost had dictated the words within.”[7]

For Saints who had covenanted to literally “walk in all the ordinances of the Lord” up and over the Rocky Mountains as outcasts, section 136 would sustain them in the heat of the day (4). Joseph was gone but the Prophet Brigham Young was just as much a Moses (D&C 28:3).

Section 135 notes

[1] Dallin H. Oaks and Marvin S. Hill, Carthage Conspiracy: The Trial of the Accused Assassins of Joseph Smith (Urbana, 1975), 6, 214.

[2] Josiah Quincy, Figures of the Past From the Leaves of Old Journals, (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1883), 337. 

[3] Josiah Quincy, Figures of the Past From the Leaves of Old Journals, (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1883), 317.

[4] “History, 1838–1856, volume E-1 [1 July 1843–30 April 1844],” p. 1969, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed December 8, 2020, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-e-1-1-july-1843-30-april-1844/341.

Section 136 notes

[1] Declaration of the apostles, circa September 1844 to March 1845, Church History Library, Salt Lake City, Utah.

[2] Testimony written by Martha Tuttle Gardner, in possession of the author.

[3] “At 4:30 PM the council adjourned. At seven, the Twelve met at Elder Benson’s. President Young continued to dictate the word and will of th Lord. Council adjourned at ten P.M., when President Young retired with Dr. Richards to the Octagon and finished writing the same.” Journal History of the Church, January 14, 1847, Church History Library, Salt Lake City, Utah.

[4] Richard E. Bennett, We’ll Find the Place: The Mormon Exodus 1846-1848 (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1997), 70.

[5] Richard E. Bennett, We’ll Find the Place: The Mormon Exodus 1846-1848 (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1997), 69.

[6] Heber C. Kimball, Journal, January 19, 1847, Church History Library, Salt Lake City, Utah.

[7] As quoted by Willard Richards, Journal, January 15, 1847, Church History Library, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Come, Follow Me: Doctrine & Covenants 133, 134

Section 133
Minerva Teicher’s Christ in a Red Robe.

Section 133 ends what section 1 began. The November 1831 conference at Hiram, Ohio planned to publish 10,000 copies of Joseph’s revelations as A Book of Commandments for the Government of the Church of Christ. Joseph began to edit the revelations and Oliver Cowdery made plans to take them to Independence, Missouri for publication by William Phelps on the Church’s press. Joseph’s History says that “at this time there were many things which the Elders desired to know relative to the preaching of the Gospel to the inhabitants of the earth, and concerning the gathering; and in order to walk in the true light, and be instructed from on high, on the 3rd of November, 1831, I inquired of the Lord and received the following important revelation, which as since been added to the book of Doctrine and Covenants, and called the Appendix.”[1]

Section 133 continues and even escalates the apocalyptic tone of section 1. It announces that Christ will dramatically come soon. He will come to judge all that forget God, including the ungodly Latter-day Saints. So the saints should prepare for his coming by sanctifying their lives and becoming Zion. “Go ye out from Babylon,” the Lord says again and again, solidifying the dualistic, Zion versus Babylon typology he chose in sections 1 and 133 to frame the Doctrine and Covenants. 

Zion will be rescued when the Lord comes. Babylon will be destroyed. “Hearken and hear, O ye inhabitants of the earth. Listen, ye elders of my church together, and hear the voice of the Lord; for he calleth upon all men everywhere to repent” (D&C 133:16). The angels have already been sent to announce that the hour of his coming nears. Indeed, that is the beginning of the restoration. As Section 133 explains, messengers commit the gospel to mortal prophets, who offer it to “some,” who then go to “many” until “this gospel shall be preached unto every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people” (D&C 133:36-37). Then the Lord answers the prayers of his people, who have long pled, “O that thou wouldst rend the heavens, that thou wouldst come down, that the mountains might flow down at thy presence” (D&C 133:39). He will answer “as the melting fire that burneth, and as the fire which causeth the waters to boil” (D&C 133:41). He comes soon to sanctify the repentant and to burn the unrepentant. 

So how does the revelation answer the elders’ questions about preaching the gospel and gathering Israel? First, it emphasizes, the saints must get themselves out of Babylon, and the only alternative is to “flee unto Zion” (D&C 133:12). Second, send the elders back in to rescue any who will repent. Send them first to the Gentiles and then to the Jews. They should “thrash the nations by the power of his Spirit” (D&C 133:59) and send any who will repent on to Zion to be endowed with priesthood power and the blessings promised to the House of Israel. That’s why the revelations were given and why they are to be published to all mankind. “And unto him that repenteth and sanctifieth himself before the Lord shall be given eternal life. And upon them that hearkeneth not to the voice of the Lord shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people” (D&C 133:62-63).   

Section 133 answers the elders’ questions about preaching the gospel and gathering lost Israel. Other revelations give much more detailed instructions how to do those things. This one emphasizes why and when. To a fledgling group of fallible Latter-day Saints gathered in a private home, it sets forth an audacious scope of covering the globe with the restored gospel. It reiterates Christ’s great commission to take the gospel to every creature so that each can decide whether to repent or not. Moreover, there is no time to lose. The revelation’s urgent tone emphasizes that Christ soon comes to judge an apostate world—Babylon. 

What resulted from this revelation? That little group of faltering saints has grown exponentially and sent tens of thousands of its sons and daughters to the ends of the earth to preach the gospel and gather scattered Israel to Zion in anticipation of the Lord’s second coming. It would be hard to overstate the motivating power of sections like 133. It is, as one early saint declared, “fraught with so much heavenly intelligence.”[2]

Section 134

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been dubbed quintessentially American, but in the beginning it struck many people as anything but. Direct revelations to a prophet–in which Christ reserved to himself ultimate executive, legislative, and judicial power–seemed undemocratic to the saints’ neighbors.[1] Moreover, controversial statements made in a church newspaper by editor William Phelps demanded that the church clarify its position relative to slavery.[2]

A general assembly of priesthood leaders convened in Kirtland, Ohio on August 17, 1835 to listen to Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon present the Doctrine and Covenants for their approval. Oliver introduced the book and its contents to the assembled councils, after which the priesthood leaders unanimously testified of their satisfaction with the work. Then Oliver Cowdery read section 134, “Of Governments and Laws in General,” which may have been primarily if not exclusively the product of his mind and pen. The assembly “accepted and adopted” it too for inclusion, and thus Section 134, though not a revelation, became canonized as part of the Doctrine and Covenants.[3]

Section 134 mixes republican principles of constitutional government and individual liberties, emphatically including the right of religious conscience, with the church’s concern for its ecclesiastical rights. Nothing in it was new or objectionable to Joseph. It informs a misled and sometimes hostile public that the church is in harmony with mainstream American values at the time of its publication. It distances the church from parties or causes other than sharing the gospel.    

Joseph was in Michigan when the general assembly made these decisions. He did not author section 134 but he endorsed it in April 1836.[4] The principles in section 134 continue to guide the church’s actions regarding political questions and controversies. The principles in verses 4-6 are more tersely expressed in Articles of Faith 11-12. While the Church took a pragmatic position relative to slavery in section 134, the Lord declared the doctrine of individual agency as the reason for his repudiation of slavery in section 101:77-79.

Section 133 notes

[1] “History, 1838–1856, volume A-1 [23 December 1805–30 August 1834],” p. 166, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed December 8, 2020, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-a-1-23-december-1805-30-august-1834/172. The Evening and the Morning Star (May 1833): 1:12.

[2] The Evening and the Morning Star (May 1833): 89.

Section 134 notes

[1] Steven C. Harper, “‘Dicated by Christ’: Joseph Smith and the Politics of Revelation,” Journal of the Early Republic 26 (Summer 2006): 275-304.

[2] See “Free People of Color,” and his statement published later in the same issue, wherein he noted approvingly that much was being done “towards abolishing slavery,” The Evening and the Morning Star 2, no. 14 [July 1833]: 109, 111. The church’s political Northern Times newspaper printed on 9 October 1835 that the church was “opposed to abolition, and whatever is calculated to disturb the peace and harmony of our Constitution and Country” (See “Abolition,” Northern Times 1:28 [9 October 1835].    Joseph’s views on race and blacks changed during his lifetime. In 1836, Joseph Smith criticized the abolition movement and defended slavery as biblical (Latter Day Saints Messenger and Advocate 2:7 [April 1836]: 289-91. Also see Warren Parrish, “For the Messenger and Advocate,” Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate 2, no. 7 (April 1836): 295-96; and “The Abolitionists,” Latter Day Saints’ Messenger and Advocate 2, no. 7 (April 1836): 299-301.

[3] Historical Introduction, “Appendix 4: Declaration on Government and Law, circa August 1835 [D&C 134],” p. 252, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed December 8, 2020, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/appendix-4-declaration-on-government-and-law-circa-august-1835-dc-134/1.

[4] Messenger and Advocate 2:239-41.

Come, Follow Me: Doctrine & Covenants 129-132

Section 129

Section 129 is esoteric. It can only be understood by people with temple knowledge. It is also euphemistic. It’s no more about hand shaking than kicking the bucket is about actually kicking a bucket. 

In January 1838, Joseph received a revelation. It cursed the saints who had become his enemies, said his work in Kirtland was done, and told him and the faithful saints to gather to Zion in Missouri.[1] That night Joseph counseled with Church leaders and concluded, “Well, brethren I do not recollect anything more; but one thing, brethren, is certain; I shall see you again, let what will happen; for I have a promise of life five years, and they cannot kill me until that time has expired.”[2]

No one could kill Joseph during that time. He had to get the fullness of temple blessings restored first. But people sure made his life miserable in the meantime. He escaped from his persecutors in spring 1839. As soon as he could, knowing that his days were numbered and he had none to spare, Joseph gathered several of the apostles on June 27, 1839, exactly five years before his violent death at the hands of a murderous mob, and taught the apostles what he had learned a decade earlier from Michael about “detecting the devil when he appeared as an angel of light” (D&C 128:20). 

Wilford Woodruff drew tiny, symbolic keys in his journal, where he wrote what he learned about the “keys of the Kingdom of God Joseph presented . . . in order to detect the devel when he transforms himself nigh unto an angel of light.”[3] In December 1840, Joseph taught these keys to William Clayton, a trusted convert recently arrived from England. In April 1842, Joseph introduced the principles in section 129 to the Relief Society, and in May he gave the saints a temple preparation sermon, including the explanation that there are “certain signs & words by which false spirits & personages may be detected from true–which cannot be revealed to the Elders till the Temple is completed.”[4] A few days later Joseph endowed a few Church leaders in a temporary temple in the attic story of his Nauvoo store. Heber Kimball was there, and subsequently wrote to fellow apostle Parley Pratt, who remained in England to preside over the mission. “We have received some pressious things through the Prophet on the preasthood that would cause your soul to rejoice,” Heber wrote. “I can not give them to you on paper fore they are not to be riten. So you must come and get them for your Self.”[5]

Parley arrived in Nauvoo early in 1843, eager to be taught by Joseph. At a February 9 meeting, Joseph instructed him in the keys he had learned from Michael and had subsequently taught to Wilford, Heber, and a few others. The entry in Joseph’s journal for that day is the source for section 129.

Journal, December 1842–June 1844; Book 1, 21 December 1842–10 March 1843. Image courtesy of josephsmithpapers.org.

The rough journal entry captures only some of the teaching that took place. It reads, “Parley Pratt & other come in—Joseph explained the following. There are 3 administrater: Angels, Spirits, Devils one class in heaven. Angels the spirits of just men made perfect—innumerable co of angels and spirits of Just men made perfect. An angel appears to you how will you prove him. Ask him to shake hands. If he has flesh & bones he is an Angel ‘spirit hath not flesh and bones.’ Spirit of a just man made perfect. Person in its tabernacle could hide its glory. If David Patten or the Devil come. How would you determine should you take hold of his hand you would not feel it. If it was a false administrator he would not do it. True spirit will not give his hand the Devil will. 3 keys.”[6] Clearly there was more said on this occasion than what got cryptically recorded. 

In its polished form, section 129 is more clear but still vague. In heaven there are resurrected beings and spirits who are not yet resurrected. Either kind can be sent as messengers. Satan or his angels can counterfeit this kind of revelation. But there are keys to discern such imposters as explained in verses 5-9.  It is not safe to draw the conclusion that Satan does not know these keys. It seems more likely, as Joseph taught, that there are boundaries to Satan’s power to deceive. 

Part of being endowed with God’s power is the ability to discern true from false messengers (D&C 128:20). As Joseph taught, if Satan could appear in the guise of an angel without our having any ability to know better, “we would not be free agents.”[7]

Section 130

“I am going to offer some corrections to you.” That’s what Joseph said to Orson Hyde at lunch on April 2, 1843 after Elder Hyde had spoken at a morning session of a stake conference in Ramus, Illinois. A Protestant preacher before his conversion to the restored gospel, Elder Hyde mixed unrestored ideas into his sermon. Elder Hyde wisely replied to Joseph, “they shall be thankfully received.”[1]

Joseph and Elder Hyde and everyone else were aware of the prophecies of a contemporary named William Miller, who had predicted that the Savior’s second coming would be April 3, 1843, the day after conference. Elder Hyde spoke about what John 14:23 and 1 John 3:2 had to say about that.

Joseph preached twice at the stake conference, offering corrections to Elder Hyde, answering William Clayton’s question about time relativity, and correcting Miller’s prediction of the Second Coming. William Clayton captured Joseph’s teachings in his journal and Willard Richards later copied them into Joseph’s journal. Some of the teachings were then clarified and prepared for publication in the church’s newspaper in the 1850s and finally added to the 1876 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. 

Section 130 begins by clarifying John 14:23, which prophesies that the Savior will appear and reveal his Heavenly Father. Joseph emphasized, contrary to what Elder Hyde had suggested, that the appearance of the Father and Son are literal. They are exalted, embodied Gods; the designation Heavenly Father not a euphemism, and the social relationship sealed here will endure into eternity only with “eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy” (2). 

Beginning in verse 4, Joseph answers a question William Clayton posed about the relativity of time depending on one’s proximity to God. Joseph declared that time is relative, but that all angels who minister to our earth have themselves lived on this earth, or will. The angels now reside with God “on a globe like a sea of glass and fire” where there is no time since “past, present, and future . . . are continually before the Lord” (7). Joseph taught that this earth will become a celestial kingdom, a great seer stone in which its inhabitants will be able to see kingdoms of lesser glory. Even more exciting, each individual who enters this kingdom will get a personal “stone” as a means of learning and progressing eternally. 

Beginning in verse 12, Joseph prophesies the American Civil War based on his Christmas 1832 revelation (see section 87). He refuses to prophesy specifically about the date of the Savior’s second coming, having learned his lesson in from an earlier earnest prayer, which the Lord answered with intentional ambiguity, leaving Joseph “unable to decide” (16). 

One result of Section 130 is clarification of what we do not know: the timing of the Savior’s second coming. The Section leaves no doubt that Joseph was a true prophet, however. He knew by revelation the nature of the American Civil War long before it came to pass. As Elder Neal A. Maxwell wrote, “the Prophet Joseph and the revelations confirm that God lives in an ‘eternal now,’ where the past, present, and future are continually before Him. He is not constrained by the perspectives of time as we are.”[2]

Verses 18-21 teach principles revealed in sections 51, 58, 88, 93 and elsewhere about the relationship between God’s law, individual agency, and growth. Intelligence is gained by choosing to diligently obey God’s laws. This is one of Joseph’s most profound, exalting teachings. 

The last two verses clarify the nature of the Godhead. Joseph’s teachings at the conference focused on the Holy Ghost. “The Holy Ghost is a personage,” he said, “and a person cannot have the personage of the H.G. in his heart. A man may have the gifts of the H.G., and the H.G. may descend upon a man but not to tarry with him.”[3] Church historians, apostles, amended the text in the 1850s to more explicitly clarify the embodied nature of the Father and the Son.  

Section 130 captures glimpses of the expansive Nauvoo teachings of Joseph Smith. In the last years of his life Joseph was teaching temple ordinances to select saints and related principles to the general body of saints. Some of Section 130 is simply fascinating answers to the questions of curious enquirers. But it is laced with temple teachings including the eternal nature of social relationships, the exaltation of man in the image of God, the heavenly temple, eternal progression, and growth by degrees of knowledge or intelligence based on obedience to the laws of God.

Section 131
Instruction, 16 May 1843, as Reported by William Clayton. Image courtesy of josephsmithpapers.org.

Section 131 also includes esoteric temple knowledge, but maybe less new knowledge about the celestial kingdom than it has been interpreted to include. The first four verses came in the evening. It was May 16, 1843. Joseph was in the home of Melissa and Ben Johnson with his scribe/recorder, William Clayton. Melissa and Ben were in their mid-twenties, married two years ago on Christmas day, and parents of one child so far, Benjamin Jr. Joseph invited them to sit down and told them he was there to marry them according to the law of the Lord. 

Benjamin had joked with Joseph before and thought he was joking now. He tried to join in the fun. He said he wouldn’t marry Melissa again until she paid for their dates, since he paid the first time they courted. Joseph might have thought that was funny on a different day, but he was in a hurry, he was solemn, and this occasion was sacred. He scolded Ben for being light-minded in this moment. Then he invite Melissa and Ben to stand and sealed them together by the power of the holy priesthood vested in him by ministering angels of Almighty God. He promised that if they keep the terms and conditions of this covenant, no power on earth or in hell could prevent them from being resurrected together and crowned with exaltation and eternal lives (D&C 132:19-24).[1]

That got their attention. Joseph sat them down again and taught them about the new and everlasting covenant of marriage they had just “made and entered into” (D&C 132:7). He said there were three parts to it (see section 132), and it’s blessings wouldn’t be sure unless and until Melissa and Ben made them sure by being faithful to the covenant. Using his secretary, William Clayton, as an example of one who had taken the step the Johnson’s were taking, Joseph taught them the doctrine of exaltation through faithfulness to covenants sealed by sacred ordinances. 

The context for the first four verses, then, is exaltation. All of the sources suggest that what Joseph taught the Johnsons that night is not the same as what D&C 131:1-2 has been understood to mean–that there are three degrees inside the highest of the three degrees of glory. That idea hangs on nothing more than D&C 131: “In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees,” and the assumption that celestial there means the highest of the three heavens revealed in D&C 76. That is not the only possibly interpretation, and in context it’s not the best one. In Joseph’s vocabulary and the Johnson’s, celestial could still just mean heavenly. If we read D&C 131:1 that way it makes sense in context. In other words, Joseph probably taught the Johnsons what we are taught: that there are three glories in heaven, and exaltation in the highest one comes from making and keeping the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. Joseph meant what sections 76 and 132 teach. 

According to William Clayton’s journal, Joseph taught that “in order to obtain the highest [degree of glory] a man [and woman] must enter into this order of the priesthood,” meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. Joseph explained that a man and a woman sealed together “by the power and authority of the holy priesthood” would continue to be married and have their family after resurrection, while those who weren’t would not.[2] There are many, many descendants of the Johnson’s today, and will be forever, as a result of this revelation. 

The day after he sealed the Johnsons, Joseph preached a sermon on 2 Peter 1 about making one’s eternal destination sure. It included Section 131:5-6. William Clayton noted Joseph teaching “that knowledge is power and the man who has the most knowledge has the greatest power. Also that salvation means a man’s being placed beyond the powers of all his enemies. He said the more sure word of prophecy meant, a man’s knowing that he was sealed up unto eternal life by revelation and the spirit of prophecy through the power of the Holy priesthood. He also showed that it was impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance.”[3]

In speaking of knowledge and ignorance, Joseph did not mean that book learning or secular subjects were sources of salvation. He meant that unless one knows for themselves the fulness of temple ordinances and their promised blessings, they are not yet endowed with power over all enemies, including death both spiritual and physical. 

Joseph had taught the same principle in other words the preceding Sunday. He tried to help the Saints understand the difference between having a testimony that one could be saved if they obeyed the gospel and gaining the testimony that one had been saved because they obeyed the gospel. Step one is to gain a testimony of Christ and the possibility of salvation, Joseph taught. That was just the beginning of the quest for knowledge of God, which to Joseph was the equivalent of power over sin and death. “They would then want that more sure word of Prophecy that they were sealed in the heavens & had the promise of eternal live in the Kingdom of God,” Joseph taught. This is what he called knowledge, which is what he meant in section 131—and what the Lord meant all the way back in section 84:19-24.[4]

Section 131 leads willing Saints to the knowledge of God, the certainty of a future exaltation by virtue of the sacred covenants sealed by priesthood. Ignorance of the knowledge of God leads to a less certain, or at least less celestial, future. One wants to be more sure in what the young Joseph called “matters that involve eternal consequences” (131:5).

Samuel Prior, a Methodist, had listened to Joseph’s sermon on 1 Peter 1 and come away unexpectedly impressed. Joseph returned the gesture in the evening by listening to Prior’s sermon. Afterward Joseph “arose and begged leave to differ from me in some few points of doctrine,” wrote Prior, “and this he did mildly, politely, and affectingly; like one who was more desirous to disseminate truth and expose error, than to love the malicious triumph of debate over me.” Drawing on Section 93:33, Joseph noted that matter endures eternally and added verses 7-8. “I was truly edified with his remarks,” Prior noted, “and felt less prejudiced against the Mormons than ever.” Joseph invited Prior to visit him in Nauvoo, which he did.[5]

Section 132

Section 132 is heaven and hell, exaltation and damnation, the best thing in the Doctrine and Covenants and the worst. It made Joseph F. Smith feel like he had to qualify it. “When the revelation was written, in 1843,” he explained, “it was for a special purpose, by the request of the Patriarch Hyrum Smith”—Joseph F.’s father—“and was not then designed to go forth to the church or to the world. It is most probable that had it been then written with a view to its going out as a doctrine of the church, it would have been presented in a somewhat different form.” He said it included intensely personal stuff that addressed its immediate context but wasn’t relevant “to the principle itself.”[1]

Joseph F. was spot on. Section 132 is about marriage, specifically Joseph’s marriage to Emma Hale. Would it endure beyond death? Would it even endure for another week? Those were Joseph’s questions in July 1843. The revelation answers them conditionally. Joseph had those questions because of the answers he had received years before to two questions about the Bible. Verse 1 restates Joseph’s question about seemingly adulterous yet Biblical practice of polygyny—simultaneously having more than one wife—by Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and others. The other question comes from Matthew 22:30, Jesus’ teaching that “in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.”

The answer to that one was wonderful news: those who make and keep the new and everlasting covenant of marriage will be exalted. But the answer to the other question was more than Joseph anticipated. The Book of Mormon forbade plural marriage unless the Lord commanded otherwise (Jacob 2:28-30). Joseph’s own revelations declared adultery an abomination and promised punishment. “With these prohibitions emblazoned on his own revelations, Joseph was torn by the command to take plural wives. What about the curses and the destruction promised adulterers? What about the heart of his tender wife?”[2]

Though he began to obey it within a few years, Joseph did not dare to write the revelation until its hard doctrines put so much strain on his marriage to Emma in the summer of 1843 that he decided to write it in hopes that it would help her. He entered a plural marriage with Fanny Alger in the 1830s, though it did not last. Then, between early 1841 and fall 1843, Joseph was sealed to approximately thirty women. About a third of them were already married at the time. As historian Richard Bushman noted, “nothing confuses the picture of Joseph Smith’s character more than these plural marriages.” He continues, “What drove him to a practice that put his life and his work in jeopardy, not to mention his relationship with Emma?” 

At times Emma worked up the will to consent to some of the sealings, but then her will to do so broke. She had forsaken her parents and siblings to marry and follow Joseph. She believed in him as much as anyone and made monumental sacrifices for her faith. But this one was Abrahamic. All she had was Joseph, and that was enough to compensate for all she had laid aside, but now she was being asked to share him. She would not do it willingly, at least not consistently. During a period of willingness, however, in May 1843 she and Joseph were sealed together. 

By July Emma was struggling to be reconciled to the revelation. Joseph and Hyrum counseled about what to do for her and decided to write the revelation and see if it would help. William Clayton, Joseph’s secretary, wrote the revelation as Joseph dictated with Hyrum present at Joseph’s upstairs office in his Nauvoo store. It took nearly three hours and ten pages to write, after which William read it back to Joseph for accuracy. Hyrum optimistically took it to Emma, who rejected it. Clayton confided to his journal that Joseph “appears much troubled about E[mma].”[3]

By September Emma again reconciled to the revelation and she and Joseph received the crowning ordinances of exaltation section 132 describes esoterically in verses 7 and 19.[4] Joseph was determined that if he was going to break Emma’s heart to obey a command, he would not lose her eternally. He was heard to say, “you must never speak evil of Emma.”[5]

Section 132 is an extraordinarily complicated text. Not only does it intertwine the answers to two questions. It is the culmination of the restoration, the most exalted of the exaltation revelations (see sections 76, 84, 88, 93, 131). It sets forth gospel fulness in cryptic terms, as if some of its pearls are too precious to be viewed publicly. Moreover, though it contains much that was revealed to Joseph earlier, the actual text of section 132 was determined by events in the summer of 1843 including Emma’s opposition to Joseph’s plural marriages, an otherwise unknown test the Lord gave her, and her concerns about the economic security of herself and her children. 

Section 132 is Abrahamic in every sense. If you choose to read it, pay special attention to the Lord’s rationale throughout. Plural marriage is meant to be an Abrahamic test. The revelation ends with assurance the Lord will reveal more later (D&C 132:66). Meanwhile, “plural marriage was the most difficult trial of 1843,” wrote historian Richard Bushman, and he could just as accurately have said of Joseph and Emma’s life and in the lives of many Latter-day Saints today.[6] It is hard to imagine a more wrenching test for Joseph, and it was incomparably difficult for Emma. The revelation forced them—and us—to find out whether we will trust the God who gave it. That is characteristic of the God of Abraham, who puts his children through wrenching tests to “prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them” (Abraham 3:25).

Section 132 leads us to the conclusion that God requires all our hearts first and foremost before he finishes the work of sealing them to each other and exalting them forever. The same revelation that requires such an extreme sacrifice of Emma, after all, sets forth the terms and conditions on which she will be exalted with Joseph. It seems that one of the main points of Section 132, in fact, is to assure Joseph that he and Emma will be exalted together, that despite the wedge plural marriage drove between them, the Lord will weld them eternally. Joseph specifically prayed in the Kirtland temple that Emma and their children would be exalted. The Lord seems likely to answer that prayer (D&C 109:68-69). 

When he does it will not be an exception to the law of exaltation in section 132:7, 19-20. Historical records show that Joseph and Emma met its terms and conditions. They made and entered the covenant on May 28, 1843 and received the confirming ordinance section 132 refers to as “most holy” on September 28, 1843 (D&C 132:7).[7] Though neither Joseph nor Emma was flawless after meeting the conditions on which the Lord will exalt them, neither committed the unpardonable sin verse 27 describes as the only way to nullify the promised blessings. Emma was not excommunicated; her ordinances were not voided. She gave her children faith in the Book of Mormon but blamed Brigham Young for plural marriage. It seems as if the Lord spoke D&C 132:26 specifically to set Joseph at ease about Emma’s eternal destiny. Perhaps that knowledge was an “escape” Joseph needed in order to make the extreme “sacrifices” for plural marriage that contributed to his death (see section 135) (D&C 132:49-50).    

As they parted for the last time on earth, Emma asked Joseph for a blessing. He was under pressure and unable to bless her then but bade her to write the desires of her heart and he would seal them later. She wrote of her desire “to honor and respect my husband as my head, ever to live in his confidence and by acting in unison with him retain the place which God has given me by his side.”[8] She wrote, in other words, that she wanted the blessings promised to her in section 132 and that she desired to obey its challenging commands. The next time Emma saw Joseph he had been shot to death. Section 132 makes that a small matter. It promises them, and all others who make and keep the same covenants, “Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths.”  

There it is. Section 132 is heaven and hell, exaltation and damnation, heights and depths. Perhaps we are to learn from it that if we never plumb depths we can’t expect to ascend the heights.     

Section 129 notes

[1] “Revelation, 12 January 1838–C,” p. [1], The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed March 4, 2019, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-12-january-1838-c/1.

[2] “Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1845,” p. 241, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed March 4, 2019, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1845/249.

[3] Wilford Woodruff, Journal, June 27, 1839, Church History Library, Salt Lake City, Utah.

[4] “Discourse, 1 May 1842, as Reported by Willard Richards,” p. 94, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed December 8, 2020, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-1-may-1842-as-reported-by-willard-richards/1.

[5] Heber Kimball to Parley Pratt, June 17, 1842, Pratt Papers, Church History Library, Salt Lake City, Utah.

[6] “Journal, December 1842–June 1844; Book 1, 21 December 1842–10 March 1843,” p. [174], The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed December 8, 2020, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-december-1842-june-1844-book-1-21-december-1842-10-march-1843/182.

[7] “Account of Meeting, circa 16 March 1841, as Reported by William P. McIntire,” p. [16], The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed December 8, 2020, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/account-of-meeting-circa-16march-1841-as-reported-by-williamp-mcintire/1.

Section 130 notes

[1] “Instruction, 2 April 1843, as Reported by Willard Richards,” p. [37], The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed December 8, 2020, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/instruction-2-april-1843-as-reported-by-willard-richards/1.

[2] Neal A. Maxwell, If Thou Endure it Well, 28.

[3] “Instruction, 2 April 1843, as Reported by William Clayton,” The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed December 8, 2020, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/instruction-2-april-1843-as-reported-by-william-clayton/1.

Section 131 notes

[1] Benjamin Johnson, My Life’s Review, 96.

[2] “Instruction, 16 May 1843, as Reported by William Clayton,” p. [15], The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed December 8, 2020, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/instruction-16-may-1843-as-reported-by-william-clayton/3.

[3] “Discourse, 17 May 1843–A, as Reported by William Clayton,” p. [16], The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed December 8, 2020, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-17-may-1843-a-as-reported-by-william-clayton/1.

[4] “Discourse, 14 May 1843, as Reported by Wilford Woodruff,” p. [32], The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed December 8, 2020, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-14-may-1843-as-reported-by-wilford-woodruff/3.

[5] Ehat and Cook, comps. and eds., Words of Joseph Smith, 202-04.

Section 132 notes

[1] Joseph F. Smith, “Discourse,” Deseret News, September 11, 1878, 498.

[2] Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Knopf, 2005), 441.

[3] Smith, editor, William Clayton, Journal, July 12, 1843. William Clayton Letterbooks, Special Collections, Marriott Library, University of Utah.

[4] Faulring, editor, American Prophet’s Record, 28 September 1843. William Clayton, Journal, October 19, 1843, in George D. Smith, editor, An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton (Salt Lake City: Signature, 1995), 122.

[5] According to Lucy M. Wright in Woman’s Exponent, 30:59.

[6] Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, 490.

[7] Faulring, American Prophet’s Record, September 28, 1843. Andrew F. Ehat, “Joseph Smith’s Introduction of Temple Ordinances and the 1844 Mormon Succession Question,” M.A. thesis, Brigham Young University, 1981, pages 76-84. William Clayton, Journal, October 19, 1843, in George D. Smith, editor, An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton (Salt Lake City: Signature, 1995), 122.

[8] Cited in Carol Cornwall Madsen, “The ‘Elect Lady’ Revelation: The Historical and Doctrinal Context of Doctrine and Covenants 25,” in The Heavens Are Open (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1993), 208.

Come, Follow Me: Doctrine & Covenants 125-128

Section 125

From the confines of a jail cell in Liberty, Missouri, Joseph wrote to Bishop Partridge in Illinois that the saints could buy land in Iowa Territory for $2 per acre over twenty years with no money down, and the saints made a deal for the land.

Joseph escaped from Missouri and joined the saints in Illinois a few weeks later. He purchased land on a peninsula pushing into the Mississippi River across from the saints’ Iowa land, and named it Nauvoo. The Illinois land was comparatively expensive. Joseph hoped that the Church could buy it with consecrated funds and offer lots to the poor at prices they could afford, but the offerings were insufficient. It became clear that the Church would have to sell lots in order to pay its mortgage. So Joseph urged saints in outlying areas to gather to Nauvoo and help pay for the land. Saints across the river wondered if that applied to them. Joseph sought and received section 125 to answer their question. 

The Lord’s will, declared in Section 125, is for the saints to build a city in Iowa across from Nauvoo, and to call it Zarahemla. The saints were to gather from everywhere else and settle there, in nearby Nashville, Iowa Territory; or across the river in Nauvoo. As usual, there is an explicit rationale in this revelation. The Lord gives a reason why the saints should do His will: “That they may be prepared for that which is in store for a time to come” (D&C 135:2).   

Saints moved as a result of Section 125. It was read to the saints at General Conference on April 6, 1841. “Many of the brethren immediately made preparations for moving,” and came as soon as their planting was done.[1] Alanson Ripley reported that “Joseph said it was the will of the Lord the brethren in general . . . should move in and about the city Zerehemla with all convenient speed which the saints are willing to do because it is the will of the Lord.”[2]

Section 126

Section 126 put Brigham Young in position to lead when Joseph’s mission was finished. Brigham answered the Lord’s call to serve in England (see section 118). Both he and his family were sick and homeless when Brigham left Nauvoo in the fall of 1839. While Brigham was in England, section 124 formalized his call as president of the quorum of the twelve apostles (D&C 124:127). Then, having converted hundreds, he returned to Nauvoo in July 1841 and found his family living in a small, unfinished cabin. A week later the Lord gave section 126 to Joseph.[1]

Joseph communicated the revelation to Brigham with his own affectionate introduction to his “Dear and well-beloved brother.” The Lord, having accepted Brigham’s offering in laborious missions away from home, no longer requires him to leave his family. Instead the Lord commands Brigham to send the Lord’s word abroad and look to the care of his family “henceforth and forever” (3).

Brigham set to work to care for his family. He chinked the cracks in the cabin, planted an orchard, built a cellar, and got up a garden to meet their needs. Joseph gave Brigham a few weeks and then assigned him to lead the apostles in taking care “of the business of the church in Nauvoo,” including overseeing missionary work (in obedience to section 126’s command to “send my word abroad”), the gathering of converts, and consecration.[2] This represented a shift in the apostles’ responsibility. Joseph had often kept them at arm’s length since their calling in 1835, testing them with tough assignments. Some of Brigham’s fellow apostles apostatized under that pressure. Brigham did everything the Lord asked of him. He had marched into hostile Missouri to obey a revelation. Then, sick and impoverished, he forsook everything else dear to preach the gospel in England. 

As a result of section 126, Brigham remained near Joseph for the Prophet’s few remaining years, learning and receiving the temple ordinances and ultimately also the keys angels had conferred on Joseph.      

Section 127

In May 1838 in the Church’s Elders’ Journal, Joseph published questions he was frequently asked, including some provocative ones like: “Do Mormons baptize in the name of Jo Smith?”[1] In July he published the answers, including some snarky ones like, “No, but if they did, it would be as valid as the baptism administered by the sectarian priests.”[2]

Maybe the most important Q&A was this one: “If the Mormon doctrine is true what has become of all those who had died since the days of the apostles. Answer: All those who have not had an opportunity of hearing the gospel, and being administered to by an inspired man in the flesh, must have it hereafter, before they can finally be judged.”

Two years later, on a Nauvoo summer day in 1840, at the funeral of Seymour Brunson, Joseph Smith had more to say about that. He read most of 1 Corinthians 15, in which Paul refers to the early Christian practice of being baptized for the dead in anticipation of the resurrection “and remarked that the Gospel of Jesus Christ brought glad tidings of great joy.” Noticing Jane Neyman in the congregation, whose teenage son Cyrus had died without baptism, Joseph gave her the good news “that people could now act for their friends who had departed this life, and that the plan of salvation was calculated to save all who were willing to obey the requirements of the law of God.” It was “a very beautiful discourse.”[3]

Joseph taught baptism for the dead again at October conference in 1840 as the saints eagerly performed the sacred ordinance in the Mississippi River in lieu of a temple baptismal font.[4] One witness wrote that “during the conference there were some times from eight to ten elders in the river at a time baptizing.”[5] But in their understandable zeal they were without knowledge. No one recorded the ordinances. A year later Joseph taught the doctrine in conference again and announced, as section 124 had declared in the meantime, that the Lord would no longer accept baptisms for the dead performed outside the temple (D&C 124:29-35).[6] The Saints thus pushed the temple toward completion, and just over a year later in November 1841 they performed the first baptisms for the dead in the unfinished but rising Nauvoo Temple. 

In the midst of teaching the temple ordinances to the Saints, Joseph was charged with masterminding an attempted murder of former Missouri governor Lilburn Boggs. There was no evidence for the charge, and Joseph regarded it as another attempt by his enemies to get him to Missouri and lynch him. He hid instead of subjecting himself to that. Joseph was finally arrested in August 1842 but then released and the charges were finally dismissed a few months later. 

Meanwhile, as Joseph moved from house to house in and around Nauvoo, protected by friends, he pondered the newly restored doctrines of the temple. There was something missing.  He sought revelation while he was hiding and learned more about the nature of the ordinances. He looked for the first safe opportunity to teach the Saints. In August he taught the Relief Society that “all persons baptiz’d for the dead must have a Recorder present, that he may be an eye-witness to testify of it. It will be necessary in the grand Council, that these things be testified.”[7] The next day Joseph dictated a letter to the Saints, section 127, in which he shared some of what he had recently learned. 

Joseph was nostalgic and melancholy as he hid from extradition officers bent on delivering him to a state in which there was no due process of law for Latter-day Saints. In section 127 he rehearses his eventful life, alternating between frustration at his enemies, the hostility that oppressed him, evidences of God’s deliverance, and hope for a final triumph. Mixed in are two revelations, the first in verse 4 and the second in verses 6-9, before Joseph closes with a lament that he is unable to teach the saints in person and a prayer for their salvation.

In the first revelation the Lord urges the Saints to finish the temple despite persecution. In the second He links recording the ordinances to their being sealed. That is, baptisms for the dead are not valid in heaven unless properly recorded by an eye-witness on earth. It is imperative that the saints learn the conditions on which ordinances performed on earth are validated in heaven, for, as the Lord declares in verses 8-9, he is about to restore more that pertains to the priesthood ordinances of the temple and the records of all such ordinances are to be in order and preserved in the temple.

Section 128

Revelation, 8 July 1838–C [D&C 119]. Image courtesy of josephsmithpapers.org.
Wilford Woodruff wrote that “Joseph has been deprived of the privilege of appearing openly & deprived of the society of his own family Because Sheriffs are hunting him to destroy him without cause Yet the Lord is with him. . . . Joseph has presented the Church of late with some glorious principles from the Lord concerning Baptism for the dead & other interesting subjects, he has appeared occasionally in the midst of the Saints which has been a great comfort.”[1]

Baptism for the dead “seems to occupy my mind,” Joseph wrote. Less than a week after dictating section 127, Joseph dictated a much longer, more detailed explanation of the order of sacred ordinances: section 128. It adds practical instructions to 127’s revelation that baptisms for the dead, to be valid, must be recorded by an eye-witness. Joseph proposes a recorder for each of Nauvoo’s four wards, each of whom will account to a general church recorder who will be responsible to collect, certify, and keep the records. 

Verse 5 uses three related words, order, ordinance, and ordained. Boyd K. Packer cited the Oxford English Dictionary’s definition of order as “arrangement in sequence or proper relative position,” and noted how often the scriptures emphasize the importance of order. Ordinance, wrote President Packer, derives from order. He defined an ordinance as “the ceremony by which things are put in proper order.” Ordain, “a close relative of the other two words,” is the process of putting in order, including appropriately appointing someone to the ministry. “From all this dictionary work,” Elder Packer said, “there comes the impression that an ordinance, to be valid, must be done in proper order.”[2] That is precisely Joseph’s point in section 128. To be valid, an ordinance must be ordained of God, or, in other words, done according to the order or procedure he dictates.  

Beginning in verse 6, Joseph traces the doctrine of recording earthly ordinances full circle through the Bible to make his point and substantiate what he had previously taught. He begins with the Biblical book of Revelation, in which John saw that the dead would be judged by what is recorded on earth, which is mirrored in the book of life kept in heaven (6-8). “It may seem to some to be a very bold doctrine that we talk of,” Joseph says, speaking of the priesthood’s power to seal earthly ordinances in heaven. But in defense he evokes Matthew 16’s description of Jesus’ promise to give Peter sealing keys to bind on earth and in heaven (9-10). Joseph then turns to the symbolic significance of baptism and cites Paul’s teaching at 1 Corinthians 15 and Hebrews 11:40. Joseph adds Malachi’s prophecy of the mission of Elijah to unite generations before the Savior’s second coming, and elaborates on its meaning. 

With the teaching of temple ordinances, Joseph remarks that the dispensation of fulness “is now beginning to usher in, that a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together” of generations, dispensations, and, indeed, of the human family can be accomplished (11-18). Joseph turns exultant at this prospect. Beginning at verse 19 he launches into a celebration of the restoration. Recounting the sources of his knowledge and priesthood power, Joseph lists a who’s-who of heavenly messengers he has seen—Moroni, Michael, Peter, James, John, Gabriel, Raphael, “all declaring their dispensation, their rights, their keys, their honors, their majesty and glory, and the power of their priesthood; giving line upon line, precept upon precept; here a little, and there a little; giving us consolation by holding forth that which is to come, confirming our hope” (D&C 128:19-22). At least one of the events to which Joseph refers—Michael teaching him how to detect false messengers (20)—must have taken place before Joseph moved from the Susquehanna River to Ohio in 1831, yet this is his first known mention of it. These verses are at least a partial answer to the questions when and by whom was Joseph endowed with priesthood power, becoming able to give the temple ordinances to the Saints? 

In sum, Joseph had revelatory experiences and learned glorious truths that he did not readily share except in the right places at the right times to prepared people. That is exciting, and in a final burst of rhapsody, Joseph celebrated the profundity of the revealed solution to the terrible theological problem that has perplexed every thoughtful Christian: “What about those who never heard?”[3] The answer? “The King Immanuel . . . ordained, before the world was, that which would enable us to redeem them out of their prison; for the prisoners shall go free” (D&C 128:22). 

Joseph had spent the winter of 1838-39 in a cold, tiny cell in Liberty, Missouri, and when he dictated section 128 he was hiding from unlawful extradition efforts to get him back to Missouri. He had some sense of how it felt to be liberated from prison. Joseph closed section 128 excited about these “glad tidings of great joy” (19) and tells the Saints what to do with them. It’s the same thing the Lord’s current prophets and apostles are urging us to do: “Let us, therefore, as a church and a people, and as Latter-day Saints, offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness; and let us present in his holy temple, when it is finished, a book” or, more recently, electronic files or cards “containing the records of our dead, which shall be worthy of all acceptation” (23). In other words, let us organize families in the order God ordained. Let’s take disordered families and put them in order via the performance of holy ordinances in the House of the Lord. 

Having shown that baptism for the dead was practiced by the earliest Christians but not since, Professor Hugh Nibley asked, “where did Joseph Smith get his knowledge? Few if any of the sources cited in this discussion were available to him; the best of these have been discovered only in recent years, while the citations from the others are only to be found scattered at wide intervals through works so voluminous that even had they been available to the Prophet, he would, lacking modern aids, have had to spend a lifetime running them down. And even had he found such passages, how could they have meant more to him than they did to the most celebrated divines of a thousand years, who could make nothing of them? This is a region in which great theologians are lost and bemused; to have established a rational and satisfying doctrine and practice on grounds so dubious is indeed a tremendous achievement.”[4]

It is impossible to estimate the results of these revelations, these glad tidings. Because of them innumerable spirit prisoners have gone free. “Shall we not go on in so great a cause?” (D&C 128:22).

Section 125 notes

[1] George D. Smith, editor, An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton (Salt Lake City: Signature, 1995), 86.

[2] Alanson Ripley, in John Smith, Journal, 6 March 1841, Church History Library, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Section 126 notes

[1] “Revelation, 9 July 1841 [D&C 126],” p. 26, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed December 5, 2020, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-9july-1841-dc-126/1. Leonard J. Arrington, Brigham Young: American Moses (New York: Knopf, 1985), 98.

[2] Leonard J. Arrington, Brigham Young: American Moses (New York: Knopf, 1985), 99-100.

Section 127 notes

[1] “Questions and Answers, 8 May 1838,” p. 43, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed December 7, 2020, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/questions-and-answers-8-may-1838/2.

[2] “Elders’ Journal, July 1838,” p. 43, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed December 7, 2020, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/elders-journal-july-1838/11.

[3] Simon Baker, in Journal History of the Church, August 15, 1840, CHL.

[4] John Smith, Journal, October 15, 1840, CHL.

[5] Vilate Kimball to Heber C. Kimball, October 11, 1840, CHL.

[6] Minutes of the General Conference of the Church Held at Nauvoo, Elias Smith and Gustavus Hills, Rough Draft Notes of History of the Church, 1841, 17, CHL. History of the Church, 4:423-429.

[7] Joseph Smith, Discourse, August 31, 1842, Nauvoo Illinois, “A Record of the Organization and Proceedings of the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo,” 80-83, CHL, in Andrew Ehat and Lyndon Cook, editors, Words of Joseph Smith, 129-31.

Section 128 notes

[1] Wilford Woodruff, Journal, September 19,1842, CHL.

[2] Boyd K. Packer, The Holy Temple (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1980), 144-45.

[3] John Sanders, editor, What About Those Who Never Heard?: Three Views on the Destiny of the Unevangelized (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1995). 

[4] Hugh Nibley, “Baptism for the Dead in Ancient Times,” Mormonism and Early Christianity, 148-49.

Come, Follow Me: Doctrine & Covenants 124

Section 124

Joseph emerged from the depressing jail in Liberty, Missouri with an undaunted spirit. He had known since January 1838 that he could only count on living for five more years and that his work was far from finished. So Joseph was laser focused on preparing the saints for the covenants and ordinances of the holy temple. 

He led the saints in purchasing land along the Mississippi River in the state of Illinois, including a townsite called Commerce. Joseph renamed it Nauvoo, the Hebrew word translated as beautiful in Isaiah 52:7. In October 1839 Joseph called for all Saints to gather there and build a holy city. Then Joseph prayed for and received a momentous revelation, the longest in the Doctrine and Covenants, section 124. 

Coming shortly after a presidential election and just days before Nauvoo’s first city election, section 124 begins by expressing the Lord’s approval of Joseph’s efforts. Then, “that I might show forth my wisdom through the weak things of the earth,” the Lord commands Joseph to immediately write a proclamation “to all the kings of the world . . . to the honorable president-elect,” William Harrison, “and the high-minded governors of the nation in which you live.” Joseph was to write “in the spirit of meekness and by the power of the Holy Ghost” and declare the will of Christ to the world’s political authorities. The Lord says nothing of the will of the people but declares his will to “my people” (10, 11, 21, 29, 40, 45, 84, 92, 104). In the United States, the voice of the people was the voice of God. In Nauvoo, the Lord spoke directly through Joseph Smith. 

The command for all the saints to consecrate to the building of the temple begins with verse 25. The rationale for doing so follows, beginning in verse 28: “For there is not a place found on earth that he may come to and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away, even the fulness of the priesthood.” The Lord grants the Saints sufficient time to consecrate and build the temple as a sacred location for baptisms and the other sacred ordinances, after which he will not accept their ordinances, “for therein,” meaning the temple, “are the keys of holy priesthood ordained, that you may receive honor and glory” (34, cross reference Section 128). 

The Lord continues his rationale for building the temple through verse 41, which is a restatement of the promise to reveal fulness in the temple. Some have misread verse 31-34 in self-serving ways. President Joseph Fielding Smith explained verse 32’s condition, “and if ye do not these things at the end of the appointment,” that is, the period for building the temple. It “does not mean ‘if ye do not build a temple at the end of the appointment,’ as our critics infer it does, but it refers to the ordinances that were to be performed in the temple.” President Smith clarified that if the Saints failed to perform the temple ordinances for the dead, then they would be rejected by the Lord per section 124:32.[1]

President Boyd K. Packer explained the revelation’s references to washing and anointing ordinances in verses 37-39. “The ordinances of washing and anointing are referred to often in the temple as initiatory ordinances. It will be sufficient for our purposes to say only the following: Associated with the endowment are washings and anointings–mostly symbolic in nature, but promising definite, immediate blessings as well as future blessings. . . . In connection with these ordinances, in the temple you will be officially clothed in the garment and promised marvelous blessings in connection with it.”[2]

Covenants and specific instructions follow the verses on temple ordinances, including the spot on which to build and the terms and conditions on which the Lord will make it holy and on which the Saints will be able to remain in Nauvoo to see it finished. These covenants hinge on the inseparable doctrines of individual agency and accountability, and culminate in verses 47-48, “If you build a house to my name, and do not the things that I say, I will not perform the oath which I make unto you, neither fulfill the promises which ye expect at my hand, saith the Lord. For instead of blessings, ye, by your own works, bring cursings, wrath, indignation, and judgments upon your own yeads.” In verses 49-54 the Lord explains accountability in terms of agency. That is, he holds accountable those who have power to determine the outcomes he commands. Following that principle, verse 55 is another statement of rationale for building the temple in Nauvoo. 

Nauvoo rose like a fortress on a hill, up from a swampy lowland along the Mississippi. Believers streamed into Illinois from Canada, the British Isles, and the Atlantic Seaboard. The population of Nauvoo rose quickly to twelve thousand because of this revelation and Joseph’s counsel to gather and build Zion. Joseph began keeping the Book of the Law of the Lord with section 124, where he recorded it. The revelation oriented his life and the Church’s. It gave Joseph the rest of his life’s work, and he entered the names of those who consecrated to the temple in the Book as well. At April conference in 1841 the revelation was read and then Joseph rose and urged the Saints to obey it by building the temple and the Nauvoo House.[3]

Section 124 reorganized the Church, setting in order its presiding priesthood quorums, replacing apostates and filling the vacancies left by brethren who had passed away. The Saints acted on the Lord’s commands to sustain those called to the priesthood quorums, which they did at April conference in 1841, as well as building offices for them in the temple. 

Section 124 reoriented the Church by giving it specific work to do, most importantly in building the Nauvoo Temple as a means to the end of receiving the ultimate blessings, the fulness of priesthood ordinances. Knowing that his days were numbered, Joseph began giving the ordinances in May 1842 to a select few, fifty-seven brothers and sisters in all, even before the temple was finished. He sealed couples and confirmed the fulness of priesthood ordinances on a few according to section 132. Joseph was killed in June 1844 before the temple was ready for ordinances, but in March of that year he had commissioned the apostles to carry on the work and given them all the necessary priesthood keys to do so. Beginning in December 1845, the apostles and others who had been endowed by Joseph officiated in the temple ordinances for 5,600 Saints. 

The temple blessings thus resulting from section 124 are inestimable. Speaking of temples, President Gordon B. Hinckley declared, “these unique and wonderful buildings, and the ordinances administered therein, represent the ultimate in our worship. These ordinances become the most profound expressions of our theology.”[4]

   Notes

[1] Joseph Fielding Smith, quoted in Roy W. Doxey, Latter-day Prophets and the Doctrine and Covenants, 4 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret, 1978): 4:265-66.

[2] Boyd K. Packer, The Holy Temple (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1980), 154-55.

[3] Ehat and Cook, comps. and eds., Words of Joseph Smith, 69.

[4] Ensign (November 1995), 53.