Moroni Finishes His Record, Part 4

Moroni wrote a "few more things" at the end of his record, after finishing his abridgment of the record of the Jaredites.  The things he wrote were intended to be of worth unto "the Lamanites" in the last days, but are beneficial to us as well (Moro. 1:4).

The first thing about which he wrote was the manner in which Christ gave his disciples power to give the Holy Ghost.  He explains that Christ called them by name and said the following words as he laid hands upon them:

"Ye shall call on the Father in my name, in mighty prayer; and after ye have done this ye shall have power that to him upon whom ye shall lay your hands, ye shall give the Holy Ghost; and in my name shall ye give it, for thus do mine apostles" (Moro. 2:2).

These were instructions specific to the disciples and not heard by the multitude who had gathered to view the Savior.  Before the disciples went about giving the Holy Ghost, they were to call upon the Father in mighty prayer, in order that they may receive "power."  Is "mighty prayer" a part of the receipt of this power in our day?  If not, why does it seem it was of primary importance anciently?  Are we to understand the phrase "for thus do mine apostles" as also applying to our day, or just the ancient apostles?

Moroni then gives the manner in which ordination was performed in that ancient church.  He explained how those disciples, who where called "elders of the church," ordained both priests and teachers.  They first prayed unto the Father in the name of Christ, and laying their hands upon them, said:

"In the name of Jesus Christ I ordain you to be a priest, (or, if he be a teacher) I ordain you to be a teacher, to preach repentance and remission of sins through Jesus Christ, by the endurance of faith on his name to the end.  Amen" (Moro. 3:3).

This was the manner of ordination.  Moroni makes the point that those ordained were done so "according to the gifts and callings of God unto men" (Moro. 3:4).  The offices of priest and teacher were given to men, not according to age or duration of church activity, but according to the gifts and callings of God unto men.  How do you suppose that was determined?

These ordinations were performed by the "power of the Holy Ghost, which was in them" (ibid.).  There is no mention of priesthood here.  Why does Moroni not say instead, that these ordinations were performed "by the power of the priesthood, which was in them"?  Does ordination to church office require priesthood?  Are the offices of priest and teacher offices of the priesthood, or offices in the church?  Is this manner of ordination of priests and teachers consistent with earlier ordinations in the Book of Mormon to those same offices?

Though the reader may assume these priests and teachers were given priesthood before or at the time of their ordination, there is no mention of conferral of priesthood authority prior to their ordination.  They are merely "ordained" to be a priest or teacher.  

Our practice is to first confer the authority of the priesthood, and then ordain to an office therein, the two being connected.  Wholly removed from our tradition is that the offices to which men are ordained are actually offices within the Church, not priesthood offices.  D&C 20 makes the original intent clear, though there is quickly thereafter conflation of church office and priesthood (this also makes me think on the early disputes between Heber J. Grant, Joseph F. Smith, and others about whether or not men needed to have priesthood "conferred" as a part of their ordination to offices.  Once Heber J. Grant became president of the Church he changed the manner of ordination.  That change remained in place for decades before being changed back).  

Here then is the dilemma we find in the text.  If you choose to interpret Moroni's words through the lens of Mormon tradition, and you think you thereby understand what is going on in this ancient church, you of necessity have to choose to ignore the specifics of the verses.  You must look at it as a whole and assume it is all just the same today as it was then, even though the wording and manner are different.  You convince yourself that, "even though the wording is a little strange, I know exactly what was going on back then."  You can take that approach, OR you can read the text exactly as it stands and ask yourself whether or not you're able to discover the truth about how things were done anciently.

We will get a more accurate look into the past taking the text at its word, than by insisting it looks and sounds exactly like modern Mormonism while ignoring the details.  This idea will be continued in the next post.    

In Pursuit Of Revelation

In March 1904, Joseph F. Smith as president of the Church was summoned to the witness stand in the Reed Smoot hearings.  He was examined for three days.  During that examination he testified to the court that he "never pretended to nor do I profess to have received revelations" (Reed Smoot Case, Vol. 1, p. 99).  

If you read the text of the case, it appears he was sincere.  He chose not to overstate his own experiences.  He had the chance to falsely present himself in order to create the image that he was more revelatory than he really was.  He chose instead to be honest.  Notice, his right to guide and direct the Church as president remained intact.  Members' perceptions of him as president didn't seem to be diminished as a result of his honesty.  He was held in high esteem by those who worked closely with him, and by future generations.  Some of the text from the hearings follows: 

Senator Dubois - Have you received any revelations from God, which has been submitted by you and the apostles to the body of the church in their semiannual conference, which revelation has been sustained by that conference, through the upholding of their hands?

Mr. Smith – Since when?

Senator Dubois - Since you became President of the Church.

Mr. Smith - No, sir; none whatever. 

Senator Dubois - Have you received any individual revelations yourself, since you became President of the church under your own definition, even, of a revelation?

Mr. Smith - I cannot say that I have.

Senator Dubois - Can you say that you have not?

Mr. Smith - No; I cannot say that I have not.

Senator Dubois - Then you do not know whether you have received any such revelation as you have described or whether you have not?

Mr. Smith - Well, I can say this: That if I live as I should in the line of my duties, I am susceptible, I think, of the impressions of the Spirit of the Lord upon my mind at any time, just as any good Methodist or any other good church member might be. And so far as that is concerned, I say yes; I have had impressions of the Spirit upon my mind very frequently, but they are not in the sense of revelations (Ibid, pp. 483-484).  

In April 1904, President Smith issued the "second manifesto" regarding polygamy; this time with the intent not only of stopping the practice publicly, but privately as well.  It, like the previous manifesto, was a change in policy and not a revelation.    

Many years later, and just weeks before his death, he had a series of visions that became D&C 138.  

Now, here is a man that had chosen not to put up a facade.  He admitted to the truth of the matter about which he was questioned.  Significantly, he's the last president of the Church from whom we've received a written revelation that has been the result of direct communication from heaven.  His honesty is a good example. 

Perhaps the most valuable thing you or I can learn from section 138 is not about the world of spirits at all, but about the process Joseph F. Smith personally undertook to obtain revelation of God for himself (D&C 138:1-11).  Maybe if we choose to be honest about our standing before the Lord, and do not pretend to speak for him when we have no message from him, we can be brought into his trust.  

Fourteen Fundamentals, Part 3

[Words in blue are from this talk.  Commentary follows in black.]

Second: The [president of the Church] is more vital to us than the Standard Works.

President Wilford Woodruff tells of an interesting incident that occurred in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith:

“I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living prophets and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: ‘You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.’

“When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, ‘Brother Brigham I want you to go to the podium and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.’ Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: ‘There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,’ said he, ‘when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.’ That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation; ‘Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.’” (Conference Report, October 1897, pp. 18–19.)  

To see how mis-aligned our culture has become on issues like this requires more writing than I can manage.  We are like the citizens of Clarity.  Generations have come and gone, and come and gone again since the Lord offered to establish Zion, but we would not.  We are by and large blinded to the history of the past 180 years, even when we study it.  We live in one moment of time and cannot see afar off (Moses 6:27).

Joseph Smith taught what you need is an administrator who "has the power of calling down the oracles of God."  When you've got that, and "subjects to receive those oracles," though their number may be few, there is the kingdom of God (William Clayton Journal, January 22, 1843).  Joseph Smith was such a man.  

The restoration of the gospel had its beginnings in visitations from the Lord and other heavenly angels.  It was very much unlike other Christian faiths.  The creeds of Christianity are an abomination in the sight of the Lord (JSH 1:19).  They tout the scriptures, profess to know God with their lips, but have no connection with the heavens.  When angels cease to minister unto the latter-day Saints it is because there is no faith, and the religion becomes vain (Moro. 7:37).  It then becomes like all other Christian denominations.  It is having a form of godliness, but denying God's power.  The whole purpose of the restoration of the gospel was to fix all this.

During Mormonism's beginnings the Priesthood of God was associated with divine communication (D&C 107:18-19).  Those who held the holy priesthood were given power to see the face of God.  We have a difficult time understanding what is meant by "oracles" because the word has been used in a number of different ways.  For example, Joseph F. Smith believed and taught those who are called to presiding offices in the Church are your oracles:

"... We have the written word for example, for instruction, for admonition, for reproof, for counsel and for exhortation. Every man should read and understand them, and then all will know that the oracles of God are in their midst. But when they do not read the word of God nor understand it, when the oracles speak they may not listen to them. The Stake Presidency are your oracles here. They are chosen of the Lord. … You ought to sustain and uphold them, and listen to their counsels. They will not guide you wrong; they will not direct you in wickedness; they will make no mistake in their counsel to you..." (Teachings of Presidents of the Church, ch. 24, p. 216, emphasis mine). 

When Joseph Smith spoke of the oracles of God he did not have in mind men holding church offices, who were considered by the people to be 'practically' infallible, and who were good for counsel and direction.  His understanding and aspirations were not so base.   

The revelations Joseph Smith received from the Lord did not replace or nullify the existing cannon of scripture.  His revelations were added to that cannon.  When Joseph F. Smith saw in vision the world of spirits it did not contradict former revelation and scripture; it was added to them.  Their revelations supplemented, not supplanted, the existing body of revelation.  Their revelations added clarification to the existing body of revelation.  It is not that their revelations were more vital to the Saints than the standard works, their words became a part of the standard works.  It is valuable to you to listen to the words of those who have a message from God.    

What do you believe about this?  What are the oracles of God?  Are revelations from heaven oracles?  Are men who hold offices of leadership in the Church?  What qualifies them as oracles?  Office?  Revelation?  Kindness?  The fact that they will never lead you astray?  Does the president of the Church become the living oracle because of his office?  What if he does not believe there is a need for continuing revelation?  What other information do you know about this incident mentioned above from Wilford Woodruff's 1897 conference report?  Where did it occur?  When?  Who was the unnamed brother?  Where else can you find record of it?    

There are so many questions this teaching raises it is worth your time to search out these things.