Before His Return

President Ezra Taft Benson taught that “the record of the Nephite history just prior to the Savior’s visit reveals many parallels to our own day as we anticipate the Savior’s second coming” (Conference Report, April 1987, 3; or Ensign, May 1987,4).

Though President Benson's message was primarily centered in 3 Nephi, I considered those words as I began reading through the Book of Helaman last week.

About three decades prior to the coming of Christ there were wars and rumors of wars among the Nephites and Lamanites.  Because of "their wickedness and their abomination"among those "who professed to belong to the church of God," they experienced a "great loss" and "great slaughter" (Hel. 4:11).  The great loss they experienced was that of "cities," "lands," and "possessions" (Hel. 4:5-10).

Like ancient Israel, they professed to know God, and with their lips did honor him, but their hearts were far from him.  They had become rich and proud.  They were absorbed in Babylon.  In all of their abundance, they regarded not the poor that were among them.  Having both the poor and the rich among them, they "saith unto the one: Be thou clothed in robes and sit thou here; and to the other: Be thou clothed in rags and sit thou there," and yet thought themselves just (D&C 38:26).

They mocked that which was sacred by professing God but denying the spirit of prophecy and revelation; speaking in his name, but not having obtained his voice.  They thereby took the Lord's name in vain.  

They murdered and plundered.  They were dishonest thieves, stealing that which belonged to other men and women, including their spouses.  They were full of great contentions, and not unified in the faith.  Since they were not one, they could not belong to the Lord (D&C 38:27).

And after all this kind of conduct they "boasted in their own strength."  Therefore, God left them to themselves, and their prosperity could not last.  They were "afflicted and smitten, and driven" before their enemies until they had lost all they thought no man could take.  They stored up for themselves treasures on earth, which things must come to an end.

Moronihah, and Nephi and Lehi, the sons of Helaman, came among the people preaching repentance (Hel. 4:14).  The message that needed to be preached to this people was indeed repentance.  Would we expect something else?  They were warned what would "come unto them" if they chose not to repent of their sins (ibid.).

"And it came to pass that they did repent, and inasmuch as they did repent they did begin to prosper" (Hel. 4:15).

In the year that followed, during their time of softening and repentance, they began to awake to their awful situation.  They recognized that they were in jeopardy of being "overpowered, and trodden down, and slain, and destroyed" by their enemies, which were more numerous than they (Hel. 4:20).

During this time they "began to remember the prophecies"of the holy prophets.  They knew they had been stiffnecked, and that they had "set at naught the commandments of God" (ibid.).  They then realized they had "altered and trampled under their feet" the laws they had received, which God had commanded a prophet to give unto them (Hel. 4:22).  They recognized the corruption that surrounded them, "and that they had become a wicked people," so much that they were like unto those they considered their enemies (ibid.).  They saw that they had become weak like their enemies, God having withdrawn the protection of his Spirit.  They recognized the Spirit did not dwell with them, because "the Spirit of the Lord doth not dwell in unholy temples" (Hel. 4:24).  They had "fallen into a state of unbelief and awful wickedness," which thing they could not before see (Hel. 4:25).

Sadly, their repentance was not permanent, and the voices of those "who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction" (Hel. 5:1-3).  Because of "transgression" they had "fallen" (Hel. 4:26).  

All these things happened in the space of not many years" (ibid.).

In that same address President Benson went on to say, "The Nephite civilization had reached great heights. They were prosperous and industrious. They had built many cities with great highways connecting them. They engaged in shipping and trade. They built temples and palaces. ...But, as so often happens, the people rejected the Lord. Pride became commonplace. Dishonesty and immorality were widespread" (April Conference, 1978).

I take President Benson's message as a prophetic warning.  He warned us frequently.  He preached Christ and the Book of Mormon often.  He invited the Church to repent and take the Book of Mormon more seriously, and reminded us we are still under condemnation.  

How quick we are to forget.  It's too easy to ignore these things.  

The Danger of Infallibility, Part 3

“How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel?  By His contradicting a former revelation.”  -Joseph Smith (TPJS, p. 214).

It is important to examine the time period after President Woodruff’s death. His statement that the President would never lead the saints astray becomes problematic to any serious student of Church history.  It is problematic retrospectively, as we have discussed, but also prospectively.  It later becomes problematic, for instance, when President Heber J. Grant changes the way the priesthood is given to the men in the Church.  That change remained in place for over two decades until a future president of the Church changed it back. 

Woodruff’s statement is also troubling when considering the changes that are subsequently made to the temple ordinances; not additions to, or clarifications only, but the removal of certain of the higher ordinances, and alterations to portions that we are taught are most sacred.

 

The Church leadership later returned to the original way in which priesthood was conferred, fearing the procedure had been changed in error.  It also once again began administering the higher ordinances of the temple after much concern among some of the apostles and a temple president.  Their concerns were a matter of continued discussion in meetings of the twelve.

I’ve wondered what President Woodruff would say about President Kimball’s statement regarding Brigham Young’s Adam-God teachings.

“We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some General Authorities of past generations, such, for instance is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine" (President Spencer W. Kimball during Priesthood session of general conference, Church News, 9 Oct 1976).

I’d be particularly interested to hear how President Woodruff would respond (I have a good idea how Brigham Young might respond) to this statement from Bruce R. McConkie:

“Brigham Young erred in some of his statements on the nature and kind of being that God is and as to the position of Adam in the plan of salvation…If we choose to believe and teach the false portions of his doctrines we are making an election that will damn us" (From a letter to Eugene England dated 19 Feb 1981, p. 6).

I cannot presume to speak for him, but I cannot believe that President Woodruff would have agreed with these statements.  He had actually taken part in disciplinary councils considering the excommunication of Elder Orson Pratt for teaching the very same things that President Kimball and Elder McConkie taught (These trials and controversies cover an extended time frame and are well documented in Bergera’s Conflict in the Quorum).  

If, therefore, what President Woodruff intended to convey by saying that the Church President would never lead the saints astray was that no Church President would ever teach false doctrine, then he himself (and you and me) would have to conclude that he was wrong.  For, regardless of who was right or wrong, two Presidents taught two completely opposing ideas, and declared authoritatively what they were teaching to be the truth.  They cannot both be correct.  There are many other examples that could have been chosen.     

It’s also interesting to note that Bruce R. McConkie very apparently did not believe that the Church President was necessarily always going to be doctrinally accurate.  He believed and taught that Brigham Young was in error (noted above).  He also said that if we "choose to believe and teach the false portions of [Brigham Young's] doctrines we are making an election that will damn us."  Eliza R. Snow, Heber C. Kimball, and Brigham Young are among the group who are, therefore, damned.  Yet, surprisingly, Elder McConkie didn’t teach that Brigham Young had led the Church astray by teaching false doctrine.  How is it that the Church President can teach a thing which, if believed, will damn a man, and not be leading the Church astray?  How far then would one have to go to lead the Church astray?  Who is the judge of this?  Can we really believe in this idea?


In using these examples from our history, I am not siding with one leader over another, or faulting one or the other, but illustrating contradictions.  The contradictions were real - they happened - are well-documented, and can teach you a whole lot about your religion.  They are the ones who were critical of and faulted one another's teachings.  


It may be difficult to some reading this to consider this discussion.  The reason that it is difficult is because we are confronted by the truth about these things, and the truth is not consistent with our expectations.  Our expectation is that we're led by men who will never lead us astray.  We should reconsider this belief.  It has no potential of bearing good fruit.  Christ has never advocated it.  It is called "trusting in the arm of flesh" in the scriptures.  Joseph Smith taught that when men advocate such "extreme notions" it is usually because they have it in their heart to do wrong themselves (Millennial Star, Volume 14, No. 38, Pages 593-595).