A Question About High Priests

I received the following email: 

"I was just reading an article about the ancient temple, and I was thinking about the office of high priest. Though we had discussed that our modern-day designation of that privilege was different from its historical significance, it seems to me that they (before and during Christ's day) had made a similar change. They had high priests working in the temple. Were all these people real High Priests, or was this an administrative office that was created? Were these men righteous? Did they know the Lord? Did they influence the sinful changes that were made over time in the temple rites and symbols?"

My response is this: 

I think the same thing happened then, as happened in our day.  Some of those "high priests"  may have come to know God, and others not.  Those levitical high priests, though, were office holders in an earthly order that was intended to initiate them or invite them to receive more.  This tradition or order was passed down even until the time of Christ.  It was tragically the high priest, Caiaphas, to whom Christ was delivered for judgment as a part of his sufferings.  Caiaphas' "high priesthood" meant nothing, except perhaps added responsibility to serve others, and added condemnation for his hypocrisy and rejection of the true High Priest when He was presented before him.  His office gave him no priesthood.  He sought to control others and the heavens had withdrawn themselves (D&C 121:37).    

As our Old Testament presently stands, Leviticus 21 is the first time the office of high priest shows up in Moses' writings.  It is a good example of a holy man (Moses) receiving instructions from God about the "priests" and "high priests."  It is an example of an High Priest after the Holy Order, receiving instructions about the men who were to hold offices in the church, or "congregation."  These were offices, and were not "real" high priests, as you put it.  They were real only in the sense of what they really were - i.e. offices established as part of the law.  Moses was an High Priest who spoke with God, but the others were men who'd refused to receive what Moses did.  They were given a lesser law (D&C 84:22-27).  

David Whitmer thought it was wrong to introduce the office of high priest in the Church.  He said:

"High Priests were only in the church before Christ; and to have this office in the "Church of Christ" is not according to the teachings of Christ in either of the sacred books: Christ himself is our great and last High Priest" (An Address to All Believers in Christ, 1887, p. 62).

  

David Whitmer assumed God's intent was to establish the kind of church we find outlined in the New Testament.  This was not the Lord's intent, however.  He also failed to realize that Joseph was trying to do something more than merely mimic the offices found in the Old Testament church.  He didn't understand that there was something more ancient and holy that God intended to restore in the end of the world (Moses 6:7).

We're now left with an Old Testament office in a New Testament church.  The revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, however, seem to indicate this is how the Lord desired the church structure to be established.  

The high priests in the Old Testament church were offices intended to pre-figure the great High Priest who was the Messiah.  Their instructions, which were established by the Lord, were all intended to testify of His role as Christ.  If you look at the patterns in their rituals and rites you see Christ.  That is why when the Lord walked on the road to Emmaus with Luke and Cleopas he expounded the scriptures unto them concerning himself, "beginning at Moses and all the prophets" (Luke 24:27).  He wanted to make clear to them what they could not see before.  He wanted to show that all of the symbols, rituals, and offices that had been put in place were to point to Him and His great sacrifice.   

The High Priests God intended to restore in our day will be established before the return of Zion.  Those High Priests are not made by the Church, nor is it an office within the Church (D&C 77:11).  The High Priests made by God become members of the church of the Firstborn (ibid.).  This is the way it was anciently and the way it is today.  That priesthood cannot be perpetuated by men from generation to generation in a church.  It comes from God.  

We live in a telestial world.  The Church is intended to bring us out of this telestial world, but it, too, belongs to the telestial world.  Its ordinations and rites are intended to invite us to receive more, to elevate our minds and inspire our hearts to search after the things of another world.  

There are different priesthoods.  What we receive from man, or in or from the Church, is telestial.  Though the term "high priest" could be used to describe both Moses and the Old Testament's presiding officers in the levitical priesthood, they are priesthoods after different orders, worlds, and glories - they are tied to different Gods.  There are three members of the Godhead, three degrees of glory, and three priesthoods.  

History has repeated itself.  The Israelites forgot they never had what Moses had, but they persisted in a course of action suggesting they thought they were to be heirs of the same salvation.  They wanted to be brought to Abraham's bosom, but not to become like Abraham.  They were given a carnal law, or a law of this world, but ended up believing that it would bring them salvation (Mosiah 12:32).

JST Gen 14:28-40, an Invitation to Understanding

“We have done very well at distributing the authority of the priesthood.  We have priesthood authority planted nearly everywhere.  We have quorums of elders and high priests worldwide.  But distributing the authority of the priesthood has raced, I think, ahead of distributing the power of the priesthood” (Packer, April 2010 Conference).

“Now Melchizedek was a man of faith who wrought righteousness; and when a child he feared God, and stopped the mouths of lions, and quenched the violence of fire” (v. 26).

Now we learn more about a different man who received the name of Melchizedek, meaning king of righteousness.  We see here that he “wrought righteousness.”  Who determines this righteousness?  Are “faith” and “righteousness” inseparably connected?

“And thus, having been approved of God, he was ordained an high priest after the order of the covenant which God made with Enoch” (v. 27).

What does it mean to be “approved of God?”  Can a man or woman find approval in the eyes of men, even good men, and yet be lacking approval from God?  Or do the two necessarily go hand in hand? 

We learn something else here.  Moses teaches us that Melchizedek was “ordained an high priest after” the order of Enoch.  What does he go on to teach us about Enoch’s order?

“It being after the order of the Son of God; which order came, not by man, nor the will of man; neither by father nor mother; neither by beginning of days nor end of years; but of God” (v. 28).

Enoch’s order is after the order of the Son of God.  This is what we read about in Alma 13.  Alma understood this.  So did Moses.  So did Melchizedek.  So did Enoch.  It appears these righteous prophets knew very well what power it was unto which they were ordained.  They understood their power came from God.  There is no room for any confusion or misunderstanding about it.

Moses teaches here that this “order came, not by man, nor the will of man.”  What does this mean?  It came not by man, “but of God.”  Literally or figuratively?

“And it was delivered unto men by the calling of his own voice, according to his own will, unto as many as believed on his name” (v. 29).

Well, here, we aren’t left with much of an out.  Does it really mean what it says, that this high priesthood was conferred unto these men “by the calling of his own voice?”  What does that mean?  Is that different than the way a man is ordained an high priest in the Church?  What does it mean to receive God’s own voice proclaiming your righteousness, and conferring priesthood after this order?  Do we see a type or symbol of this anywhere in the ordinances we receive?

“For God having sworn unto Enoch and unto his seed with an oath by himself; that every one being ordained after this order and calling should have power, by faith, to break mountains, to divide the seas, to dry up waters, to turn them out of their course” (v. 30).

Did God “swear” unto Enoch through another man, or “with an oath by himself?”  What power did God’s oath bestow upon the man?

“To put at defiance the armies of nations, to divide the earth, to break every band, to stand in the presence of God; to do all things according to his will, according to his command, subdue principalities and powers; and this by the will of the Son of God which was from before the foundation of the world” (v. 31).

In our day, once again, the armies of nations will be gathered for war.  It is by the very power of this priesthood that comes from God that these armies will be “put at defiance.”  It is by the power of this priesthood that men will be spared, and not utterly wasted at his coming. 

Those after this order “stand in the presence of God” and “do all things according to his will, according to his command.”

“And men having this faith, coming up unto this order of God, were translated and taken up into heaven” (v. 32).

What does “translation” have to do with this power?  Was it by this power that Enoch was translated?  And Melchizedek?  Moses and Elijah?  What about Alma?  Was it by some other power?

“And now, Melchizedek was a priest of this order; therefore he obtained peace in Salem, and was called the Prince of peace” (v. 33).

How did this power, conferred by God’s own voice, aide Melchizedek in obtaining peace in Salem?  What was it about that which he taught that was so effective in bringing people to God? 

“And his people wrought righteousness, and obtained heaven, and sought for the city of Enoch…” (v. 34).

What about Melchizedek’s message caused a city to seek God, and work “righteousness?”  Why did they seek for “the city of Enoch?”  Enoch’s people achieved Zion.  What is Zion?  Do we see it today? 

Know this, if a man is not seeking to establish Zion, he has no power with God.  “For they who are not for me are against me, saith our God” (2 Ne. 10:16).  “Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish” (ibid.). 

“And he lifted up his voice, and he blessed Abram, being the high priest” (v. 37).

What blessing was it that Abram received?  What was Abram seeking (Abr. 1:2)? 

Who are the “fathers?”  What does it mean to “be a father of many nations?”  A “Prince of peace?” 

What does it mean when Abraham says he desired “to receive instructions?”

Ultimately, Abraham “became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers” (ibid.).  Truly, here is a man who’s heart had turned to the fathers.

“And it came to pass, that God blessed Abram, and gave unto him riches, and honor, and lands for an everlasting possession; according to the covenant which he had made, and according to the blessing wherewith Melchizedek had blessed him” (v. 40).

This seems foreign to our understanding of high priests.  We should be asking questions about these things.  Once again, there’s a reason few seem to understand what high priest in the Church means.  Likewise, there are few who understand what high priest in Alma 13 means.  Because the same words are used to describe both, we tend to think they’re the same.  They’re not.  They are different.  Because we think they’re the same we understand neither as we should.

How can we come to an understanding?  What is truth?  God teaches those who come unto Him and ask a question.  If we come to Him with an empty cup, we are humble enough, open enough, to receive answers.  Those who think they have the answers already, remain full, and there remains no room for truth.  

Alma 13, an Invitation to Understanding

Ordination is an authoritative invitation to come unto God and receive from Him.  When my father was ordained to the priesthood, he was extended an authoritative invitation to come to God and receive power.

When a man who’s been ordained fails to gain God’s approval, he is much like king Noah.  He is a man who has been “ordained” or “called,” but elects not to become “chosen” by being true and faithful.  Noah sought to rule and reign over others by “virtue of the priesthood” (D&C 121:41).  He assumed “power and influence” by virtue of the priesthood (ibid.).    

God alone controls the conferral of power.  That power has never been entrusted to any organization, but its receipt has always been predicated upon righteousness and inseparably connected to the heavens (D&C 121:36).  Said another way, power is directly tied to heaven and to righteousness, and cannot be conferred by men.   

Joseph Smith taught us this when he said:

“Behold there are many called, but few are chosen…

“The rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.” (D&C 121:34, 36).

Offices in the Church are, however, conferred from one man to another.  Those holding offices in the Church derive authority to preside and conduct affairs by “common consent” and by the “vote of that Church.”

God’s power does not come in this manner.  God may choose to give his power to any man He will.  God’s conferral of power requires neither “common consent,” nor does it require the “vote” of men.  God controls the bestowal of His power.  It cannot be “controlled nor handled” by men (ibid.).

So, for the Alma 13 doctrines it would be wise for us to put aside what we think we understand about “the Holy Priesthood,” and allow Alma, a High Priest, to teach us about the matter.  We will draw nearer to God by this approach than we will by trying to see this matter through the lens of our present misunderstandings.

The whole chapter could be studied verse by verse.  Ask yourself questions about the text that you’re not used to asking.  Look for an answer that makes sense, and that the Spirit will verify.  We will look at only a few of the statements here.

“The Lord God ordained priests, after his holy order, which was after the order of his Son.” (Alma 13:1).

Who is meant by “the Lord God?”  Did he really “ordain priests,” or is this to be taken figuratively?  What did Joseph Smith teach about God ordaining the prophets (TPJS)?

What is “his holy order?”  Is this the Church?  Does it belong to the Church?  Does it belong to this earth?  What is the “order of his Son?”

“They were ordained…on account of their exceeding faith and good works” (Alma 13:3)

What is “exceeding faith?”  Is this different than “faith?”  Is exceeding faith required of men who are ordained in the Church? 

“And thus being called by this holy calling, and ordained unto the high priesthood of the holy order of God, to teach his commandments unto the children of men, that they also might enter into his rest” (Alma 13:6).

Here’s mention of the “holy order of God” again.  What does it say is the purpose of the teaching of those called with this “holy calling?”  Is it to help other men and women “also” enter the Lord’s “rest?”  Why “also?”  What is the Lord’s rest?  Have those who are called to this holy order necessarily entered into the Lord’s rest?  What did it mean when Moses attempted to get Israel to enter the Lord’s rest (D&C 84)?  Was he called by “this holy calling?”  What about Joseph Smith?

“Thus they become high priests forever” (Alma 13:9).

Is it significant that this ordination and high office is “forever?”  Are there others that are not forever?

“Therefore they were called after this holy order, and were sanctified, and their garments were washed white through the blood of the Lamb” (Alma 13:11).

How does one become “sanctified?”  What does that mean?  Can you become this kind of a high priest without being sanctified?  What does it mean to have your garments “washed white?”

These are only a few of the verses, and a few of the questions that could be asked.  The entire chapter should be considered. 

Next we’ll look at the example of Melchizedek to explore this issue a bit further.

Ordination is an Authoritative Invitation

As an example I’ll use my father, who won’t mind me doing so. 

He was baptized a few years ago.  Following his baptism he had conferred upon him the Aaronic Priesthood, and was ordained a priest.  He remained active, and fulfilled his callings, and almost a year later had the Melchizedek Priesthood conferred upon him, and was ordained to the office of Elder.  Some time after our family had gone to the temple, he was ordained an High Priest.  Each of these ordinations was accompanied by “the vote of that church” (D&C 20:65). 

There is the progression, and also the equation.  In case it wasn’t clear, that which was required of him to become an high priest in the Church was 1) activity in the Church, and 2) time.

I may be overemphasizing the point, but not much.  I don’t mean to downplay the role of worthiness, service, or commitment to the Lord in my father’s example, or in the case of anybody else.  Only the Lord knows our determination and dedication to Him.  We have a system of interviews in place that is intended to ensure only those who are keeping themselves clean receive these ordinations.  There are inevitably unsavory, and uninterested fellows who slip through the cracks and deceive men in leadership positions.  I only use this example because it brings to light a couple of important points worthy of our consideration; points that stand in contrast to the high priests you read about in Alma 13. 

My father and I have talked about this.  He’d be the first to admit that this is the formula as it’s currently laid out.  As a matter of fact, my father had been attending the same High Priests Group since before his baptism.  As a non-member, priest, elder, and high priest, he has enjoyed the company of the High Priests Group. 

When he was ordained to the office of high priest not too long ago, he went to a few of the brethren that he respects and asked them what it meant to be ordained an high priest.  They couldn’t provide an answer for him that made him feel satisfied he truly understood the ordination.  What was the significance of the change from elder to high priest then?  Did it confer the right to perform new, different, or higher ordinances?  Did a greater endowment of the gifts of the Spirit accompany that ordination?  What changed?  

This had been my experience in the past, too.  After many inquiries into the matter I decided that there were few people, if any, who might understand what is really going on.  Nobody had a valid insight for me to help dispel the confusion.

We often want to hear something new.  We think we want the mysteries.  Those who diligently seek after them shall find them (1 Ne. 10:19).  What we need first, however, is to properly understand that which has already been given to us.  Then we will have a foundation of truth upon which to build.  “If we start right, it is easy to go right all the time; but if we start wrong we may go wrong, and it will be a hard matter to get right,” (KFD, Joseph Smith).  Beginning with a false premise will eventually lead you to a dead end.

There’s a reason few seem to understand what high priest in the Church means.  Likewise, there are few who understand what high priest in Alma 13 means.  Because the same words are used to describe both, we tend to think they’re the same.  They’re not.  They are different.  Because we think they’re the same we understand neither as we should. 

At an early point in our history we began conflating the priesthood and church office.  We have fused and confused the two.  This is not always the way it was, but the way it quickly became. 

When Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith worked together to write what is now section 20 of the D&C they explained the offices of elder, priest, teacher, deacon, and member as offices in the church (“high priest” was not a part of that original document and was added later in 1835 when the D&C was first printed).  These offices belonged to the Church, and not to the priesthood.  Even “member” is described as though it is one of those offices, and the duties pertaining to that office are laid out in that section (D&C 20: 38, 68-70).   

These offices provided order and established authority in the Church.  These offices were the authority given by which baptism was performed, the ordination of others as officers in the church was performed, and administration of the sacrament was performed (D&C 20).  The organization itself, or the entity, empowered these offices, and the offices were established by vote of the church.

One example from the life of Brigham Young illustrates this point well:

“On December 27, 1847, in Winter Quarters, when Brigham Young became president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he recorded he was ‘elected’ to the office.  The common consent, or election by church members, was the power by which the president’s office became his.  He did not believe he needed any ordination to the office, only the common consent through a sustaining vote.  He was in fact, never ordained president of the church, only elected to the position.  He explained why it was unnecessary to have anything other than a vote to ascend to the office: ‘If men are elected by this Church, it is by Election - Joseph was ordained an Apostle – but the Church elected him as a President, Prophet-Seer and Revelator – But he was never ordained to that office.’  Because a sustaining vote was all Brigham Young thought necessary to assume the president’s mantle, it was all he ever received.  If his view is correct, then any person elected to the position has all authority required by reason of the vote or consent of the members of the church.  The members consent or elect a person to the position, and the position exists through such consent.” (Snuffer, emphasis mine).

  

Now, there is a lot more that could be said about the priesthood and church office that we will not cover here.  There is a lot of informative context preceding and surrounding the writing of section 20, and other sections in the D&C, that has become available to us, and that has not been accessible since the early part of the restoration.  There is a lot of information pertaining to the restoration of the priesthood that is also important.  We will not look at that here either. 

It is important that I bring up what little I did.  These things are important to consider in order that we can get to the truth about these high priests in Alma 13.  That’s the whole reason we’ve talked about any of it.  I’m quite certain I may have caused considerable confusion to some people.  If it doesn’t taste good, spit it out.  If it’s helpful, then consider it.  Plant the seed, and let it work.  See if it produces any fruit.  That is the simple method Alma revealed to us to test the word (Alma 32).  If you begin to see some discrepancy, you begin to believe that you don’t have all the answers.  That is a good and necessary and humbling thing.  That realization will cause you to begin asking the right questions.           

Today, unlike the other ordinations we perform, ordination to the office of high priest in the Church comes to a man at a non-age-specific, leadership-selected time in his normal progression in the church,  predicated upon his continued attendance and activity (the exception to this would be when a man’s calling in the Church requires him to be a high priest – i.e. a Bishop, for example).  As with all other offices in the Church, the ordination can only take place after “the vote of that church” (D&C 20:65). 

It is apparent to me that my father was ordained to the office of high priest in the Church.  It is also apparent to me that this was something different than what we find going on in Alma 13.  We’ll take a look at that next.  Considering the text at face value, divorcing it from our expectations and prejudices, helps us learn what Alma’s message is.  It is worth our attention.  It’s an invitation to come unto Christ and to receive that which man cannot give.   

Untangling the Priesthood

A couple of people have asked that I explain what I meant when I said our use of the term “high priest” in the Church doesn’t help us to understand Alma 13.

I’d like to do that.  I don’t have the time to write as much about it as I’d like.  So we can only consider some ideas.  When we don’t understand these things we unintentionally take them lightly.  When we don’t understand the words in the Book of Mormon, we tend to take it lightly (D&C84). 

The problem goes deeper than just the issue of high priests, however.  Our understanding of priesthood in general has been bent.  At the root of it all is that when men receive a little authority “as they suppose” they begin to abuse it, and misunderstand it (D&C 121:39).  We looked at this in the Noah and Abinadi posts.  We seem to view ordination to offices in the Church as a right of passage.  We view these ordinations as stages or levels of advancement indicating our personal progression in gospel maturity. 

The system, as it is currently established, is an age-based progression through offices.  I’m not being critical of that system, but want you to keep that fact in mind as you try to piece together how that may influence your understanding of priesthood.  To be sure, order is a good thing.  We need it.  God’s house is a house of order (D&C 132:18).  But don’t let today’s order or practices undermine your ability to perceive the truth of any matter.  For instance, if all we understand about the Aaronic Priesthood is that priests are ordained at age 16, teachers at 14, and deacons at 12, we really don’t understand anything about the priesthood.  Those ages tell us nothing about priesthood, but they are a part of the church structure.  Those ages were different in the early 20^th century, and didn’t even exist in the early part of church history.  We have to separate church policies and cultural practices from our understanding of what priesthood is if we will begin to make any headway.  

In another significant way, a part of the problem is our vocabulary.  We use words that we think have a certain meaning, or that have culturally assumed a certain meaning, that distract us from obtaining a proper understanding.  Some common phrases or expressions that we hear in Church help illustrate our dilemma: 

-We’d like to thank the priesthood for blessing the sacrament. 

-How was High Priests today? 

-I’m so grateful for the priesthood, without them I don’t know how we could’ve gotten those girls all back from girls’ camp.

-Home teaching is a responsibility of the priesthood.

-As priesthood holders you are under obligation to serve others.

These statements turn the priesthood into a body of men instead of the power of God.  They also assign obligations to “the priesthood” (the body of men holding the priesthood) that are simply obligations devolving upon all of god’s children, men and women alike, irrespective of priesthood.  Without any malicious intent whatever, statements like these have the potential to pollute our minds and cloud our eyes.  We become capacitated, by and by, to thereafter hear the scriptures read to us, or to hear quotes from church leaders who correctly expound certain principles, but then so easily revert to the understanding that has been presented to us and engrained through our everyday cultural exposure to the words.

So, in response to the requests for clarification about high priests I’d like to point out a few things from church history and ask you to consider some questions about the scriptures.  If we ask the right questions we are bound to begin discovering the right answers.  Sometimes we can’t understand because we haven’t figured out what the right questions are.  Perhaps we aren’t asking any questions.  If what follows does not persuade you to come to Christ then you are free to discard it.  What will follow in the next couple of days is my understanding of things.    

Who Are You?

The message of repentance in the scriptures was often to a religious crowd who considered themselves the Lord's people and who thought they were righteous (Luke 18:9-14).  

One of the reasons we may feel the Book of Mormon's message of repentance doesn't apply to us as "faithful" Latter-day Saints is because our lives, by and large, are in harmony with the principles taught from our pulpits and in our Sunday schools.  We keep the commandments and fulfill our callings.  Although we acknowledge in word that the message of repentance still applies to us as much as anyone, we are often perplexed about what it is we must repent of.

Besides serious transgressions, one of the things we must repent of are our misconceptions, and false traditions; or, what the Book of Mormon calls "unbelief." 

God's prophets mourn our state of unbelief because it causes us to not "search knowledge, nor understand great knowledge, when it is given unto them in plainness, even as plain as word can be" (2 Ne. 32:7).  Because of that unbelief and stiffneckedness the Spirit stops the utterance of prophets when they might otherwise desire to share more about God's plan (ibid.).

King Benjamin taught that unbelief is a result of failing to read and understand God's word (Mosiah 1:5).  Because men fail to search the scriptures they "dwindle in unbelief" and fail to believe the truth when it is taught to them "because of the traditions of their fathers" (ibid.).  Dwindling in unbelief disables men so that they cannot understand the word of God.  This lack of understanding hardens men's hearts (Mosiah 26:3).  

In order for us to repent of and conquer unbelief we must come into contact with the "light of the glory of God" (Alma 19:6).  This encounter will cast away unbelief and dispel the clouds of darkness (ibid.).  For the majority of Latter-day Saints this encounter will begin to occur as we search the scriptures, but particularly the scriptures of the restoration.  We can choose to have this encounter with light and truth and begin to peel away the dark scales of unbelief, or we can choose not to receive the light.  Those who choose not to receive the light will be deceived, for they will not have the light required to discern between true and false messengers.  They will not be prepared for the "test" that Heber C. Kimball prophesied would overcome us in our day.         

In order for you to begin to remove the condemnation under which you labor you must take the Book of Mormon seriously.  

In order for you to begin to take the Book of Mormon seriously (or to not "treat it lightly") you must understand its message.  

In order for you to begin to understand the message of the Book of Mormon, it is vital for you to dismiss false notions about who "My people, O House of Israel" are, and who "the Gentiles" are.  

The truth of the matter is disconcerting for many people when presented with it, and so they choose not to search out the matter.  They think that those who would voice an opinion contrary to their traditions are "mad" (Mosiah 13:4).  Why is it that when a prophet declares the truth about the scriptures the religious are angry with him?  Must a man be a false prophet because his message angers you?  Must a prophet's message make you feel good about yourself?   

A proud man will usually choose to remain blind even when presented with light and truth because it salves his conscience to retain a false identity.  Doing so allows him to retain his pride, and believe in the message that "all is well" (2 Ne. 28:21).  But the Lord has made it clear that we have to shed false traditions and become humble and accept truth if we will be saved (Alma 32:15-16). 

The Latter-day Saints are the Gentiles of the Book of Mormon, and the Gentiles to whom it was written.  It was written for those Gentiles who are its readers, not those who are not its readers.  It was written in clarity that the Gentiles might understand the mission we've been called to perform.  The book defines our role.

Joseph Smith knew he was the "Gentile" who was chosen to begin the latter-day work (Title Page).  He referred to the rest of the Saints as "Gentiles" in the Kirtland Temple dedicatory prayer, which he received by revelation (D&C 109:60).  Throughout the Book of Mormon the writers are persistent and consistent in their use of the term.

Without explaining the entire issue, it's important to be presented with the idea so that it may be searched out.  Those who look into the matter will begin to see it clearly.  From beginning to end, European descendants are the "Gentiles" of the Book of Mormon, nobody else.  Unless you are a Latter-day Saint who also happens to be Native American, you are not the "remnant" or the "House of Israel" spoken of in the Book of Mormon.      

Don't let prejudices, misunderstandings, and false traditions deter your search.  Never mind what you think your Patriarchal blessing tells you about the meaning of "the House of Israel" in the Book of Mormon.  Those first or last sentences about lineage in your blessing no more help you understand the Book of Mormon than does the term "High Priest," as we use it today, help us to understand Alma 13.  They're almost wholly different.  Those things will all become clear as you discard false traditions and put off unbelief.  It doesn't matter if you descend from the House of Israel way back when, you are a "Gentile" to the Book of Mormon writers.     

Once you can understand your identity, the prophecies and messages of the Book of Mormon will begin to become very real to you.  The Book, as a whole, will begin to make much more sense.  You will be able to see more clearly, in order that a more thorough repentance may begin to take place.  It will be a precious gift, opening up to your view the fulness of the Gospel.  But not until we can put off "unbelief."  If we fail to understand our identity and the message of the Book of Mormon, we are dwindling in unbelief.

Many of our ideas about the scriptures are correct, but misapplied.  Many of our precepts are true and scriptural, but misunderstood.  It is true that the repentant Gentiles will ultimately be numbered among "the House of Israel" (2 Ne. 10:18).  We've gotten too far ahead of the game, however, in assuming that we've already made it.  We haven't.  The House of Israel will very soon receive the Book of Mormon and the fulness of the Gospel.  They haven't received it yet, but they will soon.  It will be brought unto them by the kings and queens of the Gentiles, who will act as nursing fathers and mothers to them (2 Ne. 10:9).