Reversal on Wayward Children?

If you have been a Mormon for the last 30 to 40 years, you may already know that the topic of rescuing a prodigal child is a recurring teaching and has been since the beginning of Mormonism.

The following passage from a Boyd K. Packer talk, is one I'm quite familiar with.  It has brought my parents, and thousands of other parents, comfort and a perception of control over their children's salvation.

It is not uncommon for responsible parents to lose one of their children, for a time, to influences over which they have no control. They agonize over rebellious sons or daughters. They are puzzled over why they are so helpless when they have tried so hard to do what they should.

It is my conviction that those wicked influences one day will be overruled.

“The Prophet Joseph Smith declared—and he never taught a more comforting doctrine—that the eternal sealings of faithful parents and the divine promises made to them for valiant service in the Cause of Truth, would save not only themselves, but likewise their posterity. Though some of the sheep may wander, the eye of the Shepherd is upon them, and sooner or later they will feel the tentacles of Divine Providence reaching out after them and drawing them back to the fold. Either in this life or the life to come, they will return. They will have to pay their debt to justice; they will suffer for their sins; and may tread a thorny path; but if it leads them at last, like the penitent Prodigal, to a loving and forgiving father’s heart and home, the painful experience will not have been in vain. Pray for your careless and disobedient children; hold on to them with your faith. Hope on, trust on, till you see the salvation of God.” (Orson F. Whitney, in Conference Report, Apr. 1929, p. 110.)

We cannot overemphasize the value of temple marriage, the binding ties of the sealing ordinance, and the standards of worthiness required of them. When parents keep the covenants they have made at the altar of the temple, their children will be forever bound to them. President Brigham Young said:

“Let the father and mother, who are members of this Church and Kingdom, take a righteous course, and strive with all their might never to do a wrong, but to do good all their lives; if they have one child or one hundred children, if they conduct themselves towards them as they should, binding them to the Lord by their faith and prayers, I care not where those children go, they are bound up to their parents by an everlasting tie, and no power of earth or hell can separate them from their parents in eternity; they will return again to the fountain from whence they sprang.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., 2:90–91.)

Packer goes on to discuss repentance, but it is un-mistakable, in this doctrine, that there is a path to heaven for wayward children ... a path that will ensure both parents and child live together in the after-life.

But, with the newest Latter-day prophet, has this doctrine been reversed?  Russell M. Nelson said, yesterday, April 7, 2019:

The anguish of my heart is that many people whom I love, whom I admire and respect, decline his invitation. They ignore the pleadings of Jesus Christ when he beckons, “Come, follow me.” I understand why God weeps; I also weep for such friends and relatives. They’re wonderful men and women, devoted to their family and civic responsibilities. They give generously of their time, energy, and resources – and the world is better for their efforts. But they have chosen not to make covenants with God. They have not received the ordinances that will exalt them with their families and bind them together forever.

How I wish I could visit with them and invite them to seriously consider the enabling laws of the lord. I’ve wondered what I could possibly say so that they would feel how much the savior loves them, and know how much I love them, and come to recognize how covenant-keeping women and men can receive a fullness of joy.

They need to understand that while there is a place for them hereafter, with wonderful men and women who also chose not to make covenants with God, that is not the place where families will be reunited and be given the privilege to live and progress forever. That is not the kingdom where they will experience the fullness of joy, of never-ending progression and happiness. Those consummate blessings can come only by living in an exalted celestial realm, with God our eternal father, his son Jesus Christ, and our wonderful, worthy, and qualified family members.

The above passage seems to be talking only of people who never are baptized Mormon.  But the last part of the above paragraph, and later in his talk, he makes it clear that he is including those "who have distanced [themselves] from the church" which would include prodigal children.

My belief is that God and Justice and Mercy are perfectly aligned; and that the only thing we truly have control over is how well we live the first and second great commandments.  If we truly obey those commandments through our life, then we can stand fully prepared before the judgement bar of God.

I simply cannot believe that God would deny people like Mother Teresa and many other great people, entrance into heaven over a technicality such as baptism and temple work.  If God is all-powerful and controls the judgement bar; and given the Mormon doctrine of proxy ordinance work, it seems very reasonable God could ensure a technicality were met in order to allow a person entrance into heaven, thereby allowing mercy her space, while ensuring men and women are granted the opportunity to learn through works (justice), which is what is most important in life.

On Members Saying That I'm Following Satan

I've discussed this in a previous blog post, but some people in our community have continued to verbally say that my family is being lead by Satan.

Some of what I write below, I've said before.  Some of what I write below is additional food for thought.

What does it mean when someone is under Satan's influence or being lead by Satan?

If I were to walk in the door of all the local Christian churches, sit down and tell the pastor about myself and be completely honest with him or her, I would be willing to bet they would say I'm not being influenced by Satan.

For me, if someone is being influenced by Satan, it means they are immoral.  Immoral, to me, means:

• committing murder; attempting to commit murder; war-mongering; genocide
• stealing, robbing, tax-evading, swindling, bilking
• cheating on a spouse; wrecking families; committing adultery
• being abusive; physically, sexually or psychologically
• lying, not being honest or truthful; intending to deceive; cheating
• embracing, supporting or giving cover to any behavior above, when you are in a position to stop or prevent it, within reason
• embracing vice; being corrupt, foolish, selfish, prideful, slothful, licentious or acting cowardly
• lacking any virtue; such as justice, wisdom, courage or temperance

I'm not perfect, but I don't have any habits of any of the above.  We all may have lied or have dabbled in vices at some point, but for me, none of those vices have turned into a habit and therefore is not part of my character.  I don't think I'm being influenced by Satan.  In fact, my striving has always been, and continues to be to:

• support life; mine, my family, those who benefit from my charitable contributions and taxes
• live honestly, in work and personal life; try to be transparent as reason permits
• being faithful to my wife and children; I've never physically abused them and I have tried to parent productively, without emotionally abusing them ... anyone can ask them how I've done and I won't be fearful of the answer
• I try to ensure justice is pursued where I can influence it; if someone has committed a crime or done something morally wrong, I try to help them or if needed, report it to the police/authorities
• I strive to live a life of virtue every day; I'm not 100% successful all the time, but I am striving to be more just, more wise, more courageous and more temperate

I think it should go without saying, but I will make it explicit.  I do not worship Satan.  I do not participate in black magic, voodoo, Satanic rituals or anything of that kind.

Now, to a member of the Church, what they mean when they tell me I'm being influenced by Satan, is that I won't believe or say that Joseph Smith was called of God or that the Mormon church is the one true church on the earth today and all other religions are an abomination before God or that the current prophets, seers and revelators of the Mormon church are the only men who speak for God on the earth today.  Because of that "thought crime" people believe and verbally say I'm being influenced by Satan.

What confounds me, though, is that there is plenty of evidence Joseph often stepped into immoral behavior as listed above.  Some members will try to ignore it or rationalize it.  This is moral relativism.  It wasn't moral in 1835, it isn't moral in 2019.  If we are going to give Brother Joseph a break, then I would suggest to anyone who thinks I'm being influenced by Satan, to give me a break too.  If Joseph passes the judgement bar, I think I will too.

Also, at the heart of this issue, for me, is trust.  I believed my leaders and teachers.  I trusted them to tell me the truth.  I believed my leaders and teachers when they said the peep stone was an anti-Mormon fabrication designed to make us lose our faith.  I believed them when they said that Joseph practicing polygamy was false and an anti-Mormon lie or that he made up the Book of Abraham.  I believed them when they said it was God who cursed wicked people with black skin.

When I later learned the truth, I realized my leaders and teachers, either wittingly or unwittingly, didn't tell me the truth.  That hurts and I lost trust in them.  How can I have faith in leaders where there is no trust?

In my search to understand why people are saying my family and I are under the influence of Satan, I came across this conference talk by James Faust: The Great Imitator.  One passage stood out to me.  I share this passage to those who think or say I'm following Satan.

Let us not become so intense in our zeal to do good by winning arguments or by our pure intention in disputing doctrine that we go beyond good sense and manners, thereby promoting contention, or say and do imprudent things, invoke cynicism, or ridicule with flippancy. In this manner, our good motives become so misdirected that we lose friends and, even more serious, we come under the influence of the devil. I recently heard in a special place, “Your criticism may be worse than the conduct you are trying to correct.”

I do not have any bad or ill feelings towards people who say this of me or my family.  My deepest desire is that they would take the time to understand what I've been through - to walk in my shoes - to ask questions and get to know me, then to exercise empathy.  If we have to agree to disagree, so be it.  But please make the effort to know me before you judge me so harshly and say that I and my family are following Satan.  We simply are not.

Compasses, Rocks and Goal Posts

As a missionary in Guatemala, every day I woke up with the goal of "bringing souls unto Christ."  That was the big goal.  From there, as an LDS missionary, I further believed that really the only way a soul could "come unto Christ" was through repentance, baptism by immersion at the hand of someone with authorized priesthood authority, confirmation by the same priesthood and then ultimately making covenants in a Mormon temple.  Sometimes we were able to bring people to the waters of baptism, sometimes all we could do was bear testimony.  And in rare cases, we saw some who would enter the temple.

But none of that can happen unless we, and the people who agreed with us, accept one crucial premise: that there is only one true, authorized-and-endorsed-by-God religion on the earth.  And by virtue of that premise, all other religions and philosophies are false.

From a religious and philosophical belief, everything hinges on that premise for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Time and time again, leaders of the church, from the beginning, to today, have maintained that there is no middle ground.  Either it's Christ's restored church and kingdom on the earth today, or it is a fraud.  I will never forget the words of the Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley when he said in 2003, "Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing."

As a missionary, I asked people to always re-evaluate their beliefs and in that process, they should consider reading the Book of Mormon and ask God if it was true or not.  At that time I sincerely believed in truth and that we are all on a life-long journey to find un-alterable and un-changing truths.  Today, I still believe this.  I think we all ought to be open to feedback and checking our compasses to see if we are still heading in the direction of truth.  We all ought to be on the lookout for lies and half-truths in our quest.  We all ought to be mindful of where we build our homes.  We may think we have built on rock, but when torments and rains and winds come and our house sways, cracks and tumbles, we may need to re-consider where we rebuild our home.  And when we play a sport, such as football or soccer, we ought to expect that the posts or goal won't move for the duration of the game, otherwise the game may be pointless.

And as I asked others to re-evaluate their life decisions, religious beliefs and philosophy, I too should be willing to do the same.  After all, when the stakes are this high (a religion is either endorsed by God or not), I ought to take this seriously!

My "testimony" for the first 30 or so years of my life was roughly built on this framework:

The Book of Mormon is true (historically and philosophically), because I read it, agreed with most of its teachings and when I prayed about it, God caused me to feel good, peaceful and reassured.

Since the Book of Mormon is true, I now know Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, since he was called of God to translate the golden plates using the Urim and Thummim and breastplate into English.

And everything else that stems from Joseph Smith (teachings, actions, doctrine) is from God since he was called by God.

Anything else that didn't "feel right" or caused a "stupor of thought" was of Satan.  A lot of "anti-Mormon" rumors were spread by Satan, including Joseph using a peep-stone in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon or marrying other mens' wives.  Anything Gerald or Sandra Tanner said, was also false and "anti-Mormon."

So, you might be able to imagine my predicament when I began to read Rough Stone Rolling in 2008 and 2009 and learned that "anti-Mormon" rumors and lies were indeed accurate!  And not only did Rough Stone Rolling confirm these things as fact, but the Church also produced essays admitting that many doctrines were now "theories advanced by men." What would you do the moment you suspect the compass you have been using is inaccurate?  How would you feel when the news is delivered to you that your home, which you thought was built on rock, is actually not?  That is how I began to feel.  I was at a cross-road and had a couple of choices: 1) ignore it all or 2) confront it and find the truth.  I chose to confront it.

I finished reading Rough Stone Rolling and proceeded to investigate more.  I entered the world of accusations and apologetics.  Gone were the days of trusting my feelings.  Now I was trying to de-tangle fact from fiction; truth from half-truth, both from leaders and apologists of the church and from its critics.

I won't review all the aspects of the Church doctrine I disagree with now, in this blog post - there are plenty of resources on-line that get into all that.  However, I will say that if there were just one or two issues, and that were all, then maybe I could keep them on a "mental shelf" and still maintain a strong belief in the dogma of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  But that is simply not the case.  Time and time again, I've concluded that what is unique about the Church is not good, and what is good about the Church is not unique.

As I begin to wrap up this blog post, I'll note some of the unique things about the Church, which I think are not good.  I'll phrase them in such a way using Christ as a spiritual north on a spiritual compass.

Would Christ use a scrying or peep stone (different from the Urim and Thummim) to translate ancient Egyptian scripture?

Would he be less than truthful about his abilities to translate ancient Egyptian text?

Would he call one of his apostles to use a scrying stone and be less than truthful about his abilities to translate ancient Egyptian text?

Would Christ marry another man's wife, especially after establishing commandments to not commit adultery and coveting?

Would He command his followers to do the same?

Would He deny eternal blessings to some children of God based on the color of their skin or some other God-given genetic factor?

Would He command or encourage his apostles to lie or deceive others or use carefully worded denials?

Would He prioritize building worldly assets over feeding the hungry?

Would He change his doctrine based on political or social pressure?

Would He excommunicate His followers for trying to make His religion a better and more safe place for its members and children while ignoring and not excommunicating physical and sexual abusers?

And would He accuse you or anyone of being ignorant, wanting to sin or being offended if you did discover any of the above?

Obviously, that is a lot to unpack.  If any of that causes you to scratch your head or cause you concern, I know exactly how you feel.  It is not a good feeling.  But you have to ask yourself, if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were not true, would you want to know?  We asked this question, in the positive format, all the time during our missionary service.  I think the negative version of the question is just as valid and important.

Also, time and time again, in Sunday School, seminary and priesthood classes and in private conversations, we would often point to other religions who would do some or all of the above and consider this as evidence that that religion is not of God ("by their fruits ye shall know them").  Why would we not apply this same standard to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

I want to conclude with one more thought for you to consider.  I have not lost my faith.  In all this journey of re-evaluating my religion and philosophy for the past ten years, I learned what it means to "walk through the valley of the shadow of death" (Psalms 23:4).  The torch of certainty was taken from me and I was no longer spoon-fed what I must believe.  Now, I have to truly trust in God that things will work out fine; that He is still leading my life and that He has a purpose for me.  I often wonder if this is what Adam and Eve felt like after leaving the Garden of Eden.  I have concluded, this ten year re-evaluation has greatly increased my faith and trust in God.

April Week 4 - Recognizing Truth

The Importance of Compasses and Reliable Instruments

Play a couple of guessing games with a "standard" and then the right "standard":
1. How much does it weigh?
2. How long is it?


Is it important to have reliable instruments when building a house? cooking?  flying?

Then what about living your life and people telling you how to live it?

You are ultimately responsible for how you live your life

While you may receive guidance from your parents, your teachers, your friends, the prophets and any number of people and voices in the world today, at the end of it all, it is up to you to decide.

My goal today, is drive this single point home: You (each of us) wholly own our thoughts and actions.  As such, each of us has to take that responsibility seriously.  At the end of the day (or this life) we can't say, "my parents made me do it" or "I was just trying to follow my leaders."

Nuremburg Trials
After WWII, the Allies put many of the Nazi leaders and industrialists on trial for their war crimes.  Many tried to use the defense, "I was only following orders."  But in many cases, that defense was not successful, because the crimes they committed were so egregious - essentially the Allies were saying "you should have known better as a human being."  The Wikipedia page on "Superior orders" does a good job explaining this.

Mark Hofmann, the Prophet and Forgeries
Everyone can be deceived; which is why it is so important for each of us to really check our assumptions and underlying philosophy.  We simply cannot outsource our personal philosophy or religion.

As primary kids, we sang the song "Follow The Prophet"; the chorus goes:
Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,
Follow the prophet; don’t go astray.
Follow the prophet, follow the prophet,
Follow the prophet; he knows the way.

Each of the verses talks about how people regretted not following the prophet.  Unfortunately, "the knife cuts both ways."  There have been times when people did follow the prophet and regretted it.

It is wise to remember we all, including prophets, are fallible and subject to deception.  Again, this underscores the fact that we need to be responsible for our own beliefs and philosophy - we can't just delegate this responsibility to others.

Case in point is a man by the name of Mark Hofmann and how he deceived many of the leaders of the LDS church.  It all started, if you recall, when Joseph Smith and Martin Harris attempted to get a professor to vouch for the reformed Egyptian characters.  The professor's name was Charles Anthon.  Martin Harris took a paper with some of the Egyptian characters on it and asked Anthon if they were legitimate.  Supposedly Anthon said they were, and he signed a document stating as such.  But upon further inquiry, Harris told him all about how Joseph found and translated the Gold Plates, at which point, Anthon asked back for the paper and ripped it up.  What became of the paper that had the Egyptian characters is up for debate.  No one really knows if it still exists today or not; it is called the Anthon Transcript.  Under this cover, Mark Hofmann created a forgery and claimed it was the real transcript.  He took it to Church leaders, who evaluated it, were deceived by the excellent forgery, and then proceeded to purchase the forgery for $20,000.  Thus began Mark Hoffman's career in forging Church History artifacts.

He continued to create forgeries and the Church continued to collaborate with him and purchase them.  Hofmann was secretly trying to make the leaders look bad.  He created what was called the Salamander Letter, which basically tried to make it sound like the angel Moroni did not visit Joseph Smith, but instead a spirit in the form of a white salamander, appeared to Joseph at the time of him obtaining the gold plates.  The Church bought this letter, which caused many members to stop believing in Joseph as a prophet.  Many top Church leaders, including President Oaks, defended the forgery.  What is even more fascinating is that two avid critics of the Church (Jerald and Sandra Tanner) readily criticized the forged letter, saying it was fake, despite the Church saying it was real.  At this point in the story, you may begin to feel a bit of vertigo yourself.  Who can you trust?  Who is right?  Who is telling the truth?  And you'd be right and justified in asking those questions.

Eventually Hofmann was caught in his lies and, sadly, killed people who were catching on to his lies.  To this day, he sits in a Utah prison.

Who can you trust?  What measuring stick or instrument can you rely on?  What is constant and unchangeable and undeviating?  That is the real question we must all try to find.

What is the 'measuring stick' for life?

Again, each of you will need to decide what your moral compass is.  You may find that what you think is right, is actually not.  You may find that after going down a path - a way of life - you conclude it was not right for you.  Many claim to know what the correct philosophy is, but it is interesting that on some points they agree and on some points they disagree.

For me, personally, I think it all boils down to the two great commandments:
1. Love God with your whole heart
2. Love others

If we do well in those two commandments, we can comfortably stand before God at judgement day, and honestly say we've lived those two commandments, then that is the best we can do.

Focus on finding contentment and happiness in things you can control.  Accept the things that are not in your control.  After repeated practice, you will begin to find that virtues such as self-discipline, courage, justice and wisdom are indeed in your control and are also the attributes, which if you develop, will bring you contentment in your life.  Other things that may worry you, such as pursuing money or lucrative career, seeking a life of ease and pleasure, indulging in excess, selfishness, dishonesty, fear, anxiety or general worry - these things are not important and are generally out of your control - so why set your heart on them?

Heart Failure

Why would our hearts fail us?  Read this post to find out.

April Week 3 - Apostasy & Restoration

How can I liken the events of the apostasy and restoration to my life?

What does the word Apostasy mean?

It is almost always used in a religious context

It means, "the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief"

But isn't it really just a fancy way of saying someone got new information or their convictions changed and they decided to do something different?

As a missionary, I asked many Catholics and Evangelicals to apostatize from their religious beliefs and convictions

What does the word Dogma mean?

"a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true"

Then read a Dr. Seuss book to the class: The Sneetches and The Zax

What were the convictions or beliefs of the Sneetches and Zax?
Did some change their mind?  Some Sneetches did, but the Zax did not.
Did any of it matter? (not really, in fact the whole thing is laughable and sad.  The one dude made a ton of money off of the ridiculousness of the Sneetches wanting to be "right", while the Zax - that is just sad.)

What is the relationship between Apostasy and Dr. Seuss?
What beliefs and dogmas did the Sneetches and Zax have?
Did the Sneetches apostatize?  Did the Zax?

At some point, you have to ask yourself if your beliefs and dogmas (or what you're being told to believe), really matters or not.  Then you have to decide: what really matters in this life?

Let's look at a few examples:

What are core beliefs of Islam?
- Belief in Allah as the one and only God
- Belief in angels
- Belief in holy books
- Belief in the prophets (Adam, Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus)
- Belief in Judgement Day
- Belief in Predestination

What are core beliefs of Judaism?
- God exists; is one and unique; and is incorporeal (no body); is eternal
- Pray to God and no other
- Belief in the Prophets
- The Written Torah (first five books of Bible) - there is or will not be any other Torah
- God knows the thoughts and deeds of men
- God will reward the good and punish the wicked
- The Messiah will come
- The dead will be resurrected

What are the core beliefs of Christianity?
- Belief in God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son of Go and the Holy Spirit
- The death, descent into hell, resurrection and ascension of Christ
- The holiness of the Church and the communion of saints
- Christ's second coming, the Day of Judgement and salvation of the faithful

Even within Christianity; there is a fundamental dispute about the nature of God, along with other topics.

So you have to ask yourself a few questions:
1. Does belief in a dogma matter?
a. Some people think it is all spaghetti (see CotFSM)
b. Some become agnostic or atheist
c. For others, it is important to belief in a dogma
2. If so, then you are faced with a decision about which one?
3. Are they all correct?  Are they all incorrect?  Is there just one that is endorsed by God?  Or are there two, three?

What does Apostasy mean in the Mormon context?
After Christianity was established, Mormons believe the power, beliefs and traditions of the Apostles were lost.  Catholics believe it was never lost - power went to Peter and down through the Popes.

All through the time of the Apostles and down through the many hundreds and thousands of years, it was just the Catholic church with a few deviations.

Watch this 26 minute video, which I think, does a pretty good job explaining how we got here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH79F0Hn56U … focus on the explanation.  Towards the end, he reveals his opinion and you can decide to agree or disagree.

Then a guy by the name of Martin Luther came along and protested against the Catholic church - thus started the Reformation as well as Protestant Religions.

As a side note, check out this mind-blowing podcast about Martin Luther and the Muster Rebellion (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN8A4ygoEgo / https://player.fm/series/dan-carlins-hardcore-history/show-48-prophets-of-doom)

The bigger new churches / denominations are:
Lutheran (i.e. Martin Luther)
Anglican
Calvinist
Methodist
Baptist

Among this time with all the "new" churches established, a new wave spiritualism / revivalism began in upstate New York.  There was so much preaching and debating among the churches there, it was referred to as the Burned Over District (see the Wikipedia entry on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burned-over_district)

It was during this time that Joseph Smith had his own reckoning with religion and would soon introduce the Mormon version of the Restoration of the gospel via the translation of the Book of Mormon, the visitation from John the Baptist for the Aaronic Priesthood and Peter, James and John for the Melchizedek Priesthood.  And then temples, Masonic rituals and polygamy were introduced followed by multiple iterations of Mormon beliefs from the 1850s to the present day based on "continuing revelation."

February Week 2 - Learning continued

books are gateway to knowledge

Opening: The Joy of Learning
Write on board "TIL"
- what does that mean?
- talk about some fascinating things from /r/TIL

Learning isn't all boring.  Granted, there are things you have to learn, but in many other cases, learning is a joy; learning gives you knowledge, power, insight, the ability to make wise decisions.

That One Class
We've all had that one class where we say, "how is this going to help me?"  For some, it is English; for others it is Math.  For me, it was Physical Science 101 at BYU.  Probably my worst grade at BYU, one of only 2 C's I got.  Sometimes, you just have to take it and do your best to get something out of it.

The Joy of Learning
For me, joy in learning comes from reading really interesting books
- Scriptures
- Meditations
- Inner Citadel
- Culture and Carnage
- Rough Stone Rolling

Ask students for examples of times when they've had to take "that one class".  How did they cope?  What did they do to make the best of it?

Ask students examples of times when they've experienced the joy of learning.  Why was it joyful?  What make it enjoyable?  How did it make them a better person?

fiber optic cables (how data moves)

The Process of Learning
Have students read "Seek Learning by Faith" (September 2007 Ensign) by Bednar.
- Students share 3 things they learn from the article

The Cycle of Learning by Faith
Assurance (hope) leads to action, which leads to evidence

As you look back on your life, what things have you now learned, but at the time you began to learn them, you had doubts?  For example, anyone who has learned to play an instrument - how did you feel the first time you played compared to how you feel now?

Assurance: you believe, you trust in the future - that there will be a way

Action: based on assurance and evidence, you act

Evidence: after you have acted, the outcome may or may not be what was expected.  But you are wiser and much closer to achieving what you have faith in.

Lectures on Faith
You can access the Lectures on Faith at lecturesonfaith.com

Read verses 10-11 in the 1st Lecture

10 If men were duly to consider themselves, and turn their thoughts and reflections to the operations of their own minds, they would readily discover that it is faith, and faith only, which is the moving cause of all action, in them; that without it, both mind and body would be in a state of inactivity, and all their exertions would cease, both physical and mental.

11 Were this class to go back and reflect upon the history of their lives, from the period of their first recollection, and ask themselves, what principle excited them to action, or what gave them energy and activity, in all their lawful avocations, callings and pursuits, what would be the answer? Would it not be that it was the assurance which we had of the existence of things which we had not seen, as yet?—Was it not the hope which you had, in consequence of your belief in the existence of unseen things, which stimulated you to action and exertion, in order to obtain them? Are you not dependent on your faith, or belief, for the acquisition of all knowledge, wisdom and intelligence? Would you exert yourselves to obtain wisdom and intelligence, unless you did believe that you could obtain them? Would you have ever sown if you had not believed that you would reap? Would you have ever planted if you had not believed that you would gather? Would you have ever asked unless you had believed that you would receive? Would you have ever sought unless you had believed that you would have found? Or would you have ever knocked unless you had believed that it would have been opened unto you? In a word, is there any thing that you would have done, either physical or mental, if you had not previously believed? Are not all your exertions, of every kind, dependent on your faith? Or may we not ask, what have you, or what do you possess, which you have not obtained by reason of your faith? Your food, your raiment, your lodgings, are they not all by reason of your faith? Reflect, and ask yourselves, if these things are not so. Turn your thoughts on your own minds, and see if faith is not the moving cause of all action in yourselves; and if the moving cause in you, is it not in all other intelligent beings?

To Act and not be Acted Upon
Read 2 Nephi 2:13-14

Learning by faith and from experience are two of the central features of the Father’s plan of happiness. The Savior preserved moral agency through the Atonement and made it possible for us to act and to learn by faith. Lucifer’s rebellion against the plan sought to destroy the agency of man, and his intent was that we as learners would only be acted upon.  In a sense, Lucifer wanted to do all the thinking for us.

Thoughts on Lucifers plan?

We are to be DOERS of the word, not simply HEARERS of the word

In everything you learn, you should ask yourself, "what will I do with this experience, lesson, knowledge?"

Story of Joseph Smith; verses 10 and 18
Joseph wasn't satisfied with just knowing, he wanted to DO; to ACT

Truly, one of the great challenges of mortality is to seek learning by faith. The Prophet Joseph Smith best summarizes the learning process and outcomes I am attempting to describe. In response to a request by the Twelve Apostles for instruction, Joseph taught, “The best way to obtain truth and wisdom is not to ask it from books, but to go to God in prayer, and obtain divine teaching.”

And on another occasion, the Prophet Joseph explained that “reading the experience of others, or the revelation given to them, can never give us a comprehensive view of our condition and true relation to God.

The desire to learn
Bring in big stack of books; scriptures, etc.
Now, you have the information of the world at your finger tips; and what do we do? Play games?  or become agents?

January Week 1 - The God You Worship

What in the world does oil exploration, production and refining have to do with why you need to learn about God?

Succinctly put, we humans are like raw oil, being created from raw materials, and thrown through a series of events and 'machines' which enhance and refine us until we be come the 'perfect end product' similar to the God we worship.

Today, we are going to talk about where we are going in this process.

Who God is and How do we come to know Him?
Joseph Smith said. “There are but a very few beings in the world who understand rightly the character of God. The great majority of mankind do not comprehend anything, either that which is past, or that which is to come, as it respects their relationship to God. They do not know, neither do they understand the nature of that relationship; and consequently they know but little above the brute beast, or more than to eat, drink and sleep. This is all man knows about God or His existence, unless it is given by the inspiration of the Almighty.

“If a man learns nothing more than to eat, drink and sleep, and does not comprehend any of the designs of God, the beast comprehends the same things. It eats, drinks, sleeps, and knows nothing more about God; yet it knows as much as we, unless we are able to comprehend by the inspiration of Almighty God. If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves. I want to go back to the beginning, and so lift your minds into more lofty spheres and a more exalted understanding than what the human mind generally aspires to.

“… The scriptures inform us that ‘This is life eternal that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.’ [John 17:3.]

“If any man does not know God, and inquires what kind of a being He is,—if he will search diligently his own heart—if the declaration of Jesus and the apostles be true, he will realize that he has not eternal life; for there can be eternal life on no other principle.

“My first object is to find out the character of the only wise and true God, and what kind of a being He is. …

“God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make Himself visible,—I say, if you were to see Him today, you would see Him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another. …

“… Having a knowledge of God, we begin to know how to approach Him, and how to ask so as to receive an answer. When we understand the character of God, and know how to come to Him, He begins to unfold the heavens to us, and to tell us all about it. When we are ready to come to Him, He is ready to come to us." (“Chapter 2: God the Eternal Father,” Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, (2007), 36–44)

An account of two men who came to know God
Read two accounts of how Moses and Korihor came to know there is a God
○ (Moses 1:1-11)
○ (Alma 30:37-52)
○ How do you know God exists?
○ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U
○ Do you have any experiences to share?

Give class 10 minutes to come up with a list of attributes of God
○ List these on the board (tick marks for multiples)
○ They can use the Gospel Library or the Topical Guide or Bible Dictionary

Related Gospel Topic Essays
Becoming Like God
Mother in Heaven

The First Vision Series - Conclusions and Links

I've reviewed the major accounts of the First Vision.  There are other accounts, but for the most part, they repeat the accounts I reviewed.

What have I learned from all this?  I learned these things are certain.

I learned Joseph thought a lot about the eternities.

I learned there had to be a catalyst that drove him to seek God in prayer.

I learned Joseph experienced something profound in his teenage years.  He saw (either physically or in a vision), Jesus or God the Father or an angel or numerous angels or a combination of all of them.

I learned he was forgiven of his sins.

I learned Joseph took his spiritual salvation seriously - he did not leave it to chance or to any other man.

As a reference, I'll include some other summaries of the various accounts of the First Vision.  These do a great job listing the different accounts and how they differ.

Comparison of 9 First Vision Accounts
Primary Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision of Deity
Comparing Early Accounts of the First Vision

The First Vision Series - Orson Pratt, 1840

I've copied below the text from the Orson Pratt 1840 account.

When somewhere about fourteen or fifteen years old, he began seriously to reflect upon the necessity of being prepared for a future state of existence: but how, or in what way, to prepare himself, was a question, as yet, undetermined in his own mind: he perceived that it was a question of infinite importance, and that the salvation of his soul depended upon a correct understanding of the same. He saw, that if he understood not the way, it would be impossible to walk in it, except by chance; and the thought of resting his hopes of eternal life upon chance, or uncertainties, was more than he could endure. If he went to the religious denominations to seek information, each one pointed to its particular tenets, saying— “This is the way, walk ye in it;” (Isaiah 30:21) while, at the same time, the doctrines of each were, in many respects, in direct opposition to one another. It, also, occurred to his mind, that God was not the author of but one doctrine, and therefore could not acknowledge but one denomination as his church; and that such denomination must be a people, who believe, and teach, that one doctrine, (what ever it may be,) and build upon the same. He then reflected upon the immense number of doctrines, now, in the world, which had given rise to many hundreds of different denominations. The great question to be decided in his mind, was—if any one of these denominations be the Church of Christ, which one is it? Until he could become satisfied, in relation to this question, he could not rest contented. To trust to the decisions of fallible man, and build his hopes upon the same, without any certainty, and knowledge, of his own, would not satisfy the anxious desires that pervaded his breast. To decide, without any positive and definite evidence, on which he could rely, upon a subject involving the future welfare of his soul, was revolting to his feelings. The only alternative, that seemed to be left him, was to read the Scriptures, and endeavour to follow their directions. He, accordingly, commenced perusing the sacred pages of the Bible, with sincerity, believing the things that he read. His mind soon caught hold of the following passage:—“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.”—James i. 5. From this promise he learned, that it was the privilege of all men to ask God for wisdom, with the sure and certain expectation of receiving, liberally; without being upbraided for so doing. This was cheering information to him: tidings that gave him great joy. It was like a light shining forth in a dark place, to guide him to the path in which he should walk. He, now, saw that if he inquired of God, there was, not only, a possibility, but a probability; yea, more, a certainty, that he should obtain a knowledge, which, of all the doctrines, was the doctrine of Christ; and, which, of all the churches, was the church of Christ. He, therefore, retired to a secret place, in a grove, but a short distance from his father’s house, and knelt down, and began to call upon the Lord. At first, he was severely tempted by the powers of darkness, which endeavoured to overcome him; but he continued to seek for deliverance, until darkness gave way from his mind; and he was enabled to pray, in fervency of the spirit, and in faith. And, while thus pouring out his soul, anxiously desiring an answer from God, he, at length, saw a very bright and glorious light in the heavens above; which, at first, seemed to be at a considerable distance. He continued praying, while the light appeared to be gradually descending towards him; and, as it drew nearer, it increased in brightness, and magnitude, so that, by the time that it reached the tops of the trees, the whole wilderness, for some distance around, was illuminated in a most glorious and brilliant manner. He expected to have seen the leaves and boughs of the trees consumed, as soon as the light came in contact with them; but, perceiving that it did not produce that effect, he was encouraged with the hopes of being able to endure its presence. It continued descending, slowly, until it rested upon the earth, and he was enveloped in the midst of it. When it first came upon him, it produced a peculiar sensation throughout his whole system; and, immediately, his mind was caught away, from the natural objects with which he was surrounded; and he was enwrapped in a heavenly vision, and saw two glorious personages, who exactly resembled each other in their features or likeness. He was informed, that his sins were forgiven. He was also informed upon the subjects, which had for some time previously agitated his mind, viz.—that all the religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines; and, consequently, that none of them was acknowledged of God, as his church and kingdom. And he was expressly commanded, to go not after them; and he received a promise that the true doctrine— the fulness of the gospel, should, at some future time, be made known to him; after which, the vision withdrew, leaving his mind in a state of calmness and peace, indescribable.

Commentary
This Orson Pratt account from 1840 is actually quite moving and flows very well.  It blends all the other versions so well.  This account flows so naturally too.  All the gaps and missing pieces from the other accounts seem to be filled by this account.

I underlined four sections above, which, to me, stand out significantly when the whole subject of the First Vision is considered.

The first section hits upon the notion of whether we put our trust in fallible men with regard to religion.  We learn from Orson Pratt's account that Joseph had tremendous anxiety about trusting in fallible men when his eternal salvation was at stake.  He wanted certainty in this regard.  As Pratt describes, Joseph wanted "positive and definitive evidence" regarding the welfare of his soul.  Without such evidence, he was "revolted."  Going back to what I tried to saw in a previous post - generally speaking, people don't have this anxiety any more.  And even if they do, that are almost always told to "have faith" and that their testimony does not depend on "definitive evidence."

The second section is a variation of this same thought.  Joseph felt confident in James 1:5.  He did not leave his testimony up for chance.  He went directly to The Source with a "sure and certain expectation" of getting knowledge.

The third section paints a very different picture than I had ever envisioned.  Pratt describes how the light appeared far off and as Joseph kept praying, the light got nearer.  In the other accounts, I always got the impression that the appearance was sudden.  But this account describes how it was gradual.  This description reminds me of how the Savior descended to the Nephites (3 Nephi 11:8).

Lastly, the fourth section describes the how the vision went from physical to spiritual.  This was very similar to Joseph's 1842 account where he said his "mind was taken away from the objects with which I was surrounded, and I was enwrapped in a heavenly vision."  Pratt fills in one small gap and notes how when the light came upon Joseph, it "produced peculiar sensation" before he was en-wrapped in a vision.

The First Vision Series - The 1842 Account

I've copied below the text of the 1842 account in order to more easily reference it and apply highlights.

When about fourteen years of age I began to reflect upon the importance of being prepared for a future state, and upon enquiring the plan of salvation I found that there was a great clash in religious sentiment; if I went to one society they referred me to one plan, and another to another; each one pointing to his own particular creed as the summum bonum of perfection: considering that all could not be right, and that God could not be the author of so much confusion I determined to investigate the subject more fully, believing that if God had a church it would not be split up into factions, and that if he taught one society to worship one way, and administer in one set of ordinances, he would not teach another principles which were diametrically opposed. Believing the word of God I had confidence in the declaration of James; “If any man lack wisdom let him ask of God who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not and it shall be given him,” I retired to a secret place in a grove and began to call upon the Lord, while fervently engaged in supplication my mind was taken away from the objects with which I was surrounded, and I was enwrapped in a heavenly vision and saw two glorious personages who exactly resembled each other in features, and likeness, surrounded with a brilliant light which eclipsed the sun at noon-day. They told me that all religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines, and that none of them was acknowledged of God as his church and kingdom. And I was expressly commanded to “go not after them,” at the same time receiving a promise that the fulness of the gospel should at some future time be made known unto me.

The 1842 account is part of the Wentworth letter.  From the Wentworth letter we get our Articles of Faith as well as a well-known quote about missionary work ("no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing ...").  The letter is quite lengthy and gives a "sketch" of the rise of Mormonism.  As such, the account of the First Vision is quite brief and to the point.

Similarities
- the questioning of "right or wrong" of all the religions
- the seeking in the bible
- James 1:5
- he was 14
- went to a secret place in a grove
- two personages
- the light eclipsed the brightness of the noon-day sun
- the personages tell him all the religions believe in incorrect doctrines

Differences
- does not mention his tongue was bound; nor the part about the darkness
- how the two personages appear to him seems different.  In all the previous versions, a pillar of light or fire appears above his head.  In this version, however, he says "my mind was taken away from the objects with which I was surrounded."  When I read this, to me it seems the vision occurred in his mind (like a dream) as opposed to a physical visitation (via a pillar of light / fire).
- in the scriptural account, Joseph does not ask for forgiveness of his sins.  In the previous accounts he does ask for forgiveness.  In this 1842 account, he does not mention he asked for forgiveness.

The Wentworth version from 1842 is brief and to the point.  To me, the purpose of this account was to describe the history of the church at a high-level.  Therefore the account of the First Vision was fairly direct.  Other than the part about how the personages visited him, this account is not too different than our scriptural version.

The First Vision Series - The 1838 Account

The 1838 version is the the official, canonized version of the the First Vision.  This is the version I was taught as a child as well as the version I taught investigators of the Church for two years.

I won't discuss much about this version - this is the version by which I've compared the previous two versions.

The one thing I will comment on is the 'thick darkness' Joseph refers to in this version.  It was not mentioned in the 1832 or 1835 versions.  Although his tongue was bound in the 1835 version, he did not mention the darkness.  In this 1838 version, he talks of an "enemy" which "seized upon" him and "entirely overcame" him.  This influence has such a profound effect on him, that it binds his tongue.  Then "thick darkness gathered around" him and he feared that he would be destroyed.  His fear is so great he says, "I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction - not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being sent from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being."

Let me back up a bit.  I mentioned I was taught this version of the First Vision when I was a child.  But, for the most part, this bit about the "darkness" was usually left out or not discussed.  And if it was included in the lesson, it was quickly covered, so as not to dwell on the "enemy" so much.  Personally speaking, I was left with the impression that if we focused on this part too much, the same thing would happen to me.

Then, while as a missionary, whenever we taught the First Vision, we almost always left the "thick darkness" part out.  Or, if we did include it, we would not go into much detail about it - such as only mentioned his tongue was bound.

In Rough Stone Rolling, Bushman describes Joseph's "reluctance" in sharing the First Vision and that as he got more confident, he shared more details.

The 1838 version is very detailed and colorful when compared to the other versions.  I can see why this version would be the preferred version to include in the scriptures.

The First Vision Series - The 1835 Account

I've copied below the text of the 1835 account in order to more easily reference it and apply highlights.

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 libar ally 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 seem ed to draw nearer, I sprung up on my feet, and and looked around, but saw no person or thing that was calculated to produce the noise of wal king, 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; (and I saw many angels in this vision) I was about 14. years old when I received this first communication;

Comparisons
This version is very similar to the one found in the PoGP.  It has all the main points:
- the questioning of "right or wrong" of all the religions
- the seeking of the bible
- James 1:5
- the bound tongue
- he was 14

Differences
- the biggest difference is that he states he "saw many angels in this vision".  He doesn't elaborate, but in other versions he only sees either 1 person (Jesus Christ), or 2 persons (Christ and God).  But only in this version does he mention seeing many angels.
- this version mentions an unseen presence in the form of binding his tongue as well as a noise of a person walking.  In at least one church video I've seen, it includes this aspect - of a noise of someone walking and Joseph jumping up to his feet.  But in this 1835 written version, there is no mention of a power of darkness - just noise.
- again, in this version, the Lord forgives him his sins.

Thoughts
The 1835 version seems to be a "cliff-notes" version of the official version of the First Vision.  It has all the main points of the official version.

The part about the many angels is very curious.  It sounds a lot like Lehi's vision where he sees, through a "pillar of fire", "God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God" (see 1 Nephi 1:8-9).

One other thought and comment about where he went to pray.  In the official version, he "retired to the woods", and in the 1832 version he calls it "the wilderness" and in the 1842 he calls it "a secret place in a grove."  In this version he calls the woods "the silent grove."  Of all the different descriptions he uses, I like this one the best.  I wish we (in the Church today) would call it "The Silent Grove" instead of what we usually call it today - The Sacred Grove.

Just this past Thanksgiving, I took my son camping up to one of the forests near where we live.  We endured a cold Wednesday night, but then on Thanksgiving morning, it was gorgeous, perfect weather and we went on a long hike.  When were were deep in the forest, we stopped and sat down.  The silence was profound - and I know we were not far from "civilization."  I can only attempt to imagine the "silent grove" Joseph mentions.  Silence is something we do not heed enough in our hyped-up and "connected" world.  Even if we are not producing noise, our minds still do not assume a silent state.  I often lament and feel bad for people who cannot assume a silent state, much less who seek a "silent grove."  I don't think even I get enough silence in my life and I make an effort to seek it.

Another part of this version that caused me to ponder a bit was where he said, "concidering it of the first importance that I should be right, in matters that involved eternal consequences"  Do people today still consider the eternal state of their soul to be of "first importance?"  Joseph is not referring to the fate of, say thieves and murderers, rather he's referring to the fate of Catholics and Methodists.  He's looking at all the "good" people where some religions say their congregants will be saved, while the non-congregants will go to hell.  To state his dilemma a bit differently, let me cast it in a different light.

A member of the Church and I had a conversation several weeks about about some friends of ours.  Our friends are really good people - meaning they are nice, they serve, they are kind, they are good parents - they are "the salt of the earth."  But they are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints.  I asked this member if they believe our friends would be able to be together as a family if they never are baptized in the Church and sealed in the Temple.  We both agree that if they are not baptized and sealed in the Church, they would still have opportunities (even after they die) to do whatever they needed to do in order to be together for the eternities.  We believe, that even despite being offered the teachings of the Church, they would have multiple opportunities - that God would be merciful.

I think this is a common belief in many people - in the mercy of God.  And since most people believe that, I don't think there are many who have the urgency that Joseph had.  He believed in a "one-chance life" at that point of his life.  I think he believed he had to find the truth, whereas today, we believe "everything will eventually work out" and that we just need to focus on "being good" (see Put Your Trust in God).

But the all-or-nothing question still remains: do we just 'have faith' that it all works out and that we just need to be 'good' or do we truly need to find out what the truth is - that this life is our one chance to find out the truth (concerning the religions) and if we don't find it here, that's it - too bad if you made the wrong choice in religions?

The First Vision Series - The 1832 Account

I've copied below the text of the 1832 account in order to more easily reference it and apply highlights.

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 and by searching the scriptures I found that mand (mankind) did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatised from the true and liveing faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament and I felt to mourn for my own sins and for the sins of the world for I learned in the scriptures that God was the same yesterday to day and forever that he was no respecter to persons for he was God for I looked upon the sun the glorious luminary of the earth and also the moon rolling in their magesty through the heavens and also the stars shining in their courses and the earth also upon which I stood and the beast of the field and the fowls of heaven and the fish of the waters and also man walking forth upon the face of the earth in magesty and in the strength of beauty whose power and intiligence in governing the things which are so exceding great and marvilous even in the likeness of him who created him (them) and when I considered upon these things my heart exclaimed well hath the wise man said the (it is a) fool (that) saith in his heart there is no God my heart exclaimed all all these bear testimony and bespeak an omnipotant and omnipreasant power a being who makith Laws and decreeeth and bindeth all things in their bounds who filleth Eternity who was and is and will be from all Eternity to Eternity and when (I) considered all these things and that (that) being seeketh such to worshep him as wors hip him in spirit and in truth therefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy for there was none else to whom I could go and to obtain mercy and the Lord heard my cry in the wilderne ss and while in (the) attitude of calling upon the Lord (in the 16th year of my age) a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the (Lord) opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph (my son) thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy (way) walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life (behold) the world lieth in sin and at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside from the gospel and keep not (my) commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them acording to thir ungodliness and to bring to pass that which (hath) been spoken by the mouth of the prophe ts and Ap[o]stles behold and lo I come quickly as it [is] wr itten of me in the cloud (clothed) in the glory of my Father and my soul was filled with love and for many days I could rejoice with great Joy and the Lord was with me but could find none that would believe the hevnly vision nevertheless I pondered these things in my heart.

Comparisons
This version has many similar points as the canonized version in the Pearl of Great Price:
- Joseph searched the scriptures
- He was convinced the religions of the day had apostatized from the church of the New Testament
- He went to someplace quiet to pray
- He was told none of the religions of the day keep the commandments
- No one believes him when he tells them of the vision

However, there are also a number of differences in this version:
- Joseph does not mention James 1:5
- No mention of an "enemy" seizing upon him
- There is no mention that God the Father was present; it seems to be only the Lord Jesus Christ that visits Joseph.
- No specific mention of persecution or prejudice for telling the vision
- The Lord speaks much more in this version than in the PoGP.
- It seems the primary reason Joseph seeks the Lord in prayer is to seek forgiveness
- The Lord forgives Joseph
- While Joseph wrote this account himself, Frederick G. Williams inserted "in the 16th year of my age".  So, according to Joseph/Frederick in this version, Joseph was slightly older than the PoGP version where he was fourteen.

Thoughts
To me, the two main points of this version of the vision are:
1) Joseph really desires forgiveness of his sins and subsequently receives that forgiveness
2) Joseph arrives at the conclusion that God is unchangeable and therefore people have fallen away from Him and not the other way around.

I remember Bushman indicating that other people in Joseph's day and even before him, experienced similar visions.  After reading of several of those visions received by other people, the 1832 version of Joseph's vision seems on par when compared to those other visions.

People want to see God and/or Jesus Christ.  People saw Christ before Joseph; Joseph saw Christ; people after Joseph saw Christ.  I was always impressed with the many Kekchi who would often tell us they saw Jesus in a dream.  I don't doubt people still see Him today.

Joseph's first account version seems to be similar to many of these other visions.

The First Vision Series - Introduction

The Vision - JSB at BYU

During the month of December, I will be studying the First Vision and all the various accounts.  The Church has recently published a new essay on various accounts of the First Vision.  The Joseph Smith Papers project has allowed every member to directly access each of these accounts and now, we can see first-hand, the full picture of that first vision.

The first time I had heard that there was more than one account of the First Vision was when Elder Eyring made reference to the fact when the sculpture The Vision was unveiled on October 17, 1997.  At the time, his reference to "studying the various accounts of the First Vision" piqued my interest, but I never had a chance to investigate further.  So this month, I decided to do a bit more studying and comparing the various versions.

My study won't be rigorous; rather it will include simply reading the accounts, comparing them to the Joseph Smith-History version in our scriptures and then I'll add my personal impressions.

Each account will have it's own post and I'll begin with the 1832 account and then proceed to the 1835 account, then on to the 1838 account and then the 1842 account.  Lastly, I'll review the five secondhand accounts.

Nauvoo and Bishop Hill

I love the Internet and all the fascinating things you can learn from the people who post on it.

In this morning's study of the Beatitudee "blessed are the pure in heart," I was lead to a talk given by Spencer W. Kimball entitled Becoming the Pure in Heart.  In that talk, he quoted Joseph Smith who said, "the greatest temporal and spiritual blessings which always come from faithfulness and concentrated effort, never attended individual exertion or enterprise."  I had never read that quote before and it fascinated me in light of what Obama said several weeks ago - "you didn't build that."

I searched on the Joseph Smith quote and came to this link: A Tale of Two Cities (of God): Bishop Hill and Nauvoo by Myron J. Fodge.  In this article, Fodge provides greater context of the quote used by Kimball.

The quote came from a statement by the First Presidency on January 8, 1841.

"The greatest temporal and spiritual blessings which always come from faithfulness and concerted effort, never attended individual exertion or enterprise. The history of all past ages abundantly attests this fact. In addition to all temporal blessings, there is no other way for the Saints to be saved in these last days, [than by the gathering] as the concurrent testimony of all the holy prophets clearly proves, for it is written, 'They shall come from the east, and be gathered from the west; the north shall give up, and the south shall keep not back.' The sons of God shall be gathered from afar, and his daughters from the ends of the earth."

The statement in its entirety, can be found here.  This link notes the statement was released January 15, 1841.

The rest of the article by Fodge, is quite fascinating.  He describes the two approaches to perfection as demonstrated by the Mormons in Nauvoo and the Janssonists in Bishop Hill.

June 3 Fast & Testimony Meeting - Wayward Children

Today's meeting was unusual and wonderful.  It all started when everyone began to realize that there was no bread for the sacrament.  Usually, someone will bring an extra loaf as backup, but today, even the backup plan failed.  So after the sacrament song, the 1st counselor got up and cracked a joke about how someone told him he needs to spice up the meeting more.  He announced that we'd proceed with the testimonies and then have the last 10 minutes for administration of the sacrament.

He then proceeded to bear his testimony about what he was fasting for that day - a wayward child.  It was a tender testimony and you could feel the anguish of his soul.  His testimony set the theme of the meeting - everyone seemed to make a remark about a wayward child.

As is usually the case when my heart beats extremely rapidly, I felt prompted to get up and bear my testimony.  Thoughts of my parents fasting and praying for my older brother entered my heart and I felt I should share my insights into the topic of wayward children.

As I bore my testimony, I was reminded of those quotes by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and President Packer.  I know those quotes had brought much peace and comfort to my parents.  I talked a bit about those quotes and the struggle my parents have had with my older brother.  Being the youngest in the family, I had a unique insight to their struggle.  Every prayer and every fast in our home always included a plea for my older brother.  I then bore my testimony of the sealing power of the Priesthood and why temple marriage is so important.

Below are the quotes I referred to above.  You can find all of the quotes in the September 2002 Ensign.

“The Prophet Joseph Smith declared—and he never taught a more comforting doctrine—that the eternal sealings of faithful parents and the divine promises made to them for valiant service in the Cause of Truth, would save not only themselves, but likewise their posterity. Though some of the sheep may wander, the eye of the Shepherd is upon them, and sooner or later they will feel the tentacles of Divine Providence reaching out after them and drawing them back to the fold. Either in this life or the life to come, they will return. They will have to pay their debt to justice; they will suffer for their sins; and may tread a thorny path; but if it leads them at last, like the penitent Prodigal, to a loving and forgiving father’s heart and home, the painful experience will not have been in vain. Pray for your careless and disobedient children; hold on to them with your faith. Hope on, trust on, till you see the salvation of God” (Orson F. Whitney, in Conference Report, Apr. 1929, 110).

Brigham Young said, “Let the father and mother, who are members of this Church and Kingdom, take a righteous course, and strive with all their might never to do a wrong, but to do good all their lives; if they have one child or one hundred children, if they conduct themselves towards them as they should, binding them to the Lord by their faith and prayers, I care not where those children go, they are bound up to their parents by an everlasting tie, and no power of earth or hell can separate them from their parents in eternity; they will return again to the fountain from whence they sprang” (quoted in Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 2:90–91).

Lorenzo Snow said, “If you succeed in passing through these trials and afflictions and receive a resurrection, you will, by the power of the Priesthood, work and labor, as the Son of God has, until you get all your sons and daughters in the path of exaltation and glory. This is just as sure as that the sun rose this morning over yonder mountains. Therefore, mourn not because all your sons and daughters do not follow in the path that you have marked out to them, or give heed to your counsels. Inasmuch as we succeed in securing eternal glory, and stand as saviors, and as kings and priests to our God, we will save our posterity” (in Collected Discourses, comp. Brian H. Stuy, 5 vols. [1987–92], 3:364).

President Packer said, “The measure of our success as parents … will not rest solely on how our children turn out. That judgment would be just only if we could raise our families in a perfectly moral environment, and that now is not possible.

“It is not uncommon for responsible parents to lose one of their children, for a time, to influences over which they have no control. They agonize over rebellious sons or daughters. They are puzzled over why they are so helpless when they have tried so hard to do what they should.

“It is my conviction that those wicked influences one day will be overruled. …

“We cannot overemphasize the value of temple marriage, the binding ties of the sealing ordinance, and the standards of worthiness required of them. When parents keep the covenants they have made at the altar of the temple, their children will be forever bound to them” (“Our Moral Environment,” Ensign, May 1992, 68).

The last testimony of the meeting was from one of the members of the Stake Presdidency who lives in our ward.  He read a scripture from the Book of Mormon in the context of wayward children.

In 2 Nephi 10:2, it reads, "For behold, the promises which we have obtained are promises unto us according to the flesh; wherefore, as it has been shown unto me that many of our children shall perish in the flesh because of unbelief, nevertheless, God will be merciful unto many; and our children shall be restored, that they may come to that which will give them the true knowledge of their Redeemer."

It was a very emotional meeting and everyone's hearts were tender and they bore their testimonies.  It will be a testimony meeting I will not forget.

Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman

I read Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling in the summer 2007.  I, like many other members who read this book, found and learned things, for the first time, about the history of the Church and that they were very different that the stories I had been taught in Primary, Sunday School, at BYU, at the MTC and on my mission.  It was a real eye-opener.  Generally speaking, I was taught (or at the very least, I was impressed upon) to avoid the controversial issues of Church History - rather I should stick to the the narrative the Church lesson books offered.  The authors of those "other" controversial Church History books would just fill my head with apostasy.  That was my reality until the Bushman book came along - then all of a sudden, it was OK to read about these issues.

I have to admit, my testimony has gone through several phases since that first reading of the book.  I started reading it for a second time in January of 2012 - this time reading it more in depth and considering the words of Bushman.

Below, I've written about a few things that have stuck out to me, that I consider significant for my own testimony.  In some cases, I expound a bit more.  For other parts, I just state things as they are.

The First Vision
Joseph received the "First Vision" in the early part of 1820.  There are many accounts of the vision.  Bushman talks of two main accounts; the one in 1832 and the one in 1838.

It is interesting to note, that we never really know if Joseph told his parents and family of the "First Vision".  As Bushman notes in the book, many of the early converts were drawn to the religion because of the restoration gifts of God and the idea of gathering Zion before the coming of Christ.  The "First Vision" did not play into their conversion, unlike today's introduction of the Church to investigators.

In the 1832 account, the emphasis was on receiving forgiveness of sins.  The "pillar of light" was present and it was "the Lord" who he saw and spoke with.

In 1835 and subsequent versions, more details emerged - the dark power that kept him from speaking; that he heard sounds of walking.  In these other versions, he saw two personages and they both spoke to him.  In the 1838 version, he made it clear the two personages were God the Father and his son Jesus Christ.  In 1835 and 1838 versions, emphasis was placed on the lack of truth in other churches.

Another thing that Bushman notes about the First Vision as well as other visions, is that Joseph was very slow to say anything about them to other people.  In fact, Moroni had to command him to tell his father about his visit from Moroni.  The vision in the Kirtland temple is another example ... see below for more info on this.  In a podcast, Bushman thinks that perhaps the reason Joseph was slow to share these experiences was because of the culture.  There were many people proclaiming visions, but that they may have been seen as "kooks" and Joseph did not want to be seen as in the same vein as these people.

I've often thought about this.  We are taught that "sacred experiences" are indeed sacred and should usually not be shared with others.  It's the whole "pearls before the swine" idea.  But we, as a Church today, are OK with sharing the First Vision and other visions of the prophet.  We are comfortable with Lehi's and Nephi's vision; with Alma's visitation from an angel; with Enos' experience; with Paul's conversion and on and on and on.  But why are we reluctant to speak of experiences that are happening today - right now?  Why are we taught not to share those experiences?  Would we quickly discount others' spiritual experiences?  Would we react the same way the Methodist minister did when Joseph told him?  Is that why we don't share them?  If that is the case, then it's the lack of faith on the hearer's part, while, perhaps, others who would hear it would be edified.

The Book of Mormon
The traditional story of how the Book of Mormon was translated is Joseph putting on the breastplate and Urim and Thummim, casting his gaze onto the plates and seeing the reformed Egyptian turn into English words.  Furthermore, it would seem that Joseph just knew to "put on" the breastplate and spectacles and begin the translation - but this was not so.  As Bushman states on page 63, "Developing a method took time."

The whole process is not really known.  But we do know that he copied characters; had them sent to scholars to translate and to verify.  There is also this passage from Bushman: "Neither Joseph nor Oliver explained how translation worked, but Joseph did not pretend to look at the 'reformed Egyptian' words, the language on the plates, according to the book's own description.  The plates lay covered on the table, while Joseph's head was in a hat looking at the seerstone which by this time had replaced the interpreters.  The varying explanations of the perplexing process fall roughly into two categories: composition and transcription.  The first holds that Joseph was the author of the book.  He composed it out of knowledge and imaginings collected in his own mind, perhaps aided by inspiration.  He had stuffed his head with ideas for sermons, Christian doctrine, biblical language, multiple characters, stories of adventure, social criticism, theories of Indian origins, ideas about Mesoamerican civilization, and many other matters.  During translation, he composed it all into a narrative dictated over the space of three months in Harmony and Fayette."

Bushman describes the 'composition' method, but I'm not going to quote that here.  I will quote what he wrote about 'transcription.'

"The transcription theory has Joseph Smith 'seeing' the Book of Mormon text in the seerstone or the Urim and Thummim.  He saw the words in the stone as he had seen lost objects or treasure and dictated them to his secretary.  The eyewitnesses who described translation, Joseph Knight, Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer, who was in the house during the last weeks of translation, understood translation as transcription.  Referring to the seerstone as a Urim and Thummim, Knight said: 'Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkned his Eyes then he would take a sentance and it would apper in Brite Roman Letters.  Then he would tell the writer and he would write it.  Then that would go away the next sentance would Come and so on.'"

"Joseph himself said almost nothing about his method but implied transcription when he said that 'the Lord had prepared spectacles for to read the Book.'  Close scrutiny of the original manuscript (by a believing scholar) seems to support transcription.  Judging from the way Cowdery wrote down the words, Joseph saw twenty to thirty words at a time, dictated them, and then waited for the next twenty to appear.  Difficult names (Zenoch, Amalickiah) were spelled out.  By any measure, transcription was a miraculous process, calling for a huge leap of faith to believe, yet, paradoxically, it is more in harmony with the young Joseph of the historical record than is composition.  Transcription theory gives us a Joseph with a miraculous gift that evolved naturally out of his earlier treasure-seeking.  The boy who gazed into stones and saw treasure grew up to become a translator who looked into a stone and saw words."

A word about the seerstone (or seer stone as found on lds.org).  The image of Joseph putting his head into his hat to see his seerstone is not a common image in the Church.  I've never even seen an image of Joseph using the Urim & Thummim and breastplate.  Rather, the image that does come to mind is Joseph gazing on the plates (sans seerstone or U&T) while Oliver sits across the table writing.  But the fact that a stone Joseph found in 1822 was being used in the translation of the Book of Mormon is an interesting one.  Bushman talks about this in his book - the theory is that Joseph learned of the Gospel in the context of the treasure and magic culture that existed at that time.

Comparing my childhood/teenage view of the translation of the Book of Mormon with this new (to me), more accurate description of the translation is interesting. In my mind, the two views are vastly different.  My childhood view is simple and very clean.  The reality view is more enticing.  But my fundamental question is this: why, as a child, did I have to be taught the clean version of the story?  If anything, it would have been far easier to believe as a child, the story of Joseph finding a stone while digging a well and then using that stone to translate the Book of Mormon.  Perhaps the "clean" version is told so as not to distract the learner with the idea that there are seerstones just laying around the earth - rather the focus should be on the work of God.  That's just a thought.  But to finish that thought - why would the Church jump to that conclusion?  Is it because others found a seerstone too?  And to prevent others from from finding a using a seerstone (a true one or a false one)?  I don't know.  But the fact remains - the version I was taught was not the whole truth and this is not an isolated example - it's a pattern.

Kirtland Temple Dedication
D&C 110 is an important section in the scriptures and Church History.  As a seminary student, I was taught (or at least I viewed it as being taught) that during the dedication of the Kirtland temple, Joseph and Oliver saw Jesus Christ "standing on the breast work of the pulpit before them, and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold, in color like amber: his eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was like the pure snow, his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun, and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the Voice of Jehovah, saying I am the first and the last, I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain. I am your Advocate with the Father."  They also saw Moses, Elias and Elijah, who in turn delivered keys to Joseph and Oliver.  In my mind, I saw them stepping behind a veil, while the rest of the congregation waited for them. After being visited, they return to the congregation to tell them the marvelous experience ... but they don't.

Bushman informs us the "vision was not included in editions of the Doctrine and Covenants published during Joseph's lifetime, and no manuscript copies exist save Warren Cowdery's and the one Willard Richards copied into Joseph's history for the Church newspaper in 1843.  Joseph never mentioned the event in his other writings.  There is no evidence he told the Kirtland Saints."

"The episode behind the veil is mysteriously suspended at the end of the diary without comment or explanation, as if Joseph was stilled by the event."  Bushman goes on to say that the formal revelations the Saints were used to receiving from Joseph seem to stop and that he was receiving "incommunicable revelations" the Saints "could not bear."

This was something new to me.  Again, I viewed this revelation of Joseph and Oliver seeing Christ in the Kirtland temple as something grand - a bulwark of doctrine for the Saints.  But they never knew this vision happened until seven years later.  In fact, the sole purpose of building the temple was so that the Saints could receive their endowment - to see and know Christ personally.  Meetings occurred in the temple from January to April - many outpourings of the Spirit occurred, but not as many saw the face of God as was hoped.  Bushman writes, "Not many saw the face of God or the Savior, but enough had been given to say that the endowment was now theirs.  As one brother wrote later, 'Some brethren expressed themselves as being disappointed at not receiving more and greater manifestations of the power of God, but for our part, we had found the pearl of great price, and our soul was happy and contented, and we rejoiced in the Lord.'  Joseph told the quorums 'that I had now completed the organization of the church and we had passed through all the necessary ceremonies, that I had given them all the instruction they needed.'  Now they needed to 'build up the kingdom of God." (pp. 318-19).  And then, when Joseph and Oliver thought the endowment was essentially over, they see the greatest of all the visions - Jesus Christ ... and then they don't say a word.  Maybe, as Bushman alludes, more was revealed than the Saints were ready for and this is why they didn't say anything at the time.

Zion
I don't have anything specific to say about Zion.  I've always held the same belief and opinion about Zion and the book just reaffirmed my opinion.  Namely - that the Saints kept having to give up on it over and over again.  Almost from the start of the church, they had a dream of Zion.  And whenever they tried to establish it, they failed.  All the knowledge that was given to the Saints has stayed with us.  But perhaps the single most important thing to them was establishing Zion - and that was the one thing they could not get and keep.  Now, Zion is not so much a central place for the Saints to live in, rather it's a watered-down Region-Stake-Ward concept.  It's palatable, but not necessarily satisfying.

Word of Wisdom
Just some minor observations abot the WoW as I read the book.

The WoW was given in February 1833.  I've always been taught that the WoW at the time it was give was just that - a word for the wise, but not necessarily a commandment.  It was later codified by the Saints living in Utah, along with the interpretations of what "hot drinks" meant.

In first few months of 1838, Oliver was accused of "various infractions of the Word of Wisdom ... Cowdery admitted to drinking tea three times a day for his health, and the Whitmers contended tea and coffee were not covered by the revelation."  It would seem the WoW had some force back then.

Another passage from when Joseph was in Nauvoo: "Through the late fall and winter of 1843 and 1844, Joseph and Emma's relationship broke down only once.  During Sunday dinner on November 5, Joseph became ill, rushed to the door, and vomited so violently that he dislocated his jaw.  'Every symptom of poison,' Richards noted in Joseph's diary.  That night at the prayer meeting, Richards wrote in code that Joseph and Emma did not dress in the usual special clothing, a sign they were too much at odds to participate.  The next day, Richards wrote that Joseph was 'busy with domestic concerns.'  Years later, in the anti-Emma atmosphere of Utah, Brigham Young spoke of a meeting where Joseph accused his wife of slipping poison into his coffee.  Brigham interpreted Emma's refusal to answer as an admission of guilt."  Bushman later goes on to say the accusation was "unfounded" and that Joseph was prone to violent vomiting and that he had dislocated his jaw before.  But in all this, what caught my attention was Joseph drinking coffee in 1843.

At time of his leg operation, he would not drink a strong drink.  But later, there were numerous times when he drank wine.  In fact, during the Nauvoo chapters of the book, I was surprised at how many parties and social dinners they had at the mansion.  Wine seemed to be served often at these parties.  Perhaps there was a fundamental difference, in peoples' minds, between strong drink and mere wine.

Polygamy
This seems like such a burned-over topic in Church History.  But the key thing that I learned from Bushman's book was that the original teaching of "Celestial" marriage was marrying multiple "spiritual" wives and that in order to obtain the highest kingdom, a man must enter into this new and everlasting covenant.  This teaching has since shifted from polygamy to mean one man marrying one woman in the temple for time and eternity.

Other things to note on this topic ... Bushman alludes that this doctrine began around the time of the dedication of the Kirtland temple.  It was never openly taught.  This doctrine was always taught in secret.  Joseph denied it publicly.  Emma hated the doctrine and the thought of polygamy - Joseph was stuck between eternal damnation (for not practicing it) and his wrathful wife (who he loved dearly).

I see the practicality of most doctrines.  But I don't see it for polygamy.  Yeah, there's Jacob 2, but I don't think there was a great need to "raise seed" back in 1836-88.  Maybe it was for the point of "restoring all things", but if that was the case, wouldn't it have been sufficient to introduce it; perform it once and call it good until it was actually needed?

King Follet Discourse
Every missionary wanted a copy of the King Follett Sermon.  When I worked in the copy center at the MTC my freshman year at BYU, we had copies of it on standby to sell to missionaries.  I don't know if my memory is accurate or not, but I seem to remember we could not sell copies of the sermon anymore at one point.

As Bushman notes, it was the doctrine of polygamy and multiple gods that essentially got Joseph killed.  It was just too much for people in that day.  But the feeling I got from reading Bushman was that this was major, major doctrine for the 20,000 Saints assembled on April 7, 1844.  But to this day, the sermon remains absent from the D&C.

One of his last quotes
About a week after the King Follett discourse, Joseph gave his final public sermon on June 16, 1844.  From Bushman's book: "Joseph new his leaps would terrify less intrepid souls.  'I despise the idea of be scared to death,' he said upon completing his proof of God the Father having a father.  'When things that are great are passed over with[ou]t. even a thot I want to see all in all its bearings & hug it to my bosom.'  Then came a sentence that captured his spirit perfectly: 'I never hear[d] of a man being d[amne]d for bel[ievin]g too much but they are d[amne]d for unbel[ief].'  A few minutes later he stopped talking.  The sky was pouring rain."

And that seems to sum it up - Joseph brought a lot of ideas into the world.  The final few ideas cost him his life, but the fact remains that we have those ideas because of Joseph's desire to believe and gain knowledge from God.

Final Thoughts
Rough Stone Rolling is a fantastic book.  For someone who was raised in the Chruch and was taught all the wonderful things about Joseph Smith and Church History and never taught a thing about the "dark secrets" of the Church, reading this book was a bit like reading the journal of someone you look up to ... and when you read it, you realize they really aren't the person you perceived them to be.  You realize they are human - just like you - they have faults, sins and short-comings.  There is a bit of a let-down.  But then you realize no one is perfect except Christ.

If anything, you should feel confident that if the Lord approves of and loves Joseph, then he also loves us!  Joseph and the church were in debt.  They broke the law of the land.  They didn't always keep the commandments.  They were forced to make tough Adam/Eve/Fruit and Nephi/Laban/Thou-shalt-not-kill choices.  When all was said and done, Joseph just wanted to do what the Lord wanted him to do.  And if we can say that all we did was what the Lord wanted us to do, then despite all our faults and short-comings, we can feel confident in the Lord's love and approval for us.