THE SACRAMENT

Every night around the world in billions of homes, you will find families gathered around the table to share in a ritual that has been passed on through thousands of years.  Eating supper together is a tradition that has gone back since the beginning of time.  It's been a moment where people can share not just food for life giving sustenance but also to share each other’s companionship.  It is a time for support and binding together emotionally.  It is the time to share events of the day and the concerns of the day and to talk together on a range of subjects, everything from politics and religion to hobbies and sports, the weather or the local gossip.

It's quite common to invite friends over to share in the supper and dinner experience with the same effect of deepening the friendship.   One remarkable experience is to receive an invitation to join a group in a dinner where you previously where unacquainted with any of the participants.  You go to that event not knowing anybody but then by the end of the evening, you find yourself walking out of the door having created new friendships that can potentially last for years. 

It's no coincidence that just prior to Jesus Christ crucifixion he gathered his apostles together for one last supper.  As they were eating, Christ initiated something called the Sacrament. 

We can read about it in the JST Matthew 26, verse 22 through 27:

“And as they were eating, Jesus took bread and brake it, and blessed it, and gave to his disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is in remembrance of my body which I give a ransom for you.  And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it. For this is in remembrance of my blood of the new testament, which is shed for as many as shall believe on my name, for the remission of their sins. And I give unto you a commandment, that ye shall observe to do the things which ye have seen me do, and bear record of me even unto the end.  But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I shall come and drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.  And when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the Mount of Olives.”

Christ used the symbol of the bread and of the wine to create a ceremony by which his disciples could remember him.  He did that for the purpose of joining them together with him as a family.

Again, quite often the sharing of supper creates a binding experience that moves the hearts of strangers into a place of friendship, and moves the hearts of friends into a place of family.  Could this be one purpose for which Christ gave the Sacrament?  Could it be a practice through which we can be included into the family of God?

We can see this in the record of John 14:18-23.

“I will not leave you comfortless; I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me; because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me; and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.  Judas saith unto him, (not Iscariot,) Lord, how is it thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words; and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. “

John 14:24-27

“He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings; and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you; not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.”

It's clear from the from the references in John that by keeping the Commandments of Christ his Spirit dwells in us and by keeping those commandments we are made one with the Father and the Father loves these and will come and make his abode with those who keep those commandments.  To make an abode with someone is an indication of a family relationship.  I suppose that the custom of referring to God as a Father would further be an indication of a family relationship, wouldn’t it?

Judas the disciple asked how that was possible.  Christ, being eternal in nature and still alive even through resurrection, can make his presence known to anyone.  Certainly any sincere person who seeks for him and seeks to keep his commandments.  It has been said that this is merely figurative and not meant to be taken literally.  Some have even gone so far as to say that it is unnecessary (Oaks, Boise Rescue, 2015). When Christ said I will love him and will manifest myself to him, did he mean that he would literally manifest himself to the individual? Somebody else had the same question and received an answer to that question. They asked the Lord and reported receiving a revelation and wrote it down.  Here it is in Doctrine and Covenants Section 130: 1-3.

 “When the Savior shall appear we shall see him as he is. We shall see that he is a man like ourselves. And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy. John 14:23—The appearing of the Father and the Son, in that verse, is a personal appearance; and the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false.

We first notice that the subject matter of this revelation is the Savior and that he is a man like ourselves.  That is to say, a very human looking person with a personality that we can interact with.  And notice that the same sociality which exists among us here with that subject (Christ) will exist among us there.  It gives us pause for a moment to consider that if I do not know the Savior here, will that be the same sociality which will exist in the hereafter?  If I know the Savior here as if he were family, will I know the Savior as family in the eternal world?  Surely these things cannot be taken too seriously and it must mean only that I know the Savior because his spirit dwells in my heart by the power of the Holy Ghost.  But wait a second, just to clarify, we see that such a notion is false in the very next stanza.  It is referring to a personal appearance!  And the idea of God “dwelling in your soul through the Holy Ghost as a sufficient means to establish a family relationship with God” is in fact a false idea.  It’s a Sectarian notion and is opposed to the scriptural promise.

So we see from the revelation provided by Joseph Smith that the reading in John is meant to be taken literally.  We can expect that if we are sincere in our efforts to obey the commandments of Jesus Christ, he will appear to us.  This is symbolized in the sacrament in which Christ gathered his family of disciples together and broke the bread and poured the wine and shared it with them.
When we partake of the sacrament that is ultimately what we are really meant to remember.  We're meant to turn inward, to examine our hearts and pray to the Father.  How can we keep those commandments which would please God and bring us into his family? We turn our hearts back to review the past and turn our minds forward to that time when we can sit down to the supper table with Jesus Christ as part of the family of God. 

It could be valuable to review how to conduct and how to partake of the sacrament in a way that draws out that true meaning of the Lord’s Supper. 

In Moroni Chapter 4 we receive the instructions on how to conduct the sacrament:

“The manner of their elders and priests administering the flesh and blood of Christ unto the church; and they administered it according to the commandments of Christ; wherefore we know the manner to be true; and the elder or priest did minister it— And they did kneel down with the church, and pray to the Father in the name of Christ, saying:  O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it; that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him, and keep his commandments which he hath given them, that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.”

There's a few things to note from this.

The elders of the church, the elders or the priests, administer the sacrament.  This symbolizes that they are meant to be servants, waiters if you will.  Any priestly office is a call to service.  It is not a call to preside and manage, nor even to conduct.  It is not a call to be in charge or to be the leader.  It is a call to be the servant. As it is written “But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased of him; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted of him“(JST Mathew 23:8-9). The purpose of the servant is to administer or rather to serve others. A Priest is a servant.

In Verse Two we see something interesting.  “And they did kneel down with the church.”  That is to say that the administering servants knelt down to pray with the church, meaning the congregation also was in the act of kneeling.  Everybody knelt.  Everybody participated in this prayer.  This was not a stage performance.  It was a true prayer for every individual and they did join them in the congregation. Everybody who partakes of the sacrament should kneel for the prayer, because they too are offering up the prayer as participants. 

Of course we're familiar with the prayer itself.  Their example showed that they were praying to the Father in the name of the son, Jesus Christ.  The bread represented the body of the Son.  That body which was broken for us and so likewise, the priests take whole bread (not cut) and break the bread in remembrance of Christ’s physical suffering.  They break the bread to show that Christ’s body was broken for us. 

The prayer for the bread contains a covenant with God.  God’s part of the covenant was to offer his Son as a sacrifice for our sins.  That is His part and in the prayer for the wine, we receive the symbol of that sacrifice, the blood.  However, in the prayer for the bread, there are three parts that we concern ourselves with because these constitute our portion of the covenant.  God’s part was to make the sacrifice for us, but what is our part?

As we eat in remembrance of the body of the son we witness to God that we are:

1.            Willing to take upon us the name of the Son.

2.            Always remember Him.

3.            Keep his commandments which he has given us

Those are the three things which we covenant to do and to keep. 

To take upon the name of the Son is to take upon ourselves the same work that the Son took upon him. He told us that his only purpose on the earth was to do nothing save it was the will of the Father.  In like manner, we make that sacrifice of self-will to keep the will of God.  God makes known his will for each individual on a personal level.  He may speak through many sources, but it will always be His own voice which we can learn to recognize.  Following that voice of God, in whatever language He may choose to speak to you personally is how you may follow God’s will. 

 Likewise, we are meant to remember him.  We are always to keep him in our mind and always do that which he would do if he were in our current situation. 

To keep the third item: to keep his commandments, requires that we have some kind of communication from God.  It's not possible to keep his commandments unless we have an open dialogue with the Lord.

What is it that God gives us if we can keep these three promises?

We may always have his spirit to be with us.  Always.  We have to ask, how often do we fail to live up to these things?  Do we always remember the Savior? Do we always keep his commandments? Do we always take upon ourselves the name of the Son?

No, quite often we do not.  In our bodies, we quite often fail.  God provided a means for us to renew the covenant even if we should fail.  That is given in the second representation of the sacrament ordinance, the ordinance of the wine.  The administration of the wine symbolizes the Atonement of Jesus Christ.  The Atonement is the price paid for our sins.  The price paid in blood is represented by the wine which is red in color.

Notice the changes in the prayer for the wine in comparison to the bread.  There are significant meanings behind those changes. 

“The manner of administering the wine—Behold, they took the cup, and said: O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee, in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this wine to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.” (Moroni 5)

This prayer portrays the covenants imposed upon us as we drink the wine. We remember the blood of the Son because it was shed for us.  Why was it shed for us?  To cover for our sins.  To pay the price that we owe.  However, despite our sincerity in complying with the commandments of God, we still fail to meet the requirements of the Will of God.  Now these are not the requirements that are necessarily taught by men from the pulpit.  These are the commandments spoken to the individual from the mouth of God.  Likewise, these commandments are not necessarily the ones that we think we are failing at.  As it is written, God gives us weaknesses that we may be humble and turn to Him.  If it so be that we are humble and have trust in God, He will make weak things become strong unto us.  Our purpose in partaking of the wine of the sacrament is to renew ourselves before God and the conditions given to accommodate this renewal is that the price of our sins are payed for already by the very God that gave the commandments.  By acknowledging that we have faltered and turning back to that God for guidance, He covers the price and allows us further opportunity to continue in His service. 

The wine represents that blood that was paid for the price of justice.  It is red in color to represent the blood.  And further, wine is bitter to the taste representing the bitter cup which the Savior drank from in submitting his will to the Father.  From within, wine burns somewhat like a refiner’s fire reminiscent of the Holy Ghost and the Baptism of Fire. 

Notice that the covenant of the wine is simplified in comparison to the bread.  Our covenantal part is that we will remember him.  And the promised return is that we may have his spirit to be with us.  It does not say “always have his spirit” as the prayer for the bread does.  It says only that they may have his spirit to be with them.  Notice that it does not state anything about keeping commandments.  Nor does this prayer mention taking upon ourselves the name of the Son. That is because it is an acknowledgement that we have failed to keep the commandments and the atonement is applied on our behalf to rectify that failure.  It begins and ends with the simplest act of obedience which could be imposed upon us which is “to remember”.  To remember him and in remembering him it is enough to provide his spirit to work in us again and begin to guide us back to him.  If we will head his voice.  That is the part that the Lord will provide if we can but keep that one act of remembrance.

But for the bread, we are given the promise God’s Spirit will always be with us as we commit ourselves in taking the name of the Son upon us and remembering Him always and keeping his commandments.  Through the Atonement of blood represented by the wine, we can renew that commitment after having previously failed by initiating the return through remembering him.  In the remembering, he can bring us back to the place where we can always have his spirit to be with us once again as promised in the first covenant. 

It's important that we remember the symbolic aspects of the sacrament.  For example, why is wine administered?  For one thing, it's administered because of the color.  The color is red symbolizing the blood of Jesus Christ.  For another, it is bitter to the taste.  This brings to mind the words of Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane:  Christ “Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless, not my will, but thine be done.” (Luke 22:42).  This calls to mind the difficulty of the trials that Christ undertook and the bitterness of the suffering that he endured.  “Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink— Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.” (D&C 19:18–19.)

It also calls to mind that we are to share in the trials of Christ to a certain extent if we are to receive some amount of the glory of God.  We see this in the following: “And she said unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left, in thy kingdom.  But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.  And he said unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with; but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is for whom it is prepared of my Father, but not mine to give. And when the ten heard this, they were moved with indignation against the two brethren.” (JST Matthew 20:22)

Our suffering is tempered by the sacrifice of God if we will repent. “Behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent.” (D&C 19:16.)  This too is brought to mind as we drink the bitter cup of sacramental wine. The bitterness of a cup of wine is an appropriate symbol for the blood of Jesus Christ.

We can learn even more about the sacrament.  See the examples Christ gave when he administered it to the Nephites as recorded in third Nephi chapter 20: 1-9.

 “And it came to pass that he commanded the multitude that they should cease to pray, and also his disciples. And he commanded them that they should not cease to pray in their hearts.  And he commanded them that they should arise and stand up upon their feet. And they arose up and stood upon their feet. And it came to pass that he brake bread again and blessed it, and gave to the disciples to eat. And when they had eaten he commanded them that they should break bread, and give unto the multitude. And when they had given unto the multitude he also gave them wine to drink, and commanded them that they should give unto the multitude. Now, there had been no bread, neither wine, brought by the disciples, neither by the multitude;  But he truly gave unto them bread to eat, and also wine to drink. And he said unto them: He that eateth this bread eateth of my body to his soul; and he that drinketh of this wine drinketh of my blood to his soul; and his soul shall never hunger nor thirst, but shall be filled. Now, when the multitude had all eaten and drunk, behold, they were filled with the Spirit; and they did cry out with one voice, and gave glory to Jesus, whom they both saw and heard.”

“And it came to pass that when they had all given glory unto Jesus, he said unto them: Behold now I finish the commandment which the Father hath commanded me concerning this people, who are a remnant of the house of Israel. Ye remember that I spake unto you, and said that when the words of Isaiah should be fulfilled—behold they are written, ye have them before you, therefore search them—And verily, verily, I say unto you, that when they shall be fulfilled then is the fulfilling of the covenant which the Father hath made unto his people, O house of Israel.  And then shall the remnants, which shall be scattered abroad upon the face of the earth, be gathered in from the east and from the west, and from the south and from the north; and they shall be brought to the knowledge of the Lord their God, who hath redeemed them.” (3 Nephi 20:10-13)

So some points to be understood as we read this. First Christ provided the bread and the wine. Why is that significant? When Christ provides bread and wine he provides enough to fill the people and we see that in the miraculous feeding of the 5000 in the New Testament.  In that story there was enough and plenty left over for everybody.  They could eat their fill and still have some remaining.  Again that's another aspect to consider when we conduct the sacrament.  When we feed the people, they should be able to eat to their satisfaction the amount of bread and wine which they desire to partake of.   

Second point which is again demonstrating that wine was used by Jesus Christ and not water.

By removing the nutrient from the supper or denying the use of nutritious foods and replacing it with a crumb and a sip, what are we symbolizing?  Are we not symbolizing that the ordinances which we are conducting do not provide the spiritual nutrition that the soul needs?  A little morsel of white bread and a thimble cup of water; this does not satisfy your thirst nor does it provide nutrition in any degree.  So the symbol can be lost.  Recall the manner that Christ fed the people.  He provided bread baskets that were remained full after the people where filled.  He promised that whosoever drank of that which he would give should never thirst again.  Allowing the people to partake of as much of the bread as they desire would be more in keeping with the example that Christ showed as he conducted the sacrament. So too the wine has more nutrition than the water, which provides the bitter taste and a reminder that his blood was spilt for us.   

Also in third Nephi chapter 20 it is significant that immediately upon conducting the sacrament, he (Christ) begins to talk about the promises given to the house of Israel.  What was the house of Israel? Ultimately, the house of Israel was and is a family.

Here again Christ calls to mind that the act of the supper is the attempt to draw the people into one family through that binding experience.  This is the intention that Christ has as he conducts the sacrament with his disciples and that should not be lost on us as we conduct this same ordinance. 

Another important point to recognize from third Nephi chapter 20 is that after the people have partaken they were filled with the spirit, the recognizable presence of God's Spirit.  And this is the way we can recognize if we are conducting the ordinance properly.  By conducting an ordinance properly, I don't mean to measure it by our outward performances.  I certainly don't mean to be overly focused on the symbolism of all the actions taken to conduct the sacrament.  Rather it is in the heart of the participant that is most important and in remembering him and in taking his name upon us and keeping his commandments.  That is the true meaning of the sacrament.  By doing these things with that purpose we may always have his spirit to be with us.

Lastly, for Mormons there's a bit of a conflict that we need to discuss.  That is the meaning of Section 89 in Doctrine and Covenants.  During the years of Prohibition in the United States of America, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints adopted the government’s stance against alcohol.  The government quickly recognized this folly and retracted its mandates.  The church on the other hand, cannot reverse course so easily and the prohibition remained, not as a commandment, not as a revelation but as a cultural norm.  Reviewing Section 89 which is held as revelation by all members of this church will be useful regarding this subject manner. This scripture will be known by all Mormons as the Word of Wisdom. It is a revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet in Kirkland in 1833.

So briefly in section 89 it says:

“1.  A Word of Wisdom, for the benefit of the council of high priests, assembled in Kirtland, and the church, and also the saints in Zion—

 2 To be sent by greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days—

 3 Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.”

The first thing we want to recognize is that this is given “not by commandment nor by constraint.” That is put in there for a reason and the reason is that when it comes to the temporal care of the body, there's a lot of variation for individuals and not everybody needs the same thing at the same time.  We don't all need to eat the same amount of food nor drink the same amount of beverage.  Sometimes we need nutrients of one kind or another.  A woman may need more Iron, a man may need more Zinc, a child may need more carbohydrates.  So we can’t prescribe the same amount of Iron for everybody nor the same amount of Zinc, nor the same amount of snack foods. It really depends on the needs of the individual.  Likewise, we don’t all need the same amount of sleep, some may need 10 hours a night and another may need only 7.  The Word of Wisdom Section 89 provides flexibility and is not a strict commandment that someone could use to draft a list of do’s and do not’s.  In other words, you cannot give strict dietary guidelines to others that are going to apply to all people, at all times. Individuals must turn to God and prayerfully select for themselves that which is most appropriate for them.  Of course if God gives a guideline, His advice is more powerful than any man's wisdom.  So we are going to take His words seriously.  We are going to consider them carefully and go to Him directly to learn how to apply them in our particular situation.  That's what it means when it says to be sent by greeting not by commandment nor constraint. 

 “3 Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.

 4 Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation—

 5 That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him.

 6 And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make.”

Remarkably this is very forward thinking in the 1830s that Joseph Smith would have the idea that there would be evils and designs which would exist in the hearts of men that would somehow be related to consumption of food and beverages.  This extends well beyond tobacco and even alcohol.  This goes into even the food industry and especially into the pharmaceuticals.  We will not discuss in any detail here the role that politics and business have played in coercing the diets of citizens into unhealthy patterns.  However, there's plenty of information available to you if you want to do the reading and the research that can show you just how much politics has influenced the nutrition made available to you.  We can see where that influence has sometimes been beneficial and yet more often overreached its bounds in the interest of monetary gain.  Ultimately it is up to you on a personal level to determine how much of that influence you would like to learn about or remain ignorant of.  I suppose the same could even be said of the role of politics and business in influencing the religion you choose to adopt.  For now, the, main point is that care must be taken regarding what we put into our bodies physically and it's okay for us to make decisions regarding this for ourselves by careful research, by careful prayer and with the intent to take care of the gift of life which God has given us.

On a personal note, there was an evening at home in which I recognized a need to prepare and partake of the Sacrament to assist me in my own personal desire to connect with God again.  At the time I had a sinus infection that inflamed the inner ear and was mildly painful.  I blessed the bread and wine and served my wife and then partook as well.  Within twenty minutes of drinking three quarter’s cup of wine, I felt a noticeable reduction in the pain within my ear.  By the end of the evening, it had fully healed.  What had been a three day illness had been cured by the medicine of the Sacrament.  There are scientific explanations for the use of a moderate application of mild alcohol as medicine.  Nevertheless, here is a personal example that I would like to emphasis had as much spiritual medicine as it did temporal.      

This section does not deal solely with the temporal body and the care of the body.  It ultimately deals with a spiritual connection and the spiritual connection in relation to the care of the physical body.

 “5 That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him.

 6 And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make.

 7 And, again, strong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies.”

So there it is clearly spelled out.  Section 89 started out saying it is not a strict commandment. It doesn't say there is a list of things you can or cannot partake of.  It gives recommendations.  Among those recommendations is a warning to avoid wine and strong drinks, with an exception.  The exception is that wine is to be used “when assembling your selves together to offer up your sacraments before him.”  Likewise, it should be pure wine of the grapevine of your own making. Again emphasizing that wine is the appropriate symbol of the Sacrament.   Oddly enough, if we were to reinterpret Section 89 as a strict commandment, which it clearly says it is not, but yet if we were to interpret section 89 as a strict commandment then we would necessarily recognize that it is a commandment to drink wine as part of the Sacrament and not water.   However, it is not a strict commandment, rather it is a guideline.  So there is some flexibility there and some individual discretion is required.  We are necessarily going to need to counsel with the Lord personally.   Nevertheless the use of wine is not only appropriate to use but was the method established by Christ in an ordinance meant to remember Him, the Christ. That should set your minds at ease regarding the use of wine in Sacrament if you are a Mormon, especially a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints.

The Sacrament is an ordinance that provides a covenant with God.  As we keep that covenant, it provides a surety of the promises God has given us that a day will come when we may sit with Him at the supper table as a part of the family of God.

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

"Behold, this is my doctrine -- whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church.  Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church.  And now, behold, whosoever is of my church, and endureth to the end, him will I establish upon my rock and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.  And now, remember the words of him who is the life and light of the world, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God.  Amen."

How do you join the church of Christ?

You repent and come unto Christ.


Does this require that your join a church that is officially recognized by the government?

No, it does not.  Actually, an organization is controlled by the source from which it receives authority.  A church which receives government recognition is controlled by the government which issues it the permit to operate.  Think about it!  If your organization requires permission from the government to exist then who ultimately has control of the church?  Look at every "doctrinal" change made within your church and you will find that the change had come about as a result of external pressures created by the government which held the license of the church.


Does joining the church of Christ require that you are a member of a specific denomination?

No, it does not.  Remember the answer that Joseph received when he asked which of all churches he should join.    "I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the personages who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that their professors were all corrupt; that: "they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof." (Joseph Smith History 1:19)

What about the Restoration?

Think about what God was trying to restore.  He was not trying to restore a church authority.  He was trying to restore a relationship.  He is trying to restore a relationship between you and Himself.  The Restoration was a renewal of this simple truth, that Christ has provided the Atonement for You.  That you too can come unto Christ and be healed.  There are examples of souls who have not joined with a specific organization, but have witnessed the Savior and received His light in their lives.  There are souls who have joined with a specific organization and have never known the Baptism of Fire, nor found peace through Christ.  Therefore, it is shown to be that it is not any organized church that saves.  It is the individual's relationship with Christ that saves.

Don't you have to join an organized church to be baptized?

No, you do not have to join a man made church to be baptized. These "churches" have corrupted the Baptism of Christ by taking it away from those who seek to follow Christ and using it as an initiation ritual to draw members into their organization and thus gain followers of their own.  They seek to control others by teaching their own interpretation of the gospel law.  They seek to tax the people by collecting tithing and then using the tithing to support their own works.  These men seek authority through the structured heirarchy of their organization. This is why Christ does not manifest Himself in these churches.  In fact, if you will notice, the "doctrine" taught by most of these churches is that Christ will not come to you personally.  They teach that this is not even necessary.  But they teach that it is necessary to give heed to every teaching they speak and to obey every ordinance they deliver unto you. If you were to tell them that you are seeking a personal witness of Christ for yourself, a literal witness, they will tell you that you are deceived. 

Is it wrong to be in an organized church?

God knows the thoughts and intents of every heart.  He speaks to those who listen.  He appears to those who need his comfort.  He provides the counsel and guidence and direction that you need personally.  He will direct you to the people whom you are best fitted to serve.  It may be in a specific church or it may not be any church.  It may be in a specific country or it may be in a specific family.  Ask God if any of these man made organizations are the place for you to serve.  It may be that from within your own congregation, you can become the means of saving many souls, not by trying to tear down any particular man made church, but rather by gathering them in to the only church that can save.

The only church that you truly need is the Church of Christ.  This church is joined by repenting of your sins and coming unto the Savior.  He will give you the strength to endure unto the end.  He will provide the means for you to become a child of God.

As it is written:

Behold, this is my doctrine -- whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church.  Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church.

LOST SCRIPTURES

LOST SCRIPTURES

“And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this present time, not knowing the mysteries of God.

 4 For it were not possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children, and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present time.

 5 I say unto you, my sons, were it not for these things, which have been kept and preserved by the hand of God, that we might read and understand of his mysteries, and have his commandments always before our eyes, that even our fathers would have dwindled in unbelief, and we should have been like unto our brethren, the Lamanites, who know nothing concerning these things, or even do not believe them when they are taught them, because of the traditions of their fathers, which are not correct.
 6 O my sons, I would that ye should remember that these sayings are true, and also that these records are true. And behold, also the plates of Nephi, which contain the records and the sayings of our fathers from the time they left Jerusalem until now, and they are true; and we can know of their surety because we have them before our eyes.
 7 And now, my sons, I would that ye should remember to search them diligently, that ye may profit thereby; and I would that ye should keep the commandments of God, that ye may prosper in the land according to the promises which the Lord made unto our fathers.
 8 And many more things did king Benjamin teach his sons, which are not written in this book.” (Mosiah 1:1-8)

Written records are provided to help us remember more than could be remembered if it was only spoken.  The written word has more lasting strength. It is more difficult to change.  It can be referred to long after the one who wrote it has departed.  From King Benjamin, we understand that it would have been impossible for a father to remember all things and teach them to his children, even a prophet such as Lehi.  He needed the written record to both remember and convince others of the truth.  We also learn that it is the traditions of fathers that can be one of the greatest interferences to accepting truth.  If the written word is searched diligently, it can be used to correct the traditions if these should stray off course over the generations.

The spoken word is an easier method to use to persuade, however the spoken word is also easier to corrupt than the written word.  There are two reasons for this.  One reason is that the message intended is often not the message received.  The message relayed to a third party will reflect the views and bias of the individual passing the message on.  As it is passed on, the meaning evolves until the original message is entirely lost. The second reason is that men corrupt the message to suit their own purposes.

Therefore, from King Benjamin, we learn that we ought to examine the scriptures carefully and compare them to the traditions taught by our fathers.  We must not simply accept the traditions solely on the basis that they are taught by our progenitors; rather we must compare the teachings we receive from others to what is written.  If our own traditions have wandered off course then we must repent of those traditions.

By Benjamin’s explanation, we understand that just because a leader has spoken does not mean that the time for thinking and reasoning is over.  Rather, the spoken word must be cross checked against the written word.  The written word likewise must be cross checked against truth.  Like a system of checks and balances, when we find a conflict of interest between the two, we necessarily must take it to the Lord personally to receive direct guidance on the issue.  The Lord will establish His word in mouth of two or three witnesses and oft times he will send more (2 COR 13:1 and 2 NE 11:3).  An over reliance on any single source will lead to error.  However, a continuous search to know the Will of God with a heart willing to receive truth will allow Him to teach you personally.  He will deliver His truth in a variety of shapes and forms.  Your willingness to receive it will allow you to overcome the mixture of lies and truths that are presented to you in all these mediums.  God will teach you directly through these sources despite their corruption.  He will teach you line upon line, a little here and a little there.

How does the spoken word get corrupted?  Perhaps you have played the “telephone game”.  One person whispers a message to the person standing next to them.  That person in turn, whispers the same message to the one on their other side.  The message is passed down the chain of people from one to the next.  By the time it gets around to the tenth person the message is completely obscured.  The first person might have said the following “All my life, I thought air was free until I bought a bag of chips.” And by the tenth person, the phrase has become “For his wife’s anniversary, he got a ragged chimp.” 

If the telephone game can corrupt a message within just a few minutes, what happens when the story is told from generation to generation?  How corruptible is the message when it is passed through different languages and cultures? There were ancient cultures that used oral tradition to pass on their teachings from one generation to the next.  It is said that these cultures understood the critical nature of getting the information exacting and correct and so the sages tasked with passing on the traditions would memorize the messages carefully and pass them along verbatim.  This has proven to be a fallacy.  These cultures did not pass on their traditions verbatim, word for word.  They in fact, did not recognize a need to get the stories verbatim.  They changed the stories with each telling, adjusting it to their suit their own circumstances in their own generations. The idea that it was a precise system has been imposed upon them by a modern society which functions by the written word.  We recognize a need in our own culture to get the words exact and we have the capacity to do so through the written word.  We think to ourselves, "Well, how did they manage it before the printing press and before literacy?"  And we assume they compensated for it by memorization, but it wasn't so (Bart Erhman). 

That is not to say that the written word cannot be corrupted.  Of course it can.  It can be reinterpreted.  It can be rewritten.  The words can be redefined. 

Christ’s original messages were delivered in Aramaic in Jerusalem during 30 A.D. His followers including his disciples were most likely illiterate.  They taught his message verbally throughout Israel and the message spread to various parts throughout the Roman Empire.  It took the better part of a century before these oral traditions were written down by highly educated scribes who wrote in Greek.  These scribes in all likelihood had never seen Jesus, nor spoken with his disciples who were long gone before their work began.  They were writing from the traditions taught by a rapidly growing religious tradition.  Down through the centuries and passing through multiple cultures, these written words were passed.  History has demonstrated that many popes and kings and priests were able to use these written words to exploit the masses for their own purposes. Yet others were able to use these words for the betterment of their fellow human beings.  And then centuries later, King James commissioned his own version to be written into English and he gave orders that ensured it would properly reflect and justify the same hierarchal structure of the Church of England in his day.  And that authorized King James version is the bible that many of us are still reading today in the 21st century. 

So crossing into dozens of countries and cultures and now 2000 years later, how reliable is the message we have in the Bible? Mormons acknowledge the possibility that there may be errors when we teach that the Book of Mormon was necessary to restore truths that were lost in the Bible.

Is it possible that a similar process of introducing errors could occur in our own latter day holy works, the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants?  Please read the Title Page to the Book of Mormon and notice the following:

"And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment seat of Christ."

And so we have an admission that men can indeed introduce errors into the Book of Mormon.

Here are more reference to demonstrate the case that the Book of Mormon has errors:

"Nevertheless, I do not write anything upon plates save it be that I think it be sacred. And now, if I do err, even did they err of old; not that I would excuse myself because of other men, but because of the weakness which is in me, according to the flesh, I would excuse myself." (1 Nephi 19:6)

"12 And whoso receiveth this record, and shall not condemn it because of the imperfections which are in it, the same shall know of greater things than these. Behold, I am Moroni; and were it possible, I would make all things known unto you." (Mormon 8:12)

"16 And blessed be he that shall bring this thing to light; for it shall be brought out of darkness unto light, according to the word of God; yea, it shall be brought out of the earth, and it shall shine forth out of darkness, and come unto the knowledge of the people; and it shall be done by the power of God. 17 And if there be faults they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things; therefore, he that condemneth, let him be aware lest he shall be in danger of hell fire. (Mormon 8:16-17)      

"Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been." (Mormon 9:31)

 See also Ether 12:23-24 wherein Moroni laments that the written word does not equal the message that could be delivered as clearly and precisely as he would like it to be.  And God's response is not to fix the shortcomings, but rather to allow the errors to continue in order that weaknesses may be imposed upon men.  Why would God impose weaknesses upon the works of men?  That they may be humble and turn to Him.  Essentially God's response to Moroni is that He (God) intends to fix the errors on a case by case basis, working with the individual as the individual approaches God personally (Ether 12:27).  And so the errors stand uncorrected.  That is to say, the errors stand uncorrected until an individual turns to God directly and allows God to remove the errors on a personal level.

And so like Nephi, we cannot excuse ourselves on the basis of the errors of old.  The Book of Mormon has errors introduced into it by men.  If we claim it does not have any errors then the statement above admitting errors would be false and therefore those several statements would errors themselves.  You see, there is no escaping it.  There are some mistakes that we need to acknowledge. 

Acknowledging the mistakes is not to mock at their words.  Like Nephi said, "if I do err, even did they err of old; not that I would excuse myself because of other men..."  We are not to excuse ourselves because of the errors of others.  We are left in a position in which we must not reject the good that comes from the scriptures (not mock the scriptures) but neither are we to accept the scriptures as whole blindly and make the same mistakes as they of old (not excuse ourselves because of other men). This requires a recognition of the mistakes.  If we do not see the mistakes for what they are, then we very well may be participating in the same errors as they of old.  This requires increasing our understanding by recognizing and acknowledging the errors for what they are as we find them.

Let us say there is an eye witness account of God.  Someone sees God and not just sees God, but actually has an interaction with God.  They have a conversation.  God teaches the individual and even heals the person’s deepest pains.  Then God gives the person a message to share with others.  The message is simple.  Seek out God and you too can receive a visit from God and you too can receive a healing from your pain.  So the person tells the story, and people gather around to hear it. 

It’s incredible!   Word travels fast that there is this person who has received some gifts from God, including knowledge and including the power to heal.  So people begin to come in large numbers.  But the people don’t actually listen to the message.  The message is that they, the people, can speak with God.  Instead, the people decide that having a spokesman for them is enough.  They don’t want to repent and speak with God, but they would like to receive the gifts God offers to those who do repent and speak with Him.  The people try to usurp the gifts of God through the proxy of the individual who received the gifts directly. 

The people as a group try to take the individual and make them their leader.  Think of what this person could do!  They could lead us to victory against our enemies with their knowledge.  They could help us to prosper and we could be a great nation.  The message begins to get distorted.  Instead of understanding the original intent, which was to establish a relationship with the living God; the message is used as a rallying flag to gather against other groups. The message is used to self-justify rather than repent.  By the time the message is passed on to the next generation, people are using the message to conquer enemies next door, take on thirty wives, tax ten to fifteen percent of their followers income, and make war against “those others” who do not belong in their holy land.  All in the name of God!

That is not to say that the written word cannot be corrupted.  Of course it can.  It can be reinterpreted.  It can be rewritten.  The words can be redefined.  From Christ’s original message delivered in Aramaic in Jerusalem during 30 A.D. then passed into Greek and then into English and crossing into dozens of countries and cultures and now 2000 years later, how reliable is the message we have in the Bible? Mormons acknowledge this possibility when we teach that the Book of Mormon was necessary to restore truths that were lost in the Bible.

Joseph Smith is closer in time, but is it possible the process of corruption has begun all over again?  Are the patterns of history continuing to repeat?  A review of what the Book of Mormon prophecies regarding the church of the Gentiles is shockingly descriptive of the traditions we espouse today.  Are we in danger of failing to understand the true meaning of the original message?

What is the most pure source of a message from God? 

Answer:  That would be from God in person.

What would be the second best source of the message?

Answer:  That would be from the person who received a message directly from God with a directive to give that message to the people.

The farther downstream the source is from the pure communication of God, the more corrupt the message becomes.   The farther along the communication line from God, the more opportunity men have to twist the message to rationalize their own ambitions. 

Sometimes the men take the message and redefine the words.  For example, instead of teaching that The Redeemer is the one who redeems you in person if you will give heed to Him; they teach instead that The Redeemer has given me authority to redeem you if you will learn to be obedient to his counsel which he delivers through me. 

Sometimes men change the meaning of the words.  For example, instead of defining Testimony to mean “A witness account by one who has knowledge of a subject matter through direct means.”; instead, the definition of Testimony becomes “A verbal speech regarding Belief that is believed very, very strongly.”

However, sometimes, the original message is so counterintuitive to what the men are teaching that they seek to remove the message altogether.  Therefore, we lose scriptures in three ways…by redefining the terms, changing the actual words or in discarding the scriptures that conflict with current teachings.

One scriptural account that has been nearly lost is a book titled, The Doctrine and Covenants, 1835 Edition.  And in particular, today I hope to bring your attention to one section of that book, namely The Lectures on Faith. 

This work was co-written with Joseph Smith, although the exact authorship has been in discussion now for almost a couple centuries.  It is highly likely that Sidney Rigdon wrote a majority of it with guidance by Joseph Smith.  There is evidence that Joseph may have written one chapter by his own hand. 

But what is not in question, is that Joseph Smith approved of the work.  He used it as the teaching curriculum in the School of the Prophets.  Later, when a committee appointed by the church consisting of the First Presidency of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was formed to compile a Book of Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph who acted in that capacity as President of the Church and member of the committee choose to include the Lectures on Faith in the publication.   

The membership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints also accepted the Lectures on Faith as scripture.  The membership established this by a vote that sustained the contents of this work as “binding doctrine” in 1835. In fact, the Lectures on Faith were actually the “Doctrine” portion of the Doctrine and Covenants. 

How did this work become lost to the church?

By 1921, portions of the lectures were found to be in conflict with the current teachings of the church at that time.  For this reason, the lectures were removed.  This action occurred without sustaining by the membership of the church.  The men who made the decision to remove the lectures did so because of they did not feel the work was an accurate description of the nature of God.  They believed it was inconsistent with how they understood God. 

We should consider that the most pure form of communication of truth is from God in person.  Likewise, that would mean that the next best source of truth is from someone who had direct communication with God.  Therefore, considering that Joseph claimed to witness God in person and Joseph taught using the Lectures on Faith to a School of the Prophets…for the purpose of training Prophets!  And considering that the church body as a whole accepted the work as scriptures, we can reasonably accept that the Lectures on Faith are scripture. 

We should also consider that the men who removed the Doctrine portion from the Doctrine and Covenants did not at anytime make a claim to see God.  However, they felt it was necessary to correct the description of God written by another soul who did make that very claim. 

Therefore, can we reasonably conclude that the Lectures on Faith are Lost Scripture? 

In any advent, we need to do as King Benjamin counseled his sons and search diligently in the scriptures.  We need to compare our beliefs, teachings and actions to the counsel given by those who are closest to the pure source.   We need to search the testimonies left by those who knew the Lord. Then we need to strive to become associated with that pure source for own personal experience and witness.  We ought not to say “A Book of Mormon!  A Book of Mormon!  We don’t need any Lectures on Faith, for we already have a Book of Mormon!” 

Search the scriptures because you say that you believe them and you say that such a belief will give you eternal life, but the scriptures are the witness accounts that testify of Jesus Christ who alone can give you eternal life (John 5:39).

BE TRUE TO YOUR WIFE

BOOK OF MORMON POLYGAMY

Polygamy has not been a policy put in practice in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints publicly since 1890 and privately since 1912. The LDS teachings from the pulpit are at this time of monogamy. The majority of LDS men seem uncomfortable with the idea of polygamy and profess gladness if it never returned. The totality of LDS women seemingly do not like the subject at all and they often declare that they hope it never returns as a doctrine. Still, the subject of polygamy is a burden to the LDS people. It has created confusion about doctrine.   It has created doubts about the reliability of the teachings of the church and this has extended confusion into what the Gospel of Jesus Christ really is.  But what does the Book of Mormon actually teach about this issue?

The Book of Mormon condemns the practice of men taking more than one wife. For example:

"And it came to pass that Riplakish did not do that which was right in the sight of the Lord, for he did have many wives and concubines..." (Ether 10:5)

And this...

1 And now it came to pass that Zeniff conferred the kingdom upon Noah, one of his sons; therefore Noah began to reign in his stead; and he did not walk in the ways of his father.

2 For behold, he did not keep the commandments of God, but he did walk after the desires of his own heart. And he had many wives and concubines. And he did cause his people to commit sin, and do that which was abominable in the sight of the Lord. Yea, and they did commit whoredoms and all manner of wickedness.  (Mosiah 11:1-2)

From the sermon of one man in the Book of Mormon, we receive one of the most complete discourses on the topic in all of scripture. (Jacob 2)

We are taught by Jacob that the hearts of our wives and daughters are tender and chaste and this is pleasing to the Lord. He would not have men break the hearts of their wives and children by violating their trust. To do such a thing is described as an abomination. 

There is no exception in the Book of Mormon that provides an allowance for polygamy. 

There has been one verse which has often been interpreted as providing a loophole of sorts. However, a review of that verse will demonstrate that there is not a justification found within the verse at all. Rather, the meaning of the verse (when taken in context) is that the taking of more than one wife is viewed by God as an abomination because of the hardships and burdens it places on the wives and children.

THING 1 and THING 2

While reading the following in the book of Jacob, notice how the passage is defining the word “thing”. What is the author referring to as he uses the word "thing" in this context? 

“23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.

24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.

27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;

28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.

29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.

30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.

32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.

33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.

34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.

35 Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.” (Jacob 2:23-35)

The first usage of the word “thing” refers to that which is written concerning David and Solomon. It concerns those written words which the men of Jacobs’s day were using to justify their own behavior. This behavior is described as “a grosser crime” and “waxing in iniquity” and it is described as “whoredoms”. 

The “things"which are written” are that which the men have taken from the scriptures and changed the meaning of from the scriptures to support their own unrighteous practices. They have “wrested” the scriptures. In this case, they did not change the actual writing of the scripture, nor did they ignore the scripture. They were preaching from the scriptures and reinterpreting the meaning of the words. They were teaching out of the scriptures and yet applying definitions that were completely opposite of the intended meaning. They used these interpretations to support their own wicked practices. They were using the examples of David and Solomon to establish their own doctrine which was in opposition to God’s will in regards to chastity.

The second usage of the word “thing” is very specific. David and Solomon had many wives and concubines and this was “abominable” in the judgment of the Lord. The definition of “abomination” is to take something holy and righteous that was given by God and exploit it for selfish purposes. In this case, marriage which is holy and righteous before God had been exploited by excess in the taking of more than one wife. 

CONTRADICTIONS

There is another statement about David and Solomon and their wives found in the Doctrine and Covenants Section 132. It blatantly contradicts the sermon given by Jacob.  

Section 132 is a discussion in and of itself that is worth the time to investigate. My view is that Section 132 is a corrupted document delivered under suspicious circumstances. Section 132 is more than a “wresting” of the scriptures. It is a complete re-write or an addition to scriptures that was not sanctioned by God, nor was the individual who introduced it claiming that he received it from God. Instead, he claimed SOMEONE ELSE received it from God.  And yet, he claimed to be the only one who had sealing power to act on earth  to bind in heaven with the condition that there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power is conferred (D&C 132:7).  How can a man claim to have such power and yet provide no revelation to support that claim? Notice that the name of the individual given sealing power in Section 132: 40-48.  The individual who introduced this document to the church in 1852 is not the same man described in the proposed revelation.  Can a man claim power to seal for eternity based on a borrowed revelation?  When a man borrows a revelation in order to borrow other mens' wives, what is that indicative of the doctrine taught by that man? Do you think it is reliable doctrine?  This is the same error that the people of Jacob committed.  Jacob's people borrowed from the examples of David and Solomon to provide their own authority to indulge in the desires of their hearts.  They ignored the tragic ends of David and Solomon, but charged headlong into the same follies.  

More can be said about the glaring inconsistencies of Section 132.  I hope to write more regarding this important document in our Latter-day history.  However, for now in this entry, we are examining the Book of Mormon and what it says about polygamy. And it clearly condemns the practice of David and Solomon in taking on more than one wife. And it clearly condemns those who justify the practice of it by using David and Solomon as a precedent.

THING 3 and THING 4

The third usage of the word “things” is the “thing” in question. This is the word that has been “wrested” in the sermon of Jacob. We will get to that word usage in a moment, but first let’s review the last usage of “thing”.

“34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.”

The last use of the word “things” is once again referring to something negative. These “things” are described as something that they “ought not to have done”; and also something that has brought “great condemnation” unto the people. We know that it is still referring to that which the men of Jacob’s day were doing. They had taken the scriptures and used them to excuse themselves in taking more than one wife. They had rationalized something that God had forbidden them to do and it was proving to be something that pierced the hearts of many with deep wounds.

Jacob gives no allowance for the practice of taking more than one wife. He describes it as “abominable”,“a grosser crime”, and “something ought not to have done”. Four times he uses the word “thing” and the context of three of those word usages indisputably describe this sin as “abominable” and a “grosser crime”. 

Oh the irony! Jacob warns against misusing the scriptures. Jacob warns against misrepresenting the scriptures to practice whoredoms (Verse 23). And here in this very passage given by Jacob is the only verse (Verse 30) in the Book of Mormon that has ever been used to justify the taking of more than one wife. There is not one other verse in the Book of Mormon that has ever been construed to mean that polygamy is of God…just this one…which Jacob warned should not be used to support such a practice.

Now take a look again at verse 30. 

“For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.” 

The word “things” as used by Jacob has already been defined in the context of his sermon. Keeping with the context of the Jacob’s sermon and paying attention to his warning that we should not use the scriptures to rationalize the practice of taking more than one wife, we can see the real meaning of verse 30. 

CORRECT INTEPRETATION

The correct interpretation of verse 30 is as follows:

“For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people and they will obey my voice; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things which are abominable and a grosser crime.”

We see that Jacob did not leave a loophole for polygamy. He was condemning it. According to his teachings, if the Lord has a will to raise up seed, how does he do it? He does this by commanding his people. Those who will listen to his voice and keep his will are those who become the seed of God. This is the kind of seed that Jacob was referring to.

We can see this in verses 25 and 26:

"25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph. 26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old."

Notice that the Lord intends to raise up a righteous branch (a righteous seed) and that in the process of doing so he leads the people out of Jerusalem and wants them to disavow themselves from the practices of those "of old". In otherwords, to raise up this righteous branch (righteous seed), this people must NOT do like them of old and must NOT take more than one wife.

The Book of Mormon clarifies what it means to raise up seed unto the Lord. It is not a reference to a massive population. It is in reference to a family relationship. That relationship has a father who is God himself. 

" 4 For, said he, I have repented of my sins, and have been redeemed of the Lord; behold I am born of the Spirit. "(Mosiah 27:24)

25 And the Lord said unto me: Marvel not that all mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, must be born again; yea, born of God, changed from their carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness, being redeemed of God, becoming his sons and daughters;

26 And thus they become new creatures; and unless they do this, they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God. (Mosiah 27:25)

And from the New Testament we receive the same understanding from the following:

“12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. “ (John 1:12-13)

From these references and others we understand that the righteous Seed Raised Unto the Lord are those who are born again and have become the sons and daughters of God because they are redeemed by Christ. This redemption is a result of their desire to do the will of God, just as Christ the Redeemer did nothing save it was the will of God. Raising Seed Unto the Lord is not about building up a church or a nation. It is about being born again and becoming a Son or Daughter of God.

With this understanding, please read again the sermon of Jacob in Verse 30 where it talks about a Seed Unto the Lord. This verse would be in complete opposition to the words in Verse 25 if it were interpreted to mean polygamy is approved. It would also be in complete opposition to the rest of the context of the Book of Mormon. The following interpretation would fit the context in a much more harmonious manner:

“For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up sons and daughters unto me, I will command my people and they will repent and be redeemed; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things which prevent them from being born again.”(Jacob 2:30)

Jacob reminds the men that the hearts of their wives and children are tender and pure before God and that the betrayal by husbands and fathers had pierced their hearts with a deep wound that they carried to their graves. Polygamy has been a wound to the hearts of the LDS wives and children as well. It is plain to see in the history of its practice. It is a subject that has created a shadow of worry for LDS women even to this day. 

WHY IT MATTERS

The doctrine is still “on the books” in Section 132. In actuality, polygamy is still practiced in a “spiritual” sense posthumously. LDS men can be sealed for “time and all eternity” to more than one woman. If the first wife has passed away, then the man can be sealed to a second wife. This has led many women to ask the question, “Will I have to share my husband in the afterlife?” 

Is the thought of sharing your husband in the afterlife your idea of heaven or is it your idea of hell? If God would not give a stone to a son who asked for bread (3 Nephi 14:9), why would God give hell to a wife who asked for a faithful husband? Although some things cannot be fulfilled in this fallen world to test our patience, what would cause a lack of the fulfillment of righteous desires in heaven? It cannot be heaven if it is a place where Righteous Desires go unfulfilled. 

“So why was it ever necessary to practice polygamy in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?” 

This question has often been asked by every thoughtful child raised in the LDS church who comes across this topic. What are the common responses that an LDS member might expect to hear when asking this question? One commonly offered answer was published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on their official website under the following link: 

OFFICIAL CHURCH EXPLANATION

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints?lang=eng

“Latter-day Saints do not understand all of God’s purposes in instituting, through His prophets, the practice of plural marriage. The Book of Mormon identifies one reason for God to command it: to increase the number of children born in the gospel covenant in order to “raise up seed unto [the Lord].”

This explanation is a falsehood. 

Remember the words of John the Baptist? The Pharisees dismissed his authority to baptize. They ignored the call to repent. They rationalized that their leaders could never lead them astray because they had the proper authority. They taught that they received authority from Moses and that they were the recipients of the promises given to Father Abraham.  For this reason, they were willing to dismiss any message that did not come from within their chain of command recognized by the proper lineage and by the appointment of the proper authority. John was acting outside of the channels of stewardship established by the sustained leaders. However, John reminded them that it was only God who gave any man authority to act in the name of God. Any authority had to be received directly from God and not from man. God can give his authority to whomever HE chooses. 

John said the following:

“But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.” (Mathew 3:9)

So consider this in regards to the rationalization that polygamy was required “to increase the number of children born in the gospel covenant in order to raise up seed unto the Lord” or that “there are not enough righteous men to go around in heaven”:

If God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham, then is not God able to raise up a faithful husband to a virtuous woman? The idea that there are not enough righteous men to go around for all the righteous women in heaven is absurd. If God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham then is not God able to raise up seed unto the Lord through a husband and wife who are faithful to one another and to the Lord? 

If it is shown by John’s rational that God does not need a hierarchy to establish his work; then we can also surmise by his same rational that God can raise up children unto the Lord to fulfill the promises of posterity from even stones. We see that God has no need for polygamy to raise up a seed. He can easily raise up nations from just one couple consisting of nothing more than one man and one woman. For example, from Adam and Eve came the entire world.

Christ taught a few words concerning marriage. He taught that Adam and Eve were made by God from the beginning to be one flesh. He taught that a man must “leave” even his father and mother behind and join to his wife as one. If the fidelity of marriage is described as leaving behind even your father and even your mother to be one with your wife, how much more so is it necessary to leave behind all others? It is described as a relationship from two (twain) who become one. These TWO are intended by God to be ONE. The marriage as described by the Lord is to cleave unto her and NONE else.

“1 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judæa beyond Jordan; 2 And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there. 3 ¶The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” (Matthew 19)

Polygamy requires that the first wife is put away. This putting away is not as final as a divorce but it is still a “putting away” of the first wife. The sting of that putting away is as painful as divorce. Instead of the “twain” joined to be one, the first wife is set aside to a degree. She is not completely abandoned, but there is a displacement in the union.  

This is in fact the example that David set in his practice of plural wives. He easily dismissed one of his wives when she gave voice to the pain of her own heart. David rationalized that it was right to put Michal away when she sought to correct him. How dare she correct him when he was made king of all Israel by God! (2 Samuel 6:21) This was the pride within David’s heart that allowed him to break the heart of his wife. For Michal, she was put away by David for the rest of her life because she yearned to be married to a man who might have had a faithful heart for her. She was already sharing her husband with other wives, but she still sought for virtue within the king that might demonstrate his faithfulness to those that had been given to him. Did his appetite have no end? It was this kind of heart break that Michal was experiencing and that Jacob was witnessing among his own people. It is this kind of heart break that can be read in the history of the LDS church.

“ 14 And David danced before the Lord with all his might; and David was girded with a linen ephod.

15 So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the Lord with shouting, and with the sound of the trumpet.

16 And as the ark of the Lord came into the city of David, Michal Saul’s daughter looked through a window, and saw king David leaping and dancing before the Lord; and she despised him in her heart.

20 ¶Then David returned to bless his household. And Michal the daughter of Saul came out to meet David, and said, How glorious was the king of Israel to day, who uncovered himself to day in the eyes of the handmaids of his servants, as one of the vain fellows shamelessly uncovereth himself!

21 And David said unto Michal, It was before the Lord, which chose me before thy father, and before all his house, to appoint me ruler over the people of the Lord, over Israel: therefore will I play before the Lord.

22 And I will yet be more vile than thus, and will be base in mine own sight: and of the maidservants which thou hast spoken of, of them shall I be had in honour.

23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.” (2 Samuel 6).

Despite all of these warnings and examples, we only need the simple Gospel of Jesus Christ to understand the truth of these things. The most convincing scripture of all that demonstrates that polygamy is not of God is the following:

"12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." (3 Nephi 14:12; Matthew 7:12)

From Christ’s simple teachings it is easy to understand. Husbands, how much anguish would it cause you to have to share your wife with another man? If the idea creates revulsion and anger within you, then it is clear to see that you should not place her in that situation in which she must share you with another. If you would not have your spouse taken from you by another, why would you ever ask it of her?

"40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." (Mathew 25:40)

A man’s wife is much more than the “least of these” and Christ has taught that the pain of even the least is taken on by Him. Her broken heart and her sorrows that she endures from the abominations and grosser crimes of others is a burden that Christ must endure. A husband who is One with his wife, also takes on the burdens of his wife in an attempt to follow the Savior who takes on the burdens of all.

Polygamy is a burden on the wife but it is a burden that no man should ask of his wife because he becomes the source of the burden by its practice. Therefore he could not possibly consider the practice seriously knowing that he would be the source of burden rather than the reliever of burdens. He ought to be the one to bear her burdens as Christ would do. He ought to be her freedom from abominations and grosser crimes, rather than the source of such.

These two teachings of Christ are sufficient to understand how God views the issue.

It is evident that the Book of Mormon also teaches that the taking of more than one wife is not of God. Read more of Jacob’s words. See what he said about the Lamanites who were identified as the unrighteous nation. 

“Behold, their husbands love their wives, and their wives love their husbands; and their husbands and their wives love their children; and their unbelief and their hatred towards you is because of the iniquity of their fathers; wherefore, how much better are you than they, in the sight of your great Creator?” (Jacob 3:7)

Observe how God was ultimately willing to preserve the Lamanite people and in part this was because they loved their spouses faithfully even when they would not believe in Him. God would give them leniency for their faithfulness in marriage despite their lack of belief in God. Yet God could not save the Nephite people because of their infidelity in marriage despite their belief in God and despite their religious lifestyle.  It seems God will preserve a people who do not believe in Him but do practice faithfulness in marriage. He destroys a people who actually believe in Him but do not practice faithfulness in marriage. What does that say about the priorities of God?

DEALING WITH DEFENSE MECHANISMS

In discussing these things, please do not jump to conclusions. We are only talking about Polygamy and what the Book of Mormon teaches about it. Nothing more and nothing less. For example, what does this mean about what Joseph Smith was doing in Nauvoo? Or what about something someone quoted Joseph Smith as saying? Or what about the teachings of d Brigham Young? What about Sealing of Eternal Families?  What about the Priesthood?  What about the idea that “God can command anything He wants to” or the idea that “He commanded such things as a test of faithfulness”?  What about the Abrahamic Sacrifice that the early saints endured in the practice of this thing?  

What about Wilford Woodruff who declared the president of the church can never lead the church astray?  

Do you realize that he made that statement specifically to the church in regards to polygamy?  The federal government was confiscating the property of the church because of polygamy.  Wilford Woodruff was offering concessions to the government by agreeing to cease the practice.  However, he fully intended to allow the practice to continue in secret.  He published this statement in the newspaper as a reassurance to the LDS members that their Celestial Marriages (Plural Marriages) would continue. He wasn't going to lead them astray because they were going to continue the doctrine covertly. As others stated when they relayed Wilford’s words, "He was going to beat the devil at his own game." This was his way of letting the people know that the doctrine he had been teaching was absolutely necessary for salvation was not really going away, it was just going underground.  It did until further exposure of it was brought before the government in the Smoot hearings long after the turn of the century.    What does this context reveal about the traditions we have been handed?  

We have not had time to discuss all of these side issues that would branch off of a discussion such as this. Those things have been set aside for another day.  We have only considered the Book of Mormon and its message which was given to a people who believe that book was a gift from God to correct the errors in their traditions.

Therefore please do not think that as I write these things that I am saying that all of the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are without merit, nor am I saying you should not go to church.  I am not suggesting that you should stop praying and begin drinking copious amounts of alcohol.  In other words, if we believe the Book of Mormon and take it at its own word, it leaves us without a justification for this thing. 

We cannot address all such topics in one short discussion.  Please don’t panic and think that all good things are lost. Keep all of the good that you find wherever you may find it. Trust in God and trust that He will teach you the Truth of all things, one line upon line, one precept upon precept

Likewise a word of caution, there are those who I gather with in prayer and for sacrament who are in polygamous families.  I consider them friends.  And I do not say these things in condemnation of them, nor do I make any implications regarding how they are to personally work out their own salvation with God.  In terms of the greater weight of sin being placed on the shoulders of families, the majority of sins have come from the monogamous, the religious, and the “holy”.  The heart breaks of pornography and adultery and divorce have been heaped upon the children by those preaching chastity while failing to abide by their own professed law.  Today we have said nothing about these great sins, which are no less in the eyes of God.  In fact, these are even greater sins by the nature of the hypocrisy.

Today we are considering only one line of doctrine that we have inherited from our fathers.  It is a relevant discussion today because of the current issues which are in the news.  A Utah Judge has already struck down the polygamy laws in the state of Utah.  This ruling occurred in 2013.  There have been major overthrows of the concept of marriage by the United States Supreme Court in June of 2015.  And this has given some the courage to continue to press for further changes in regards to polygamous unions.  There is an attempt to establish polygamy as a legal form of marriage within Montana right now even as I write this in July of 2015.  These changes demonstrate that our children will be placed in a position where they must choose whether these “new” things that are being established by law in our lands are truly of the Will of God or if these “old” things are the precepts of men.  This discussion is primarily intended for my children, that they may gain understanding.  And in particular, that they may gain understanding about the Book of Mormon and what is truly written within its pages.

One stumbling block for Latter-day Saints is the willingness to examine our own traditions.  We have many personal experiences that have validated some of our beliefs and we link those experiences to the totality of our religion.  We fear that if one aspect of our religion proves in error that the whole of our faith would be destroyed.  We cling to the idea that it must all be true or it must all be false.  This simply is not the case.  The “all or nothing” mindset is not of God. God teaches line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little. Christ calls the errant to return to Him.  By implication, this means if we have not yet found Him, there is some error left within us.  We ought to eagerly seek out the errors that we may understand how to fully repent and return to the Lord.  We can take joy in the recognition of an error as it brings us closer to the Lord through repentance.  Therefore, we ought to examine all of our traditions carefully.

CONCLUSION

But honestly, aren’t you glad that the Book of Mormon teaches a man to be faithful to his one and only wife?  

A man should be faithful to his one true love, does not that teaching ring true?