← Church History Matters
Church History Matters
147 - D&C 93 CFM - We Can Become Like Jesus Through Grace - E35 August 25-31
01:26:05
Loading summary
Transcript109 lines
- [00:00]
A
Well, what do we actually believe God is? I want you to know what you worship and how you worship.
- [00:06]
B
Because of the redemption of Christ, all mankind begin mortality completely innocent before God. But that strong beginning is no guarantee of future purity.
- [00:17]
A
What we become is the direct result of our decisions. And the best case scenario that section 93 presents is that you receive light and truth and you become like Jesus Christ. Jesus went on the same journey we all go through. He just never committed a sin.
- [00:31]
B
What I love about it is not compulsory on either side. It's a free exchange, right? Jesus freely gave his will to the Father, the Father freely gave to him, enabling Jesus to advance from one level of the Father's grace to another. That is a doctrinally dense little gem with a ton of cool implications about how to be like Jesus.
- [00:49]
A
That is huge, right? That is impactful.
- [00:52]
B
Section 93 is just anchoring that point further and saying this is literal, not just for Jesus, but for all mankind.
- [00:57]
A
He was like us in a lot of ways, and that's really encouraging. God is there as a loving parent who cares about. About us, who's guiding us, who's teaching us the truth, and desperately wants us to make the right decision, but won't force us to. Hello, Scott.
- [01:12]
B
Hello, Casey. How are you, sir?
- [01:14]
A
I am good. And we're coming near the end of the summer. I wanted to take a minute and just acknowledge a fun thing. Both of us have been traveling a little bit and visiting some of the sites, and a lot of people have come up and sort of said hi and said, hey, I like your podcast. And we just wanted to say thanks. Like, that's really nice of you to do.
- [01:34]
B
Yeah. You know what's funny is when people say to me, hey, you're. You guys are the guys that I exercise with. I've had. I don't know how many people have said, you're. You're the guys who I listen to when I'm falling asleep. And so, yeah, I just want to give a big shout out to all those right now who are listening to our soft, sultry tones as you fall asleep. We are honored that we could help you transition from consciousness to unconsciousness. All jokes aside, it's so fun to actually meet real people who listen to this stuff. Casey, there's other people out there that love this as much as we do, and so that's what's so cool. Thank you all for coming and saying hi, whether it's at church history sites or the grocery store. I've had this sweet old lady recently came up to me in the grocery store and said, hey, you're the guy I watch on tv. You're the Doctrine and Covenants guy. And I just thought, oh, that's so sweet. Gave her a little hug. But thank you for saying hi. People out there are so great.
- [02:33]
A
And thank you for the suggestions, too. We do listen to them, and we're taking them into account. And a lot of ways, you've made the show a little bit better. Now, today we're going to continue our formula of going through the context, the content, the controversies, and the consequences. And this week, we have a big one. One of the most profound theological revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants. It's not as long as a section 76 or a section 88, but it might have more profound implications than just about anything in the Doctrine and Covenants. Tell them what we're talking about today.
- [03:07]
B
Yeah, Section 93 of the Doctrine and Covenants. This is, to me, this is like a clear and stunning example of doctrinal restoration in action. Like you, like, watch it unfold on the pages. It just crisply clarifies and expounds really, key doctrinal themes that had only previously been, like, hinted at or briefly mentioned, such as we're talking about things like the nature of Christ and his development. Now. You might think, well, there's a lot of Scripture that talks about the nature of Jesus, but nothing Quite like Section 93 of the Doctrine and Covenants. It's going to talk about the premortal past of mankind in a way that we have not experienced up to this point. I think the most incredible insight is the way that it talks about both the nature and divine potential of mankind as it sort of tracks with the nature of Jesus and how he developed. And so we're going to see some just really incredible theology unfold here.
- [04:02]
A
And at the conclusion of section 93, the Lord briefly elaborates on the implications of these big doctrinally rich teachings for parents in ways that are both practical and profound. And again, this one, it's about parenting. It's about what a human is. It gets into some deep philosophical questions. In fact, let me quote a prominent philosopher in the church, and this guy is primarily known for his work in history, but he was a professor of philosophy. The guy's name is Truman G. Madsen, but Truman G. Matson was actually a professor of philosophy at Brigham Young University. And he loved Section 93 because of the philosophical answers it gives. So he said this. He said, Section 93 was received in May 1833, when Joseph. Joseph was 27 years old. It defines beginningless beginnings, the interrelationships of truth, of light, of intelligence, of agency, of element, of embodiment, of joy. And then he says, every sentence, every word is freighted with meaning in one fell swoop. It cuts many Gordian knots. And that's a highfalutin reference if you don't know what the Gordian knot is. Apparently it was this knot that in antiquity, nobody could untie. And Alexander the Great walked up to the Gord nut and just chopped it in half with his sword. Truman Madsen was saying that the stuff that Plato and Aristotle and all the philosophers have wrestled with, Section 93 just kind of solves. It's the Lord saying, this is the way it is, actually. This is the nature of being, light, consciousness, and truth. This is where we come from, and this is where we're going. And that makes it incredibly, like you said, practical and profound. Like, it's just got some really good stuff.
- [05:47]
B
Yeah. And I don't think that it's like a theological treatise and then practical advice about parenting. I think this is all about parenting. I think if you look at Section 93 as the ultimate guide in parenting, then you're. You're getting real close to what it actually is. I mean, the First Presidency and the Presiding Bishop of the Church are in the hot seat, actually, in the midst of section 93. This comes as something of a rebuke. But before the Lord can get to the rebuke of what he wants them to do as parents, he needs them to understand some really important theological points, to really understand what they're doing and what God's asking them to do as parents. And so maybe we can get into the context a little bit there, which we actually know very little about. But, Casey, what's our first see? Like, what do we actually know about the context of this revelation?
- [06:35]
A
For such a profound revelation, the context we have is surprisingly sparse. We know almost nothing from the historical record about what precisely drew out this revelation from the Lord. Contrast that with section 76, where they write a whole preamble, and section 88, where they give us a ton of context. This one just kind of shows up. And we're lucky that we even have the date. Joseph Smith's history just Simply states, on the 6th of May, 1833, I received the following. And then there's one copy of the early manuscript of section 93 where Newell K. Whitney, who's one of those mentioned in the text, summarizes its contents by writing Revelation to Joseph Sidney Frederick and Newell by chastisement and also relative to the Father and the Son. So Joseph, Sidney, and Frederick are the three members of the First Presidency. Newell is the presiding bishop in Kirtland, serving under Edward Partridge. And that's about all we know, is that they were chastised and that the revelation is about the Father and the Son. And so you kind of have to go to the revelation itself to sort of figure out what's going on, but we don't have precise information other than that. So it's unknown what event or events or if there was anything that actually provoked the Lord's chastisement to these four church leaders. That's included in roughly verses 40 to 50. Likewise, it's unknown what question or questions, if any, invited to the rich teachings relative to the Father and Son that are found in verses 1:39. Some people have said maybe it's linked to Joseph Smith's project to translate the Bible. It's possible. And I mean, it does deal with some clear New Testament themes, but we just don't know for sure. So that's the backstory. We have surprisingly little. Let's dive into the details of the Revelation itself.
- [08:20]
B
All right, our second C here, then. Let's get into the content of section 93. So the Lord begins actually with a really remarkable promise. He says this verse one, it shall come to pass that every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on My name, and obeyeth My voice, and keepeth My commandments shall see My face and know that I am. Now, Jesus had previously promised church leaders that they could see his face if they were worthy, like in section 50, verse 45, section 67, verse 40, 10, and even section 88, verse 68, which we've covered already this year. But what is remarkable here is that this promise is now extended quote to every soul. Did you catch that in verse one? Right. Anyone who will do those five things the Lord has promised shall see my face and know that I am. So verse one is worth some real deep reflection and pondering and thinking about how we might implement that into our lives. And verse two says that they won't only see his face and know that he is, but they will also know that I am the true Light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world, and that I am in the Father and the Father in me. And the Father and I are one. And his oneness with the Father is, so he explains, continuing, because he gave me of his fullness. Jesus says I Am one with the Father, because the Father gave me of his fullness. Let's think about that for a second. He received of the Father's fullness. Therefore he is in the Father and the Father is in Him. And Jesus, he says, is the Son, because I was in the world and made flesh my tabernacle and dwelt among the sons of men. And while he was thus dwelling in the world, he says he received of my Father, and the works of him were plainly manifest, meaning God the Father's works were plainly manifest through the Son, as the Son received from the Father. Casey, we're already deep into the what some call the mystery of the Godhead, the in one anotherness of the Father and the Son, which I love that the Son is here in this revelation, trying to explain a little bit to us what that in one anotherness means, that full unity with the Father. What do you think he's saying here? What's he communicating to us?
- [10:39]
A
Newell K. Whitney classifies this as a revelation on the Father and the Son. And again, understanding that particular relationship is really tricky for Christians, partially because of the way the language in the Gospel of John describes it. But then something weird happens as you keep going through this. Okay, he continues, and John. And there's actually a big controversy over who the John is here that he's talking about.
- [11:04]
B
Who are the John options? Let's go through those real quick.
- [11:06]
A
Yeah, so the language here is really close to the Gospel of John. So the easiest assumption is to say this is John the Apostle, this is John that wrote the Gospel of John. However, there's some contextual hints here that it might be somebody else. For instance, he says, and John saw and bore record of the fullness of my glory. And then what Follows in verses 7 through 17? Some people have speculated, and we're not saying, like random people like Bruce R. McConkie and Wilson Pratt have said that this is verses 7 through 17 is a quotation from a lost record of John the Baptist, which the Lord says the fullness of is hereafter to be revealed. We don't know this for sure. This is a working theory, but one that I think makes sense is that John the Baptist wrote some kind of record that John the Apostle used and integrated into his Gospel of Jesus Christ that he wrote. But there's a lot of contextual clues here. For instance, let's note that it's quite apparent that there's a tight relationship between the lost record of John the Baptist and at least the first chapter of the New Testament Gospel. Of John now. So it's not to be understood that John the Baptist wrote the Gospel of John, but rather that the author of the Gospel of John appears to have had access to this lost record of John the Baptist, since there are multiple verbatim quotes and close paraphrases in John 1 from what follows, and we're going to point those out as we go. So according to this lost record, John the Baptist bore record of the fullness of Christ's glory, saying, I saw his glory that he was in the beginning, before the world was, just like it says in John 1:1. Then it says this. Therefore, in the beginning the Word was for he was the word, even the messenger of salvation, the light and the redeemer of the world, the Spirit of truth who came into the world because the world was made by him, and in him was the life of men and the light of men. Moving on to verse 10. The worlds were made by him, men were made by him, all things were made by him, and through him, and of him. Again, these are all close paraphrase of the Gospel of John. And then and I, John, bear record that I held his glory and the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, even the Spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh and dwelt among us. That parallels John 1:14. So it seems like John was privileged to somehow see and bear record of the premortal glory of Christ, who created all things and was full of grace and truth, and who came and dwelt among us. So he's describing the premortal Christ, he's describing the creation of earth. And then he's going to move into something that he sees during mortality down here on earth.
- [13:54]
B
Yeah, pick it up. In verse 12, he says, and I, John, saw. Now he's speaking of Jesus's mortal life, as you said that he, Jesus, received not of the fullness at the first, but received grace for grace. And he received not of the fullness at first, he repeats, but continued from grace to grace until he received a fullness. So this is actually really cool. John is describing here in kind of dense terms how Jesus received the fullness of the Father. And this is going to become really important for the message he wants to share with all of us, particularly parents. But he says that Jesus did so by receiving grace for grace and by continuing to go from grace to grace. So what this appears to mean. Okay, in light of the context and subsequent verses in this revelation, we'll point out as we Go. This seems to mean that Jesus was involved in what I'd call a sacred exchange, an exchange of grace between him and the Father. Meaning that Jesus would receive grace or favor. Can we use the word favor here? From the Father because of the grace or favor of obedience that he willingly gave to the Father. So Jesus would obey the light and truth God gave him, and then God would favor him or give the grace of additional light and truth. And then Jesus would respond to that grace by obeying that light and truth. Like this is beautiful. Reciprocal exchange between the Father and the Son in an ongoing way until Jesus received of the fullness. So cool. And what I love about it, it was not compulsory on either side. It's a free exchange, right? Jesus freely gave his will to the Father, the Father freely gave to him, enabling Jesus to advance from one level of the Father's grace to another. This divine cycle continues, John is suggesting, until Jesus received of the Father's fullness. Picking it up in verse 14, he says, and thus he was called the Son of God because he received not of the fullness at the first. Oof. That is a doctrinally dense little gem with a ton of cool implications about how to be like Jesus.
- [15:57]
A
And this is where this next passage is sort of where we get the most compelling evidence that this was probably John the Baptist writing. Because look at what he describes here. Something that he's making it sound like he saw close up. And that was an especial part of his witness. He says, I, John, bear record. And lo, the heavens were opened and the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove and sat upon him. And there came a voice out of heaven saying, this is my beloved Son. This is clearly a reference to Jesus baptism. So that's part of the reason why it sounds like this is the record of John the Baptist and not John is the writer of this record, saw Jesus as God bared record of him and as the Holy Ghost descended upon him.
- [16:41]
B
I think John the Baptist had front row seats to his baptism, didn't.
- [16:44]
A
Yeah, sounds like he did. Right. If this is John the Baptist and we're assuming it is right, I think that's our position. He's Jesus's cousin too, right? He might know a little bit more about Jesus pre age 30 than the average person does. So he summarizes. I, John, bear record that he received the fullness of the glory of the Father and he received all power both in heaven and in earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in Him. Now, it's not really clear here if John is intending to associate Jesus receiving the fullness of the glory of the Father with his baptism. But this seems highly unlikely. Matthew records Jesus own declaration that all power is given me in heaven and on earth after the resurrection. That's 28:18. And in verse 18, the Lord promises that if you are faithful, you shall receive the fullness of the record of John. So it's given us a little preview here, just verses 7 to 17. But we might be getting John the Baptist's perspective on who and what Jesus really was.
- [17:43]
B
And that leads us to the question of, like, why is the Lord doing this? Why? What's his purpose in sharing that large quotation of John's record in the first place? And then he goes on to explain the very thing. Let's pick it up. In verse 19, for instance, he says, I give unto you these sayings of John that you may understand and know how to worship, and know what you worship, that you may come unto the Father in my name and in due time receive of his fullness. Oh, wow. Okay. So Jesus revealed a portion of the lost record of John the Baptist about how he received of the Father's fullness so that we could learn from his example how to worship the Father so that we too can come unto the Father and eventually receive his fullness. Casey, did Joseph Smith ever teach that before Nauvoo that we could become like.
- [18:33]
A
God according to this? He did. That's a thing. Honestly, that has made me a little crazy when I'm talking with other restoration faith. And again, we love these guys, but especially Community of Christ, because they'll say, you know, Joseph Smith came up with all these radical ideas when he got to Nauvoo, and that's what we reject. And I have just directly said to them, have you read section 93 and section 88 and section 76 have all these ideas there, and they were received really early on. I mean, this is 1833. The church is less than three years old. And yes, he does come to understand them and articulate them them more fully during the Nauvoo period. But it's there from really early on, this idea that we can receive the fullness of Father, and everybody knows what that means.
- [19:17]
B
Yeah. And it's not just like highfalutin theology, because he actually explains in the next verses, like, the step by step way that we do it. This is what's so incredibly stunning to me. He says, for if you keep my commandments, you shall receive of His Fullness. I don't know how he could be more clear. And you'll be glorified in Me as I am in the Father. Therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace. Whoa. Okay. So just as Jesus received God's ongoing grace or favor by freely giving to God the grace of his own obedience, so too, Jesus is now turning, almost like looking at the camera, and saying, so too, as you freely offer the grace of your obedience to Christ's commandments, we will receive his reciprocal grace in return until we are glorified in Christ and then receive of the Father's fullness. And Jesus is calling that true worship. He said, that's true worship, obeying the light and truth God has given you so that he can give you more. And that leads to God's fullness. That's amazing.
- [20:21]
A
This is the true context for the section, right? We don't know what historically was happening with Joseph Smith or the First Presidency, but the context given by Christ here is, I want you to know what you worship and how you worship. Those are the two questions he's trying to answer. And it's interesting that you can see him taking the phrases that John uses in his record to describe him, and now he's using them to describe us. Like, he's just basically saying, yes, I am different from you. Like the opening prologues, I created the worlds. You know, I am the light and life of the world. That's not like us. But then he's getting into this. Well, I grew from grace to grace, and I received his fullness. And then he starts saying, saying, you can too. In fact, he changes the topic slightly, but he keeps doing the same thing, Starting in verse 21, using a phrase to describe Himself, and then putting that idea onto us. For instance, in verse 21, I was in the beginning with the Father and am the firstborn. And all those who are begotten through Me are partakers of the glory of the same, and are the Church of the firstborn. In other words, being begotten through Christ. He's explained in other places in the Doctrine and Covenant, happens through baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost. But then he takes that phrase, I was in the beginning with the Father, and he again flips it onto us. Ye were also in the beginning with the Father. The word also seems like it was used here deliberately to draw a parallel between us and Christ. And then he goes on to say that premortally, we were that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth, again drawing another parallel to Himself, since twice Already in this revelation. Revelation, the premortal Jesus has been referred to as the spirit of truth who then came into the world. And now the same is being said of the rest of us. So again, he's setting up an idea that applies to him, and then he's taking that phrase and applying it to us. He's drawing connections and parallels between ourselves and him and the missions that we've been given.
- [22:21]
B
Yeah, it's like the gap between the divine and the human is getting closed. It's becoming closer and closer in terms of, like, our essence, like the. The stuff of which we're made and our potential. It's all like the gap. It's a big yawning gap, honestly, throughout Christian history, the difference between creator and creation. But Section 93 is closing that gap in pretty startling ways. We'll maybe talk more about that when we get to controversies, but let's continue here. And truth, he says, branching from that last thought is knowledge of things as they are, are, and as they were, and as they are to come, and whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning. Wow. I use that verse all the time, Casey, when I'm teaching classes with really difficult issues, you know, social issues. You can put up any social issue and say, okay, what's more than the truth? What's less than the truth? And are there people on both sides? And the answer is almost always yes. What does it look like here? When do you go too far from the truth this way? When do you go too far that way? Does Satan care which way we go? No, both of those suit his purposes. Right. You can do, men and women are so different that we'll never understand each other, for instance. Or men and women are so similar that there really is no significant difference between us. Both of those are extremes, and neither of those are what God wants. Right. Like the truth of the male, female, compatible, complementary, compensatory relationship where we, like, totally, perfectly balance each other. Both of those are obliterated on either extreme Right. Men and women are so different. Or men and women are so similar. No, the truth is somewhere right in the middle. And Satan doesn't care which extreme you go to, for instance. That's just one example. You can do this with a million topics, and it's so insightful. Anyway, I come back to this verse again and again. Anything that seeks to deny or misrepresent or just go beyond an accurate reflection of the past, the present, or future realities, he's saying starts to partake of the spirit of that wicked one. And that's not the spirit of truth.
- [24:30]
A
Yeah. And then he goes on to say, the spirit of truth is of God. Then he says, I am the Spirit of truth. And John bore record of me, saying, he received a fulness of truth, yea, even all truth. And no man receiveth a fulness unless he keepeth his commandments, because he that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light by so doing. And as he continues to give to God the grace of commandment keeping, he continues to receive from God the grace of additional light and truth until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things. Okay, so light and truth, the interrelationship, the idea that Jesus received all truth and it's possible for us to do the same. And then he's going to get into some pretty profound stuff here, so stick with me. Man was also in the beginning with God. He says here, going back to what he said earlier in verse 23, intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made. Neither indeed can be. And here the premortal spirit of each person is being called an intelligence or the light of truth, which can be added to the earlier spirit of truth. And these terms seem like they're being used interchangeably to refer to the premortal spirits of mankind. And astonishingly, it's here that the Lord announces that our spirits were not created or made. Neither indeed can be.
- [25:50]
B
Yeah. And later on in his life, like Joseph Smith will confirm, even, I think with added clarity, what Section 93 seems to be saying. Like, for instance, in Nauvoo, he said, the spirit of man is not a created being. It existed from eternity and will exist to eternity. And then on another occasion, he said, God is a self existing being and man exists upon the same principle. The spirit of man does not have a beginning, beginning or end. God never had power to create the spirit of man because intelligence is eternal and it is self existing. So you can see that Joseph Smith came Back to Section 93 again and again, reflecting on it and expounding on the implications of those verses. Casey, that's. That's good stuff.
- [26:33]
A
One thing that I've. I've pondered about, okay, is sometimes the word spirit and intelligence are used interchangeably with each other, right?
- [26:41]
B
Especially by Joseph Smith.
- [26:43]
A
And you see this in the book of Abraham too, where Abraham says, I beheld all the intelligences that existed before the world was created. He's using the word spirit. But I've also heard other people say that intelligence is something more primordial than spirit, that God is our Father in the sense that he's the Father of our spirits, meaning he took intelligence and then gave us spirit bodies. But it's tough here because the quotations we've been using seem to make spirit and intelligence seem interchangeable. But I wondered because in that last he says God never had power to create the spirit of man because intelligence is eternal and is self existing. So in what sense is God our creator then? I always understood it that intelligence can't be created or made, but that God gave us spirit bodies and that's how God is our Father. Like in Hebrews, it says he's the Father of our spirits. Does that make sense? What's your take on that?
- [27:34]
B
So verse 23 here, which we're dwelling on, says that the intelligence part of us was not created or made. But if you go back to verse 10, it says of Christ that, quote, men were made by him. So which one is it? Were we not created or were we created? Right. I don't think that means that Jesus made our spirits because the prophet Joseph Smith actually taught, he said, quote, that Jesus made a tabernacle or mortal body and put a spirit in it and it became a human soul. So I think for Joseph Smith, like, that's the moment of creation. It's this idea of combining the spirit and element together. That's when God created man. But there's this uncreated part of us that was put into the mortal tabernacle. That I think is what section 9323 here is getting at is like there's a part of you that is fundamentally indestructible, uncreated. And I think you're suggesting that maybe that indestructible piece of us was later organized into a spirit body and that's when it became the children of God. There's a such several prophetic quotations that you can use to back that thought up. It seems like Joseph Smith never makes that distinction, like he always is, equating the spirit of man with its intelligence. So I can see the argument both ways here.
- [28:52]
A
For me, I think you're right. I think Joseph Smith doesn't make that distinction. I think later prophets do. But I think it's an important distinction. You know, the family proclamation says each person is a beloved son or daughter of heavenly parents. And if we're just primordial spirits that always existed and there was no creation of spirit bodies involved, then how is God our Father? Why do we say we have heavenly parents? Right. It seems like we just fully existed and they came and shepherded us along. But it seems like later prophets have clarified that the intelligence part of you has always existed. It can't be created or made, but that God can move you to the next level, I guess you'd say. And one of the movements of the next level was to become a spirit child of God. Hence the idea found in the Scriptures that God is the father of our spirits, or in the proclamation that each person as a beloved son or daughter of heavenly parents. Does that make sense? So I agree with you that I don't know if we can find Joseph Smith teaching this idea. But there's no doubt in my mind that later prophets have taught this idea that the sequence goes, this intelligence that's uncreated and cannot be created or made, but then we're granted greater agency by God, by our heavenly parents giving us a spirit body. And then the next step is to receive a mortal body.
- [30:09]
B
And the closest you can get, I think, with Joseph Smith is when in Ramos, Illinois, he taught his friend Benjamin F. Johnson and his wife Melissa. He taught them that those who marry in this life and are sealed and rise together in the resurrection will be parents of spirit children. He uses that phrase. And so it seems like this, that theology at least, is in Joseph's mind. And maybe subsequent apostles and prophets expound on that more to kind of tease a difference out between intelligences and spirit. I'm good with either way because I've heard the adoption model. The adoption model is. Well, one of the ways he could be the father of our spirits is if he adopted us, that we were these eternally existing beings and he organized us. The book of Abraham says he organized us into his family through some sort of process of adoption. We have that kind of thing that happens on earth. Maybe there's a divine form of that.
- [31:00]
A
And I'll say this. If it is just an adoption, that's fine. Again, an adopted parent is a parent. There's no distinction in my mind. It's about the kind of parent they are, not how they behave became apparent. But it also seems like the prophets and apostles have led us to believe that it's more than just an adoption, that we're the literal children of God. That phrase pops up so much that it seems like we lean more towards some sort of creative process. And I personally think is more involved than just he adopted us. Though I'm fine if that's the case, too. Okay, so thank you for indulging me. Let's get back to what? In what we know about these intelligences, then, okay, so picking it up in verse 30, all truth, meaning it seems like every spirit is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it to act for itself as all intelligence also, otherwise there is no existence. In other words, all spirits can act freely and independently within whatever sphere God has placed them. And this power of independent action, he says, is the agency of man. But he adds, it also becomes the condemnation of man when that premortal gospel light which was from the beginning plainly manifest unto them in mortality, he's implying here, and that they elect to receive not the light. And this is true of all, since every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation. And it seems like this condemnation for rejecting light is best understood in logic and context of the previous verse, in which receiving light is sort of equated with receiving truth. And where our individual spirits are defined as the embodiment of the light of truth.
- [32:45]
B
So the stuff we're fundamentally made out of is this indestructible stuff called light and truth. And when we obey light and truth, it's like we become more of what we already are until we receive a fullness of light and truth. Like, it's rich and beautiful and I love it and I don't fully understand it, but. And then he keeps going here, he says, as he explained earlier, he says we receive added light and truth by keeping the commandments until he says, says, we are glorified in truth and have received a fullness of truth, yea, even of all truth, as Christ himself did. So when we choose to consistently disobey Christ's commandments, then our Spirit does not receive added light and truth, which would enable us to progress toward that fullness of the Father. And in such a self inflicted state, we are condemned by our own agents, these verses say, which is like, ooh, he's saying it so plainly now. And then he continues, he says, for man is spirit, the elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fullness of joy, and when separated, man cannot receive a fullness of joy. So in context here, it seems like the term element is referring to our physical bodies, or the elements which eventually make up our mind bodies. And the Lord is here indicating both that the physical matter of which our body is made is eternal and that a fullness of joy is made possible for us only when our spirit and our body achieve a state of inseparable connection, which is a reference, I think, no doubt, to our resurrected state, the state of inseparable union. So again, this is a profound expansion on our understanding of the necessity of a body. As I think like philosophers in the past have debated whether or not the body is needed. If it's like this evil thing that we have to endure for a while, but then we get to shed it and achieve our truthful whatever section 93 says, no, no, you actually need the eternal element and your spirit together in order to receive a fullness of joy. He's used fullness a lot. Fullness of light, fullness of truth. Now we've got fullness of joy. And that has to do with embodied embodiment.
- [34:59]
A
And this idea runs contrary to almost all Christian religion. I mean, most people talk about the body like it's a prison that we have to escape and eventually we'll be these ethereal beings. But no, the Lord here is saying you need to have a physical body in order to progress, in order to become like him.
- [35:18]
B
Now aren't there some Christians though that believe in the like literal resurrection of our bodies?
- [35:23]
A
Yeah, and it seems like, I mean, I know you're a big anti. Right fan.
- [35:27]
B
Yes, love that man.
- [35:29]
A
N.T. wright is a, is a really well known theologian. He's not a Latter Day Saint. What is he? Episcopalian?
- [35:36]
B
Anglican?
- [35:37]
A
He's Anglican, Okay. Which is just the fancy word for Episcopalian. And he wrote a whole book about how like the point of the New Testament is getting a body back, like being resurrected. Which it seems like is what section 93 is saying here too. Right. You're more familiar with NT. Right than I'm. I am. But you talk about him enough that I've got his book and I'm reading it right now. And it seems like that's the point that he's kind of making. Right? Is that the point of this whole thing was to get us a body back. Which again logically applies to the New Testament too, because the central miracle is that Jesus was resurrected. The Gospel of Luke in particular makes a big deal out of the fact that Jesus was physically resurrected. Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have. And to say that Jesus gave up that body seems counterintuitive. Right? And yet almost all Christians do embrace that idea.
- [36:30]
B
The relevance of N.T. wright's writing is that he is speaking to a Christianity that is all over the board on this topic. Right. There are some that believe in the literalness of the resurrection, others think it's quite metaphorical for mankind, and some even for Jesus and the testimony of the gospel. Writers nt Wright would say is, it is literal. Right. And section 93 is just anchoring that point further and saying this is literal not just for Jesus, but for all mankind. Because again, section 93 keeps drawing parallels between Jesus and us.
- [37:02]
A
Yeah. And I'm going to go out on a limb here and say in my reading of N.T. wright, the reason why he comes to that conclusion is because he's more attuned to the New Testament than he is to the creeds. The creeds are where you get into all this metaphysical kind of ideas that come from Plato that the physical world is lesser than the immaterial world and things like that. The New Testament writers were really earthy. I mean, Jesus sits down and eats a meal with his apostles after his resurrection to prove that he's physical. But later on it seems like these ideas from Greek philosophy that material things are lesser than immaterial things kind of seeped in and they tried to reconcile those.
- [37:40]
B
Yeah, Section 93 is definitely pushing back against that Greek worldview of immaterial being more glorious than more refined or more desirable than the physical elements. He's saying, no, both are essential for joy.
- [37:54]
A
Look at this statement. The elements are the tabernacle of God. Yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples. And whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple. So again, the elements are eternal. The elements are the tabernacle of God. Matter isn't evil, matter isn't bad. Matter is what God uses to build lasting things. And he doesn't define exactly what it means to defile one's temple, as well as exactly what it means for God to destroy the temple. But the warning seems to be an echo of the condemnation spoken of back in verses 31 and 32, because he goes on and says, the glory of God is intelligence, or in other words, light and truth. In context, the words intelligence and light and truth here almost certainly seem to be a reference to the eternal spirits of mankind. And understanding that, we can see that the Lord is affirming that the eternal spirits of mankind themselves are the glory of God. Which again ties back to another really well known verse Joseph Smith received. This is my work and my glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. Moses 1:39. The glory of God, if we are putting this all together, is to help eternal spirits increase in light and truth until they receive a fullness that's so beautiful.
- [39:17]
B
And the prophet Joseph Smith later again adds onto this. I think he was thinking about section 93 a lot by the time he gets to Nauvoo, he's going to expound on this. For instance, he said that here's how God does it. He said, God instituted laws to instruct the weaker intelligences that they may be exalted with Himself. Meaning, just like verses 27 and 28 affirm, by giving them commandments or laws, God enables eternal spirits to receive added light and truth. And that light and truth, he adds, forsake that evil one. So as beings of light, he goes on, every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning. However, as the Book of Mormon explains, due to the fall of Adam and Eve, all mankind inherit a lost and fallen condition. Upon birth, we are by default under condemnation and the curse of a broken law. According to a couple passages from the Book of Mormon here, like Moroni 8, 24, 2 Nephi 2, 5, etc. But then this verse continues, God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again in their infant state, innocent before God. This is profound theology too, pushing back against some classical Christian blunders.
- [40:29]
A
Right.
- [40:30]
B
So because of the redemption of Christ, all mankind begin mortality completely innocent before God in their infant state. So as the Book of Mormon says, all little children are alive in Christ, but that strong beginning is no guarantee of future purity. Right. Because as we begin to grow up, he says, quote, that wicked one cometh and taketh away light and truth from them, first through disobedience. When you reject light and truth, you diminish and the evil one has more power over you. And second, and this one's kind of surprising, but at the same time super intuitive, he says, because of the tradition of their fathers. That's the second, second way the evil one takes away light and truth, meaning through direct disobedience to God. That'll do it. But also dark family traditions or cultures that sort of entrap children into darker ways, ways that are not consonant with light and truth. That's another way that Satan can steal away light and truth from mankind multi generationally. And you can see where the Lord's going with this as he starts to transition to a chat about parenting. Right?
- [41:38]
A
Yeah. And I never realized how well this lines up with the Book of Mormon. Right. The Book of Mormon presents all the time that there's different types of evil, that there's evil that comes when a person has all the advantages of knowing the truth and then just disobeys, like Laman and Lemuel type evil. They know everything's true, they know everything's right, they just do what they want to do. Anyway, and another type of evil that isn't necessarily the result of a person's choices, but a result of the culture that they're raised in. And again, the Book of Mormon presents this idea again and again that a person can escape their culture and overcome it and become a being of light as well, or they can be raised in a good culture, be raised in the light, and then fall from it too. So awesome, awesome stuff, and such a good connection to the Book of Mormon. And this is where the revelation takes a turn. Up to this point, it's been very philosophical, it's been very profound, and it's talking about the nature of God, the nature of Christ, and the nature of us. But then it seems like it takes a sharp right turn where the Lord says, I've commanded you to bring up your children in light and truth. The past tense, commanded here is probably a reference to Section 68, which they got about 18 months earlier, where the Lord declared that he would hold parents accountable if they failed to teach their children to understand the doctrines of faith, repentance, baptism, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, and to teach them to pray and walk uprightly before the Lord. That's in section 6825 to 28. So it's almost like he spends the first part of the revelation saying, here's what God is, here's what I am, Jesus Christ, and here's what you are. Here is what a human actually is. And then he turns and says, and you're not taking care of the humans that I've been giving you the most important stewardship over which is your own children. And then he kind of goes through and rebukes each member of the First Presidency for being neglectful of their children. And this is a condemnation that Noel K. Whitney is talking about.
- [43:42]
B
Yeah. For instance, in verse 41, he says, verily I say unto you, my servant. Frederick G. Williams, member of the First Presidency, you have continued under this condemnation. You have not taught your children light and truth according to the commandments. And that wicked one hath power as yet over you. And this is the cause of your affliction. Now, for context, at this time, Frederick and his wife Rebecca have four children, ages 16 down to 9, which you know is prime time as a parent to try to teach kids. Right. Sixteen down to nine. He's got Lovina, who's 16, Joseph, who's 14, Lucy, who's 11, and Ezra, who's nine. And so the Lord commands this member of the First Presidency, quote, if you will be delivered, like if you Want deliverance, you shall set in order your own house. For there are many things that are not right in your house. Wow.
- [44:33]
A
Yeah. And then he kind of moves on and says the same thing to Sidney Rigdon, my servant, Sidney Rigdon. In some things, he also hath not kept the commandments concerning his children. At this time, Sidney has. Sidney and his wife Phoebe have seven children from ages 12 down to 1. So you've got. Got Athalia who's 12, Nancy who's 11, Eliza's 10, Sarah is 9, Sidney is 5, John is 2 and Lucy is 1. And again, these are approximate ages, but same thing set in order thine house, evidently, through establishing a family culture of light and truth. Here's what a human is. Here's the most important thing that I need you to do. Take care of the humans that I've placed into your care. Meaning specifically your children. And it's not just Sidney and Frederick that goes get rebuked.
- [45:17]
B
No, he goes on to talk to Joseph. He says, my servant, Joseph Smith Jr, you have not kept the commandments and must needs stand rebuked before the Lord. Also your family must needs repent and forsake some things and give more earnest heed unto your sayings or be removed out of their place. Now, at this time, Joseph and emma only have two living children, ages 2 and 6 months. So I think this is a gentle rebuke. Probably not to the two year old, probably not to the six month old, but also to. To Emma Casey. Right? When he says your family must needs repent and forsake some things, this is a rebuke to both a husband and a wife. Right? You two need to work together. Better to heed the sayings that I have given to Joseph, the revelations, the commandments, the light and the truth. Like together as a couple. You need to work on this. I love how gentle he is here to Emma, but it's unmistakably a reference to Emma. And by the way, he's not just saying this to Joseph and Emma. He makes that explicit. The next verse he says, what I say unto to one, I say unto all. So now what I'm saying is universally applicable here. He says, pray always, lest that wicked one have power in you and remove you out of your place. So. So I think he's using the First Presidency's families as an example. But he's saying this, this applies to all the saints, right? Everybody who's been commanded to raise your children in light and truth, please take a moment and think about how you could Be more in accordance with the light, the truth, the commandments that have given.
- [46:42]
A
Yeah. And lastly, my servant Newell K. Whitney, also a bishop of my church, telling him he hath need to be chastened and to set in order his family and to see that they are more diligent and concerned at home and pray always, or they shall be removed out of their place. This time, Anuhl and his wife, Elizabeth Ann, she usually goes by Ann, have four children, Horus who is nine, Sarah who is eight, Orson who is three, and John, who is eight months old when this revelation is given. So all members of the First Prayer presidency and Newell K. Whitney are basically told, hey, are you doing what you're supposed to be doing at home? Elder Bednar borrowed this phrase, more diligent and concerned at home, to describe, hey, it doesn't matter what your job is in the church. If you're in the first presidency or if you're a local bishop or whatever you're doing, your most important job is within the walls of your own home.
- [47:36]
B
And we've said that for years. Right? I think David O. McKay coined this great phrase, the most important work you'll ever do of the Lord's is the work you do within the walls of your own home. But, like, Section 93 is now explaining why it matters so much. Like, you've been entrusted with these little beings of light and truth. And if you don't do your job well as parents, not to put too much pressure on here, but kinda then the wicked one's gonna have power over them. They're gonna diminish in light and truth, and they're not gonna be headed toward that fullness, the fullness of light, the fullness of truth, the fullness of the Father, the fullness of joy. Joy. All the, all the fullness phrases of Section 93, like, they're going to be headed the opposite way. And that's not what I've asked you to do as parents. Like, on the one hand, case, we got to give ourselves grace as parents. Like, parenting is hard, but the Lord, I think, is focusing on what like matters like deeply here. He's like, of all the other stuff that can, like, fall out. Like, don't, don't neglect family prayers. How many times has he said that here? Pray always together. Don't neglect some of the core fundamentals, what you can do to, like, encourage your children to keep the commandments of God. Like, anything you can do in that direction is what I'm suggesting here. Right. He's not talking about all the sports and all the ways we need to support, like, the financial element and the other things that, like, stress us out, all the ways that it can be hard as a parent to be a parent. He's saying, please don't neglect the core things that lead them to more light and more truth.
- [48:57]
A
The thing about serving in the church is, you know, you're doing good. You're always doing good. And sometimes it's not a question between, like, doing something that's just good. It's like doing what's essential and doing what's good. It does happen that sometimes people get so wrapped up in their church callings that they neglect their own family. And if you look at the historical record, I mean, around the time this revelation is given, Joseph Smith has been bouncing back and forth between Missouri and Kirtland, and he goes on a trip to New York with Noel K. Whitney. And he and Emma have bounced from Noel K. Whitney's home to the Johnson farm, to the Morley farm. And Joseph Smith is profoundly involved in good things. I mean, he's blessing people and building up the church. But I could see anybody making a case to say, hey, are you looking after the most important people that I've given you stewardship for? Not that anybody's more important than anybody else, but we have stewardship, and our primary stewardship is in family, right? And we sometimes fall into that trap. Trap of becoming so concerned with, you know, fulfilling a calling that we neglect our most important calling, which is with the people that the Lord's given us stewardship over our family.
- [50:09]
B
I remember Elder Ballard once said, what matters most is what lasts the longest, and family is forever. Okay, now. Now, this revelation kind of lands gently in case we've had theological really intense highs, some really practical parental rebuke, rebukes. And then how does he bring it home here?
- [50:29]
A
He softens his rebuke, you know, in verses 51, 53, the Lord concludes by counseling the members of the First Presidency. He even calls them my friends and tells them to fulfill the specific assignments they'd been given at a meeting just over a month earlier, on the 23rd of March. So Sidney had been assigned to go with Luke Johnson to Pittsburgh and to preach along the way. And so here the Lord tells him to go on his journey and make haste with promises to follow. Follow. Joseph Smith and Frederick G. Williams had been assigned at that meeting to visit the several church branches as shall be given by my spirit. And so here the Lord tells them to make haste also in fulfillment of their assignment, with promises to Follow. And finally they're told that it is my will that you should hasten to translate my Scriptures and obtain a knowledge of history and of countries and of kingdoms, of the laws of God and man, and all this for the salvation of the Zion. Amen.
- [51:23]
B
So he's not saying to neglect your church calling either. Yeah, right. After saying, please focus more on your family, he then says, now your church assignments are super important. Make haste, go fulfill those. And by the way, learn as much as you can about countries and kingdoms and finish the translation of the Scriptures. And all this is important. It's all important. So just be mindful.
- [51:45]
A
Healthy work, life, balance is what he's calling for here. And again, those are good messages that we all need to be reminded of. He just happens to do it in the most profound way possible. All right, so, Scott, big ideas in this section. And we've already hinted towards one of the big controversies, which is a lot of what's revealed in section 93 runs contrary to predominant Christian thinking. So where do you even want to start here? Like, what controversies would you begin with with regards to section 93? 3.
- [52:20]
B
To me, something that stands out in just bold relief is that there is here a clear clash with, like, classical Christian categorical conditioning. There's a lot of C's in there. And what I mean by that is the difference between God and mankind that Christianity wants to make so profound and so wide. I was talking with someone recently, a pastor friend, who I actually love and admire a lot. We were talking about this and he said, latter Day Saints and Christians fundamentally disagree. Talking about traditional Christians, they fundamentally disagree on the nature of God and mankind. I said, tell me more. He said, we traditional Christians believe that God is the self existing, eternal being. He is the Creator. He's outside of creation. Creation. Because he created, because he created. That means he was outside of creation. And we as humans are fundamentally like our very essence. Our ontology is the fancy word, which is like our essence. We are creations. We are contingent beings is kind of the philosophical term. We're not self existent. We're contingent in traditional Christian thinking because the biblical record says we were created by God. God is independent. We are dependent. God has existed forever. That makes him infinite. Infinite. We had a beginning at the moment of our creation that makes us finite. Right. It's kind of this really big yawning gap between creator and creation of humans. And Section 93 is blowing up all those categories. It just blasts them so hard. And I didn't realize that until I understood how strong traditional Christians feel about the creation and Creator and how they are ontologically different. That's the phrase my friend used. We are fundamental, fundamentally, ontologically as humans. Like our very essence is ontologically different than God's ontology, his essence. Whereas Latter Day Saints, and he rightfully understood this, he said, latter Day Saints, you think that you're the same kind of being that God is. And as I listened to him, I said, you are absolutely right.
- [54:24]
A
I gotta compliment you because that means you have a great relationship with this person. Because in our relationship with other Christians, we usually never get further than, like, polygamy and race in the priesthood and all the greatest hits that people bring up to get down to the deep philosophical differences. And in my experience, most Latter Day Saints and other Christians are talking past each other because we just don't recognize that we are so different fundamentally on this level, but that there are important differences. And really the most profound conversations are less about, well, you know, did Joseph Smith fire a gun in Carthage jail? Then more, well, what do we actually believe God is? What we worship and how we worship are the two key questions that form a divide between Latter Day Saints and the rest of Christianity. Not historical matters, though I guess if you want to argue about those, go crazy. That's what we do. Right?
- [55:20]
B
Yeah. Well, and I appreciate you saying that because I do consider him a good friend. And his name is Pastor Jeff. Some of you guys may know him as the hello Saints guy. He is so good and he's so open to having these kinds of, like you said, this level of meaningful conversation with Latter Day Saints in a really respectful way. He's got great content out there. Go check out his channel. Hello, Saints. It was good to hear it from someone like him who I think is aware of all the. The history, the controversies. And he's very settled in his own Christianity. And so I wanted to make sure I wasn't caricaturing Christians when I said what I said about this clash with classical Christian categorical conditions. Categories. Section 93 is obliterating. Yes, there is one sense, like verse 10. There is a sense in which men were made by him, by Jesus. But there is a, in the ultimate sense that is not true. Right. Verse 29. Man was in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth was not created or made. Neither indeed can can be on that level. Right. We are the same substance as God. Right. We are the same kind of a being that he is. So whereas traditional Christianity sees God as wholly other than his human creations, section 93 declares in, like, 4K clarity, that we are actually of the same ontological essence. We're just at different stages of development. The differences in us are not in kind. The differences are in degree. We just haven't received the fullness yet. But Section 93 is inviting us to receive the fullness in degree. We're not where God is yet.
- [56:52]
A
Yeah. If I were to summarize it, it's kind of like most of the Christian world sees God as, like, a painter and we're the painting. Right. But Latter Day Saints almost never use language like that to describe our relationship with God. The language is always father and child, that we're the same type of being as God. That's part of the appeal of our religion to me, is I've created a lot of things. You know, I've written book books, I've made PowerPoint presentations, all that kind of stuff. But if my book was hanging off a cliff and my child was hanging off a cliff, there's a profound difference in the created relationship between the two. Like, my child is part of me. I'd lay down my life to save my child. My book was falling off a cliff. It's a separate thing for me and not my own flesh and blood. So I don't know if I'd feel the same kind of commitment. Is that fair or is that unfair? Because I don't want to misrepresent them either.
- [57:46]
B
No, I think so. Yeah. And. And for Joseph Smith, this point was really profound. Like, he said, if something has a beginning, then it can have an end. And then he held up his ring, famously, in Nauvoo, and he said, our spirit is like this. It has no beginning and no ending. And because it never had a beginning, it will never have an ending. We are eternal beings. Like, this is really fundamental to Joseph Smith. Like, he. It's so fundamental that it shapes, like you said, our entire view of God and our relationship with him. And it pushes back against a really strongly held Christian affirmation called ex nihilo creation. Ex nihilo means out. Out of nothing. Right. There's this idea that God created things out of nothing. And that's really important for the Christian paradigm, the traditional Christian paradigm, because if stuff existed before God interacted with it, then there is stuff outside of God. So it's really important, if you want to hold this creature creation separation, that you make sure that creation had to come entirely from God. There was nothing until God willed it into existence. Like, that's the paradigm that it started pretty early. It's like second and third centuries with Christians having this ex nihilo understanding of creating creation. And it's to preserve. It's to preserve this gap between the Creator and creation, human creation. And Section 93 says, no, thank you very much.
- [59:13]
A
Yeah. In Section 93's theology, God isn't outside the universe. He didn't create it from nothing. He's part of the universe. And the universe is filled with these eternal elements. Matter can't be created or made, intelligence can't be created or made, but they can be organized into higher form forms. Ex nihilo creation is that there was literally nothing here and God brought it into existence. The theology of Section 93 is that, yeah, there was matter there, it wasn't organized, but God took it and organized it into useful forms, into planets and stars, and ultimately into beings that can become like Him. And that's a profoundly different worldview than most Christians hold.
- [59:55]
B
And I think understanding that really just helps us understand what's at the heart of our differences with traditional Christians. Because the truth is we have so much in common. We share so much common ground, and then sometimes we like to fight over stuff that actually we have more in common than we have difference. But this is a point that I don't think we should fight about. We should just understand that we're different on this. We reject the ontological divide between the nature of God and the nature of mankind. That's profound. I think we can be proud of that as Latter Day Saints, but we should not put down our Christian brothers and sisters answers for that. But we should know that this is a point of strength. In section 93 is the go to place to really get that doctrine. And all of this seems to affect how we solve certain problems. Right. Like for instance. Casey, can I ask you a hard question?
- [60:39]
A
Yes.
- [60:40]
B
Okay. What implications does all of this that section 93 is telling us about the nature of God, the nature of man, the nature of elements, and all this stuff? What bearing does this have on the classic problem of evil? And maybe you can talk about what the problem of evil is, if you want to expand on that, and then how section 90 helps to solve that.
- [60:57]
A
And I'm going to be honest here I am stealing everything I'm about to say from a BYU devotional that you should definitely read. It's by David L. Paulson. It's called Joseph Smith and the Problem of Evil. But let me kind of set this up. Believers in God have a major problem to solve, which is why is there evil in the world? Why does evil exist. If God is good. The argument goes something like this. A believer will often kind of say, well, human beings make bad decisions and that causes evil to happen. And for the unbeliever, a perfectly reasonable question to ask after that is, well, why didn't God just make us so that we don't do evil things? Like if he made us from nothing ex nihilo, then isn't he ultimately responsible for all the bad that we do? For instance, if I build a robot and the robot goes out and kills a bunch of people, am I not responsible? I built the robot, I programmed the robot, and therefore if the robot harms others, I'm responsible for what the Robot does. Section 93 presents a novel solution to this that even my students sometimes have difficulty wrapping their mind around, which is this, that God didn't create part of us. What Section 93 teaches, it says, you were also in the beginning with God, meaning there's a part of us that later on he says intelligence cannot be created or made, meaning it's always existed. And then the next thing he says is that all truth referring back to this intelligence is independent in that sphere in which it was created. Then he says, behold, here is the agency of man. So it seems like Section 93 is teaching that A, we've always existed and B, we've always had some kind of agency. Agency. Therefore, if we make a bad decision, it's not necessarily God's responsibility. He took an intelligence that was there and nurtured it and taught it and tried to help it learn to make good decisions. But if we make a bad decision, it's because of our agency and not because God programmed us to do something different. It's kind of like if you have a set of parents that have a child and they do everything they can to teach the child what's right and what's true. But the child still grows up and becomes evil, becomes a serial killer or something like that. Are the parents responsible for the child? We would say, no, that kid has the right to make his own decisions. And even though they were taught everything that's right, they made the wrong decisions and they own those decisions. That seems to be one of the differences there. It not only strikes at the heart of the problem of either, it strikes at the question of free will. If God created you from nothing, then he basically pre programmed you to do all the things that you do. You are a robot that is running a program under that theology, and therefore you don't have any actual free will. However, if the theology in section 93 is correct. Then there's a part of you that God didn't create and that always had some form of agency. And whether you make good choices or whether you make bad choices, you do get to those choices like they're your choices and they always have been. A catch here might be, and I usually have students, you know, raise their hand and say, well, don't we teach that God gave us agency? Yes, we do teach that, but let me explain that I have a 7 year old and she has less agency than my 22 year old. Agency is the power to act, the power to do. That's the classical definition. My 22 year old can go to college or hop in a car and drive to Nevada. My 22 year old can purchase alcohol if she wants to. She never has. She's a good kid. My 7 year old can't do those things, right? But I'm teaching my 7 year old and knowledge and knowing more will give her more agency. And then let's say when my 7 year old turns 16, I buy her a car. Suddenly she has greater agency. In my view, we start as primordial intelligences that do have agency, but really maybe a limited type of agency, the type of agency that like you can't really force a 7 year old to go to bed, right? And then God gives us agency by granting us more power. Part of it was a spirit body, part of it is a mortal body, part of it is a resurrected body that's going to give us greater and greater powers of agency to do what we do. But fundamentally agency, or just the power to make our own choices is something that was there from the beginning. And therefore we get to own our decisions, both good and and bad.
- [65:30]
B
Yeah, section 93 is definitely putting some limitation on our abilities to choose, right? It says again, verse 30, all truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it to act for itself as all intelligence also. So there is that, that bounding, right? There's the bounding of the sphere in which God has placed it. So it turns out God has agency too. And God can place intelligences in certain spheres in which they are free to act. And I think the upshot of section 93 is to say God has placed us in such a position where we can act in a way that we can develop in light and truth until we receive a fullness of God. We couldn't do that prior to God instituting laws and commandments, as Joseph Smith said, to help us progress. Like him, we were in a different bounded sphere. But God put us in a position so that if we want to, we don't have to, but if we want to, we can persist, pursue this thing he calls the fullness. That is profound. Casey.
- [66:27]
A
What we become is the direct result of our decisions. And the best case scenario that section 93 presents is that you receive light and truth and you become like Jesus Christ. The worst case scenario, you start with the same ingredients, with the same intelligence, with the same agency, you make all the wrong decisions, and you end up like Lucifer. That again, both Christ and Lucifer get to own that journey because they had agency from the beginning. And we have the same potential built within each one of us. That is beautiful and profound and solves so many questions about the nature of the universe.
- [67:02]
B
Yeah, and smacks so hard against philosophical determinism. Right? This idea that we're determined by all the previous choices that everybody else has made and we've made. And we're determined by our biology. We're determined by our circumstances, our nature, our nature, nurture. Like, yes, all those things have influence on us. But there's something fundamentally deep, Section 93 says, that is independent of all of that. Your nature, your nurture, like all of that. Like, you still have a choice. It might be harder for some people than others to choose light and truth in certain ways because of some of the ways nature and nurture bears upon you. No doubt. No question about that. But fundamentally, deep down, there still is a choice, because you're an independent being who has fundamentally been independent from forever. And you can push against your nature. When nature is drawing you away from light and truth, you can push against your nurture. If you've been raised with traditions of the Fathers that have taken away light and truth from your life, you can push against that. There's something in you that can still choose to do that. That's profound, profound stuff.
- [68:04]
A
And that's just one example of how you can take the truths given in section, section 93 and use them to solve real world philosophical problems.
- [68:13]
B
Okay, Casey, our final C consequences. So many ways to take this. Maybe we should start with what Truman G. Madsen says are some of the philosophical consequences. We've already started doing this with the controversy section. But what are some of the profound philosophical contributions and consequences of Section 93?
- [68:39]
A
Yeah, so Truman Matson kind of sets this up as like a. Like a profound question lightning round, where he's just like, throwing out questions that Christian and other philosophers have wrestled with for millennia. Basically, the Section 93 is just like, yep, this is the way it is. Okay, so first question, Tell me how you'd answer this, Scott. How can something come from. From Nothing?
- [69:01]
B
Classic dilemma. Section 93 says something didn't come from nothing because the universe wasn't created from nothing. The elements are eternal. That's section 93.
- [69:10]
A
Yeah, that's the answer that section 93 gives. That's the answer Truman Manson pulls out. The universe was not created from nothing. The elements are eternal. Boom. That's the answer. Move on.
- [69:18]
B
Okay, how about this one? How can Christ have been both absolutely human and absolutely divine at the same time? This is one of the classic dilemmas of one of the ecumenical councils that Christians argued over in the, in the 5th century century. It led to the first schism in Christianity. Not the big schism, the great schism of the east and the West. But there was a schism here over this question. How does Section 93 respond to that? Cayce?
- [69:41]
A
He was not both at the same time. Section 93 teaches. This is the wording in section 93. Christ received not of the fullness at first, but continued until he received a fullness. So he's human and then he becomes like God, meaning he receives of the fullness and maybe tangential, but this answers another question for us too. When we describe Jesus as being perfect, in what sense are we describing as being perfect? We're describing moral perfection that he never committed a sin. We don't think Jesus was perfect in the sense that he never got tired or never got hungry or never got discouraged or anything like that. Jesus went on the same journey we all go through. He just never committed a sin. It's moral perfection that we're claiming for him. And that's helpful to me because when I read through the New Testament as a missionary, I remember feeling I could relate to Peter, but I couldn't relate to Jesus. Right. Jesus is too high up there. And Peter was more of a screw up. And so I relate to him. But section 93 is saying, you know what? He didn't get a pass on all the things that we deal with in mortality. His life wasn't perfect. It was only perfect in the sense that he lived a morally perfect life. That's all that was required of him to be the Savior. But he still has to take naps and he gets hungry and tired and disturbed, discouraged. He was like us in a lot of ways. And that's really encouraging, especially on those days when I feel a lot less than perfect. Okay, I'm going to throw another one at you. If people are completely the creation of God, how Can they be anything or do anything that they were not divinely pre caused to do?
- [71:18]
B
Answer from section 93. We are not totally the creation of God. Intelligence was not created or made. Verse 29. Neither indeed can be. Behold, here is the agency of man. So we believe we were divinely nurtured by God, but not fundamentally created by God in that ultimate sense.
- [71:36]
A
And that sort of shifts the view. So that God is parental. We already said earlier we wouldn't fault somebody whose child made bad decisions because that child has agency. The parent's responsibility isn't to get them to do everything right. It's to teach them what's right and then allow them to make decisions. And Heavenly Father's in the same position. Now. Hopefully one of my kids doesn't become, you know, the Prince of Darkness or anything like that, but the potential is there. President Nelson gave this great talk where he said our job is to love them, to lead them, and to let them go. They get to own their decisions. And that in a lot of ways is profoundly comforting as a parent to know that God kind of wrestles with the same dimensions as well. He's as perfect his parent as we could possibly have. And yet some of his children have chosen to abuse their agency. And that is the cause of mourning to God.
- [72:26]
B
Okay, I got another one. Another classic Christian dilemma. Let's talk about the total depravity of man. How could we be a divine creation and yet be totally depraved?
- [72:36]
A
Yeah. So Truman answers this by saying man is not fundamentally a divine creation, but neither are we totally depraved. Section I3 teaches, every spirit of man was innocent from the beginning. And God, having redeemed man from the flesh fall, man became again in their infant state, innocent before God. There's that unique twist that we aren't absolute creations of God. There's a part of us that's always existed and it always had agency. But, and I love this phrase, this solves so many philosophical dilemmas too. The idea that every spirit of man was innocent from the beginning, and in their infant state, they become innocent before God, that there's no such thing as an evil baby. I guess you'd say that we all get a reset when we come here to Earth. And again, some environments are better at nurturing goodness than other environments. But nobody starts in a bad place. Everybody is innocent when they come here. And then they either choose to make bad decisions or, like section 93 says, they can become depraved as a result of their environment, which God will take into account when he judges them.
- [73:41]
B
Yeah. The Book of Mormon paints a picture of divine mercy toward the children, children of parents who introduced really negative traditions. Right. Like Lehi talks about the mercy that God will show the descendants of Laman and Lemuel because they will not teach their children the commandments of God. So God's going to take that into account. And as we've seen in the Doctrine Covenants, the Lord says a couple times that the parents will be made accountable for that when they didn't teach their children. Right. So the children get some buffer of mercy there if they're raised. Raised in those morally depraved environments, which is comforting.
- [74:14]
A
I'm going to set you up with another one again. These are all Truman Madsen lightning round philosophical questions. What is the relationship of being and beings, the one and the many?
- [74:25]
B
So being is only the collective name of beings of whom God is one. Truman says truth is knowledge of things, plural, and not as Plato would have done, defined it, of thinghood. Truth is knowledge of things as they are, as they were, as they are to come. There are things that are independent of all other things, which is kind of profound. I mean, in the Hindu tradition and in Buddhism, a lot of the sort of Indian based religions from the country of India, all things come from one. It's like everything began as like this ocean of oneness and that individual parts grew out of like almost like splashes of water out from the ocean, the spray, the mist, like the little bits of the ocean that come apart from it for a little while. And then they conceive of that eventually everything wanting and yearning to like go back into the one, into the oneness of the whole. And that anything that is sort of independent in the moment is just an illusion of independence. Independence. It's not actually independent. So this, this problem of being and beings. So Eastern tradition would say there's only one and everything is an illusion that seems temporarily to be independent. But section 93 seems to suggest, no, there are beings, there are independent parts that will be forever independent and always have been independent, I think, is what section 93 is saying.
- [75:52]
A
I'm still trying to wrap my mind around what that means. That is huge, right? That is impactful. You know, that we've always been existed and we will always exist as independent beings. Just sort of changes the way you see everything, doesn't it? I mean, wow, that is enormous. Oh my goodness.
- [76:10]
B
Okay, let's do another one. We talked about this a little bit earlier, but how can spirit relate to what we call gross Matter, or just like, kind of like earthy matter? How do those relate with each other? Casey?
- [76:21]
A
Section 93 just says the elements are the tabernacle of God. So it completely erases this dichotomy, Dichotomy that Greek philosophy really set up, that physical things are lesser than immaterial things, and that ascending means losing the physical. In the theology of Section 93, everything is eternal, everything's good. It's what you do with it, basically, that makes it what it is, essentially. So we don't think that matter is evil or that we're trying to ascend to a higher state, but that everything can be brought up to its full potential. I mean, this is going back to Section 88 doctrine, where the atonement of Jesus Christ not only saves men and women, but it saves the elements. Like, it makes all of us and everything into what it was truly supposed to be, what its highest potential is.
- [77:15]
B
A sanctified earth. Yeah, sanctified creation. A related question I'll just shoot at you as well. So why do we need to be embodied? Why can't we just be divine beings without bodies?
- [77:26]
A
Yeah, why can't we just be ethereal spirits floating around? Section 93 gives this answer. Spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fullness of joy. It makes it sound like what causes pain or problems right now is that we're not inseparably connected at this point. When we are inseparably connected, meaning when we're resurrected, when we're in our final form, we receive a fullness of joy. And that. That's part of. And, oh, there's so much about that idea that I love, too, that right now, the way we experience joy is largely physical. Right? You get to hold your wife's hand, or you get to hug your child, or you get to eat a really, really good chili dog or something like that. None of these things are pleasures that we have to transcend. They're just pleasures that can become perfected. Like, all the good we have down here on Earth goes with us. And then we really, really figure out and achieve what a fullness of joy actually means. That joy is the serious business of heaven, is the way C.S. lewis would say it.
- [78:24]
B
I'm still just caught up on chili dog. Like, of all the great foods that this earth has to offer, you chose chili dog.
- [78:31]
A
Casey, chili dogs are awesome. It's a pleasure. And Jesus, like I said, still did earthy things after he was resurrected. All right, let me throw one at you. If we are being susceptible to life Light and truth. How is it that people err and abuse the light?
- [78:45]
B
Good question. Truman G. Matson. Answers like this. People are free. They can be persuaded only if they choose to be. They cannot be compelled. Section 93 is firm on that. We are free. You can choose to obey light and truth or not. Totally your choice. All right, let me shoot another one at you. The Socratic thesis, Truman, says that knowledge is virtue. Meaning that if you really know the good, you will seek it and you'll do it. Seems to be mistaken, doesn't it?
- [79:12]
A
Yeah, it seems like what Section 93 is presenting is that through disobedience and because of the traditions of their fathers, light is taken away from mankind. Again. It flips the script on so many of these ideas and so many ideas that I'll just flat out say have been harmful over the course of human history. The idea that everything we do is predetermined. The idea that where you come from, which can be boil down to your race or your socioeconomic status, determines who you are. And it really gives us the mental freedom to say no. We're eternal beings that have always existed and will always exist and have the power to make our own choices. God is there as a loving parent who cares about us, who's guiding us, who's teaching us the truth, and desperately wants us to make the right decision, but won't force us to.
- [80:02]
B
Well, Casey, that's not too strong shabby for a 27 year old farmer slash revelator who introduced this section in his history. I just still chuckle at this. All he said was on the 6th I received the following. That's like the understatement of forever. It's like, oh my gosh, Joseph, you're so funny. He doesn't. I don't think he's trying to be funny, but man, I wonder if he.
- [80:25]
A
Was just so stunned by like what was revealed to him that maybe he couldn't remember the context or maybe he thought the context. Context was not the most important thing here. What's most important here is the ideas. This is just a clear and stunning example of doctrinal restoration in action of how if we get the ideas right, then we can get everything else right. So let's review some of the ideas here from section 93. Just as we talk about consequences, first of all, we learn about Christ's nature for the first time. That he did not receive of a fullness at first, but he advanced from grace to grace, grace receiving grace for grace until he received a fullness of the Father. Specifically mentioned a fullness of glory. That's verse 16. A fullness of power. That's verse 17. A fullness of truth. That's verse 26. And a fullness of joy, that's verse 33.
- [81:16]
B
Yeah. And secondly, of mankind's nature, we learn several stunning truths, highlighting how remarkably similar we are to Christ. For instance, of himself, Christ said, I was in the beginning with the Father, and then of us he declared, you were also in the beginning with the Father of himself, Christ said, I am the Spirit of truth. And then of us he said, you are the Spirit of truth of Christ. John the Baptist testified that he was obedient and received grace for grace until he received a fullness of the glory of the Father. And to us, Christ promised that if we are obedient, he says, you shall receive of his fullness, you shall receive grace for grace. Again, of himself, Christ said, I am in the Father and the Father in Me. There's that mystery of the Godhead. But then he turns and says to us, you can be glorified in Me as I am in the Father of Himself. Christ said, I received a fullness of truth, yea, even of all truth. And then to us, he turns and looks at the camera and says, through obedience, you too can receive truth and light until you are glorified in truth and knoweth all things. So again, all of this suggests that the differences between Jesus Christ and us are in degree rather than in kind, that we are both eternal beings of light and truth. And thus that same fullness which Christ obtained grace by grace, we can do that too big if. If we learn to worship the Father the way that Christ did. And these flashes of insight into things as they really are. Another great thing, section 93 phrase. Recover an insight and understanding of the relationship of God and His children that narrow that. That yawning gap between creator and creation that Latter Day Saints had inherited from the Christian tradition and that still persists in traditional Christianity today. Section 93 rejects that wholesale.
- [83:10]
A
Yeah. And finally, section 93 kind of takes these heavenly ideas and brings them down to earth. It's infinite emphatic that this really profound theology should directly inform our practical parenting. So parents are supposed to create traditions of light and truth in their families, which on the one hand, will help protect their children from the influence of the wicked one, and on the other hand, will assist them in learning to worship the Father in the Christ way, grace by grace until they too obtain of his fullness. So, I mean, it's honestly like the first half of this Revelation is an owner's manual. Here's what a human actually is, here's where it comes from, here's what its potential is. And then the second half of the revelation is, now you need to treat your children with this full knowledge that when you're sitting there making breakfast for your seven year old, you're taking care of an uncreated, eternal being, something that has the potential to become like God one day. And so treat that with the responsibility to serves and treat everybody around you. In the light of those profound revelations, that understanding, I think C.S. lewis kind of crept in on this idea, right, where he said, you've never met a mere mortal. Right? It's gods and goddesses that we snub, that we mess with. I'm paraphrasing here. But the potential of everybody around us is that great. And we have to make our decisions with that knowledge forefront in our mind.
- [84:43]
B
One of my takeaways today, Casey just honestly has a dad of five kids. All right, in the. In the throes of parenting right now, in the most formative ages, when you just ended there by saying that we need to help our kids worship the father like Christ did. Grace for grace. The message for me was, be patient with your kids, Scott. Be patient with them. Let them, let them, let them grow. Grace for grace. Let this unfold line upon light and truth. Upon light and truth. And don't expect your kids to have received a fullness yet. They clearly have not. Be patient with them. Understand, discern as a parent where they're at so that you can help them take the next steps on where they need to be. Little by little. Grace for grace. Receiving grace from God, for the grace of their obedience, progressing from grace to grace. To me, that's also a great invitation to patience as a parent. I'm grateful for that. I needed that today.
- [85:38]
A
Yeah. Good stuff to know. Profound stuff.
- [85:41]
B
Wow. Well, thank you, Casey.
- [85:42]
A
Yeah, thank you.
- [85:43]
B
All right, we'll see you next week.
- [85:45]
A
Next week.