← Church History Matters
Church History Matters
172 - D&C 129-131 CFM - Spiritual Beings Are More Than You Think - E46 November 10-15
02:04:11
Loading summary
Transcript119 lines
- [00:00]
Scott
This is a big deal. Heavenly beings are people.
- [00:03]
Casey
We are angels, just in a different phase of progression.
- [00:06]
Scott
Time is not our natural element. We were made for eternity. In actuality, God is a resurrected being, just like Jesus is a resurrected being. God the Father has a body of flesh and bones. What are the implications of that? That's pretty radical.
- [00:20]
Casey
Is the Holy Ghost going to receive a body? Oh, this is a good one. Hello, Scott.
- [00:25]
Scott
Hello, Casey.
- [00:26]
Casey
Good to see you again.
- [00:27]
Scott
You too. We're diving into quite a week, Casey, with this block.
- [00:31]
Casey
Ye, I think it's fair to say we are coming up on the crest of Joseph Smith's teachings, like the highest peak the last couple years of his life when he's putting this big framework all together. And, boy, this section is ambitious to cover in one week section 129 to section 132, which, oh, my goodness, there's so much stuff to talk about.
- [00:58]
Scott
Is it fair to say some of the most controversial stuff in the Doctrine and Covenants?
- [01:02]
Casey
Easily some of the most controversial stuff in the Doctrine and Covenants, but, I mean, it's like the best of the best. Also some of the most beautiful teachings of the Doctrine and Covenants, some of the stuff that really sets us apart from other religions. Some of the stuff that just makes us what we are. So I love this stuff, but fasten your seat belts because we recognize that it might be a bumpy ride for some people as we go through these.
- [01:27]
Scott
Revelations, but go through them we will. So we're committed to doing that. And I would call this one of maybe the most odd revelations in Doctrine and Covenants.
- [01:38]
Casey
I just flat out say it's. It's the weirdest section of the Doctrine and Covenants. I say weird in an affectionate, loving way. I enjoy the weirdness. It's eccentric, but it's also really cool, especially when you start to sit down and think about what the implications are. Here's the context. What we have, a section129 are the notes of an instruction that Joseph Smith gave to Parley P. Pratt and several others on February 9, 1843. And actually, it's similar to some instructions that were given years earlier to the Twelve Apostles, specifically on June 27, 1839. But parley wasn't there. Parley was still in jail in Richmond, Missouri, and wasn't present when the instruction was given. Then he gets out of jail. Then he goes on a mission to England. Then he actually stays in England longer than all the other apostles because he's the writer amongst the 12. He's in charge of the printing operation. And now he's home and he gets back and becomes an editor. Well, he's been an editor for the church publication the Millennial Star. When he gets back to Nauvoo, he goes to Joseph. And Joseph feels like this instruction is vital and needs to be given to him. So that's sort of the broad historical context, but we need to kind of get into more specific historical context or. This section does seem really strange.
- [03:07]
Scott
Some people regard this section, like you said, as one of the strangest sections in the doctri governance. Because in part, I mean, this is the. This is the section about detecting evil spirits by shaking hands. Casey, what's happening?
- [03:20]
Casey
Most of my students can. Can quote this by saying, yeah, if a. If a person introduces themselves to you, you ask to shake their hand. And if they, you know, they know at least that part going from there. And. And that's because this section seems strange without the context and taking a deeper look at the implications of these teachings. So let's go back almost a year earlier. On April 28, 1842, Joseph Smith speaks to the Nauvoo Female Relief Society. And he tells them this. He says the keys of the kingdom are about to be given to them, that they may be able to detect everything false as well to the elders. Then a few days later, on May 1, 1842, Joseph Smith speaks to the general membership of the church, and he talks on the subject of the keys of the kingdom. And in this discourse, Joseph Smith explained the keys are certain signs and words by which false spirits and personages may be detected from true, which cannot be revealed to the elders till the temple is completed. So that might frame section 129 as being something that has to do with the temple. And that raises the significance. Then, three days after that, on May 4th and 5th, 1842, the Prophet administered the full version of the temple endowment in the red brick store for the first time. So from these two discourses that are given in 1842 and the timing of the first endowments, it seems clear that Joseph Smith connected the teachings found in section 129 to the endowment ordinance in the temple. And the instructions included in this section are part of Joseph Smith's growing understanding of temple theology. So if you're looking at this as a temple text, it becomes a little bit more serious right off the bat. And it also. The temple is one of those places where they don't spell everything out for you exactly. They present things and then they ask you to kind of ponder deeply what the deeper meaning is, and I'd say the same thing with section 129, that it appears strange on the surface. And then when you sit and sit with it for a little while, you start to realize there's some profound stuff that's being taught here.
- [05:32]
Scott
So you say this is probably a temple text, not that the section itself is saying that, but you're saying that the timing between Joseph talking about giving the keys, which are signs and keywords, and the fact that the endowment rolls out just a couple days later, you're saying that inferentially, this has to probably have something to do with the temple. Is that a fair way to.
- [05:55]
Casey
Yeah, there's a temporal connection here. Right. The timing suggests that all this is coming together at the same time. And just about everything in Nauvoo is linked to the temple in some way, shape or form. And this is no exception. So I think we can read section 129 in the most meaningful way when we connect it to what happens inside the temple, especially the endowment. It's the endowment ordinance specifically that has the timing that's linked to this. And a note on the source. This is written down by Willard Richards and William Clayton, two wonderful brethren. Willard Richards, an apostle. William Clayton is Joseph Smith's secretary. He's a British immigrant. A copy of William Clayton's Record of the Discourse was included in the manuscript History of the Church and was used as an excerpt for these teachings when included in the 1876 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. So I will say if you go to the Joseph Smith Papers website, you can also read Willard Richards recording of this, and to compare the two is interesting. And we'll pull some of that in as we discuss this as we go.
- [07:02]
Scott
Okay, well, let's dive into our second C. Then the content. Let's read this Revelation. Okay, so verse one, there are two kinds of beings in heaven, namely angels, who are resurrected personages having bodies of flesh and bones. For instance, Jesus said, handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have. Second group here, the spirits of just men made perfect, they who are not resurrected, but they inherit the same glory. We'll pause there for a second. So these first three verses are directly stating that heavenly beings are people, right? Presumably men and women in just a different phase of their eternal existence. This is a big deal. This is not shared commonly among Christians. Some Christians believe that heavenly angels and beings are something different or separate and apart from our. I want to call it our species, that they were created by God as angels, and they'll always be angels. But Joseph is dropping some. Some truth nuggets here, right? They're just, they're our same species, but they're just in different phases of existence. Like they could be angels, which he defines uniquely here as resurrected personages or not yet resurrected spirits of just men made perfect. And you know, one, one Christian observer who came across this doctrine, he noted, quote, I was struck by the fact that the angels of early Mormonism were visitors not only from heaven, but also from beyond the grave. So, big deal, because Christians, and we can add Jews, Muslims, they have their own angel. The thing, angelology, or understanding and beliefs about angels that differs, I'd say, markedly from what Joseph is dropping here. So in Joseph's revelations, heavenly beings are clearly part of our family group. What should we call this species? Just seems like the wrong word. But they're children of God.
- [08:56]
Casey
I'm going to drop a $20 college word, and that's ontology. Ontology is the study of the abstract nature of things. And so I can empirically observe that I have a body, but saying I have a spirit, I'm going into ontology. Right. And the ontology here, which you've mentioned, is quite radical, especially when you compare it to the rest of Christianity, Islam, the Abrahamic faiths, is that angels are humans just in a different phase of development. And that right off the bat is something that we have just become so used to that we don't think about how radical it was at the time. And I'm also amazed that, like, it seems like in popular culture this is an idea that has maybe spread around. I don't know if we're the ones that originated it, but I don't think it would be that weird if we talked to somebody from another church and said, oh yeah, what if your grandpa came back and visited you as a heavenly messenger? I think most people would say, that's really sweet or really nice. But in the theological world that Joseph Smith exists in, this is a pretty radical idea.
- [09:58]
Scott
And then when you look back at some of his other revelations, like DNC27, that identifies the angel Michael as Adam. That was Adam. Or the angel Gabriel that was Noah. So sometimes they even have different names, depending on the current state that they're in. Moroni, Right. That one's explicit. I guess he keeps his name, but he's the same person who in mortality had the record. And then he appears as a resurrected man to Joseph as an angel. We call him the angel Moroni. Right. So Anyway, that's. That's a truth bomb. That's a truth bomb Joseph is dropping here. But. But another thing I want to point out that's really distinctive in these verses, even from, like the rest of Joseph Smith's revelations, is the way he defines angels exclusively as resurrected personages with bodies of flesh and bone. Like, that's actually unique to this section. It shows up nowhere else in his revelations. In fact, angels elsewhere in scripture are generic heavenly messengers, right? No, sometimes they couldn't even possibly be resurrected yet. Like the angels that show up in the Old Testament or in the Book of Mormon. Like the angel that shows up to Alma and the Sons of Mosiah. Famous angel, we call him an angel, but that doesn't fit the definition here, which is interesting. Angel Gabriel in Luke 1. Right. Obviously he couldn't be resurrected yet. Yet, because he's announcing the birth of Jesus and Jesus is the first fruits of the resurrection. So Joseph's delineation here of two types of heavenly beings, the resurrected kind called angels, and the not yet resurrected kind called spirits of just men made perfect, is unique and distinctive from the rest of the scriptural lexicon. And to be frank, Casey, I don't know why this mattered to Joseph in this instance because he gives not a lot of context. Maybe you have a thought about that, maybe not. But I'm not sure why he goes so specific here with angels being resurrected beings. Do you?
- [11:37]
Casey
It's because his experiences. Right. Almost all the angels that he has worked with are resurrected beings. And if we're walking through the angels of the restoration, Moroni, John the Baptist, Peter, James and John in the Kirtland Temple, Moses, Elias and Elijah, these are all people. Elias is maybe up for grabs a little bit, but that have known biographies, lived amazing lives, and have now returned from beyond the grave. Like I think about the late M. Russell Ballard, who. He was on a radio show in Toronto when he was mission president there, and they were talking to him about the Christian faith and everything. And he said something that I thought was kind of interesting. This is in his book, Our Search for Happiness, where he goes, everybody knows that Jesus was resurrected. That's like a major part of the Christian faith, right? But on our temples, sometimes we'll put statues of somebody else that got resurrected. It's almost like a temple is saying, yes, Jesus lives. Did you know this guy got resurrected too? Like, did you know that the resurrection isn't just a singular miracle associated with Jesus Christ, It's a promised blessing given to everyone. Everyone that's ever Lived that there is life after death. And saying that angels not only live that there's life after death, but that they're involved in what's going on, that you don't just kind of lose your connection to all earthly things is a pretty great innovation. It's a beautiful idea to think that my loved ones could still come back and act as angelic messengers to me, either as resurrected beings or as the spirits of just men and women made perfect.
- [13:19]
Scott
Yeah, that's good. I like that. Great thought.
- [13:22]
Casey
So I'm going to pick it up. This is where it gets strange, right? Okay. So so far, everybody's okay with angels, right? But verse four is where it gets a little odd, I guess you'd say. When a messenger comes saying he has a message from God, offer him your hand and request him to shake hands with you. If he be an angel, he will do so, and you will fill his hand. If he be the spirit of a just man made perfect, he will come in his glory, for that is the only way he can appear. Ask him to shake hands with you, but he will not move because it is contrary to the order of heaven for a just man to deceive. But he will still deliver his message. If it be the devil, an angel of light, when you ask him to shake hands, he will offer you his hand, and you will not feel anything. You may therefore detect him. These are the three grand keys, whereby you may know whether any administration is of God. That's strange, right? Because if you're like me when you read this, the major question I had was, hasn't Satan read section 129 of the Doctrine and covenants? I mean, it seems like he's pretty knowledgeable. Like, every time that Satan appears and someone says, hey, you're a messenger, okay, shake my hand. Like, every single time. Is he like, oh, dang it, I always fall for that. This one simple trick keeps the devil and his angels away. Again, that is the surface reading, right? But let's look a little bit deeper. Okay? For instance, we mentioned that there was an earlier iteration of this teaching that was taught to the 12 in 1839. And this is recorded by Wilford Woodruff. This is what president Woodruff records. And I think this opens. Opens up a little bit of our understanding. This is a little bit more useful in context. Okay? So Wilford Woodruff recorded Joseph Smith said there are many keys to the kingdom of God. The following one will detect Satan when he transforms himself nigh unto an angel of light. When Satan appears in the form of A personage unto man and reaches out his hand unto him. And the man takes hold of his hand and feels no substance, he may know that it is Satan. For an angel of God, which is an angel of light, is a saint with his resurrected body. And when he appears unto man and offers him his hand, and the man feels a substance when he takes a hold of it, as he would in shaking the hands with his neighbor, he may know that it is an angel of God. And should a saint appear unto a man whose body is not resurrected, he will never offer him his hand, for it would be against the law by which they are governed. And by observing this key, we may detect Satan that he deceiveth not so President Woodruff's recording of this states that angels who are not resurrected do not extend their hand because, in his words, it would be against the law by which they are governed. Which sort of echoes verse 7 in section 129. This suggests that resurrected beings, the spirits of the just, and I'm going to add in here, deceiving spirits, all do certain actions because they are compelled to do so by eternal law. In other words, the way Wilford Woodruff is describing it is that a just man doesn't. Doesn't fail to extend his hand because he doesn't want to. Like he's playing a joke on you or something like that. Joseph says it's against the law. Like he can't do it. It's against eternal law because it would be deceptive. I don't know. You know, he does say that. What's the wording in section 129? He says it is contrary to the order of heaven for a just man to deceive. So it seems like he's suggesting that the action isn't taken not because of the person's personal volition, but because the way things work, he's not allowed to. And this lines up with another teaching of Joseph Smith, and that is that even evil spirits are still subject to divine law. The spirits who follow Satan, in other words, are still subject to the laws of God. Another teaching of Joseph Smith that you can find in the Times and Seasons, the church newspaper, April 1, 1842. He says this. It would seem that wicked spirits have their bounds, limits and laws by which they are governed or controlled, and know their future destiny. Hence those that were in the maniac said to our Savior, Thou art come to torment us before the time. He's making reference to that story told in the four Gospels, where Jesus approaches a man that's Possessed by evil spirits. And the spirits a, recognize who Jesus is, meaning evil spirits don't have the veil over their mind. And two, obey Jesus commands like they're subservient to Jesus. When Jesus says, I need you to leave, they leave. When they plead and beg to go into the bodies of a herd of swine that are nearby, they do so with Jesus permission. Which seems to suggest. We're not talking about equal power here. That they might be opposed to the Father and the Son, but they don't have more power than the Father and the Son. And when the right laws are invoked, they can't say no. Essentially, it's contrary to the order of Heaven. And this seems to suggest that what we're talking about is not a struggle between equal powers. It's not a civil war, it's a rebellion. Satan is still subject to the power of God. The winner of the conflict is known. God is going to win, and Satan and his followers are going to lose. And devils cannot overcome the limits that God places on them. Satan and his followers don't follow the pattern set for it in section 129 because they want to or because they're so dumb. They just haven't picked up on this trick. Quite to the contrary, they seem to be really intelligent. They're doing it because they're compelled to do it by the power of God. That's my read. I think if you take those other versions of the section, it seems like this isn't a commentary on Satan falling for this one simple trick. It seems like it's a commentary on the nature of law and how men, angels and devils are still subject to that law. That there's certain things that, like, you can't ignore the laws of physics. There's laws of God that are unchangeable regardless of how you feel about God.
- [19:25]
Scott
So interesting. All right, let's move to the third C. The controversies here. After your great explanation, Casey, I still want to say this still feels weird. Not just weird, it feels. It feels irrelevant. Can I explain? Like you said, the first thing you thought of when you read this section was, doesn't Satan know this trick? But the first thing I thought of when I read this section was, when am I gonna need to use this? It almost feels like an answer to a question that nobody's asking. Like a solution to a problem that normal people don't ever have. I don't, actually. I'll confess right here. I don't have various types of beings frequently appearing to me where I'm wondering Like, ooh, is this the devil trying to trick me? Or is this in fact an authentic messenger from God? And so I've never had to use section 129.
- [20:25]
Casey
Not yet.
- [20:26]
Scott
Yeah, Y. Yeah, like a lot of scriptural principles are pretty applicable, but like this one, I don't know. Help me out here.
- [20:34]
Casey
I get it. Right. And full disclosure, I have never had to use this yet either. Let me make a case for relevance. And I think this is deeply relevant. One, we already talked about the teaching that angels are humans in different phases of development. That's huge, right? That is deeply relevant because everybody one is going to have somebody that they love die and is going to die themselves. And to know that your work continues, that there's life beyond this, that your significance as a servant of God endures into the next life, is hugely significant. So I'm going to say section 129 is relevant just for that reason. But now let me go after the handshake section part.
- [21:15]
Scott
Yes, please.
- [21:17]
Casey
So among philosophy people, there is this idea of dualism, which. Dualism is the philosophical idea of is there an equal amount of good and evil in the universe? Like, which predominates, Good or evil? And I also think Section 129 answers that question, which is deeply relevant. If we're reading it the way that we've talked about it, it's basically saying that there isn't an equal amount of good and evil. And if you on a whiteboard were to write God and then on the other side write Satan, would you write greater than, less than or equal to greater than Right. God is greater than Satan, there's no doubt about that. And this isn't a war between equal power. Now, taking that further, that means that good is the default setting of the universe, that evil is an aberration, and that it's not normal for evil to exist. That when we look out at the world and we see all the weird stuff that's happening. Well, I should say all the evil stuff that's happening, all the bad stuff, that. That is abnormal. That the default setting of the universe is goodness and harmony. There's this great essay by CS Lewis where he talks about good and evil, and he says evil is not the oppos opposite of good. The opposite of good is nothing. Take away all the good, there's nothing left. Right.
- [22:41]
Scott
Doesn't he say that badness is just spoiled goodness? It's goodness gone bad. And so it's a derivative. Right. It had to be good before you could get bad, because it's A derivative badness is. He calls it a parasite. That's such a good essay. Anyway, I love that.
- [22:56]
Casey
Yeah, it's goodness spoiled. Like, if we take Satan, Lucifer, old scratch, the devil himself, does he still have good qualities? Yeah, he's persuasive. Right. He's smart. It seems like he's a really hard worker. From what I can tell, those are all good things. Take away everything that's good and what's left? Nothing.
- [23:14]
Scott
Really.
- [23:14]
Casey
Good is the default setting of the universe and evil is an aberration of good. And that seems to be what section 129 is communicating. That as long as you follow these laws or these keys that Joseph Smith is setting out, you walk away from section 129 with confidence, knowing that if we also put you and Satan up here and put a greater than, less than or equal to, if you have the knowledge of God, you are greater than Satan too. Like, you can invoke his laws and use his laws to stymie the power that the adversary exercises on the earth. And you see the same thing in the New Testament. Right. Jesus casts out devils, but he also tells his apostles, I'm going to teach you to do the same thing. The apostles are mortal human beings, just like you and me. And section 120 just reinforces this idea again, that normalcy is good, evil is aberrational, evil is strange, evil is weird. Evil is not the way things that are supposed to work. That dualism is a false tenet that there's not an equal amount of good and evil in the universe. Good is the overwhelming substance of the universe, and evil is, well, a little goodness that's spoiled here and there, but not normal.
- [24:25]
Scott
And isn't dualism also used that word philosophically to talk about kind of the mind and body, not paradox. But is there really a mind? Are we dual beings or are we one? You're saying there's also a branch where it's about the goodness and the badness in the universe as well.
- [24:44]
Casey
Yeah. Again, it goes back to that question of is this a civil war between equal powers or is it a rebellion of a weaker power against an overwhelmingly greater power? And section 129, he just states, matter of factly, that if you do this, you'll know that they're an evil spirit. Spirit. Because it seems like they don't have any choice in the matter. Like, Satan can't try to, you know, he can't like, say, I can't shake your hand or something like that. He's compelled by eternal law to do what he does here. And in that sense, you'll always have an advantage over him.
- [25:16]
Scott
Okay, so to restate what you're saying here, then, the value. Even though I might not have to use this particular skill set, I haven't had to use it yet in 45 years. But, uh, the. The point that section 129 is making pretty well is that evil is bounded, right? It is bounded within, like eternal law. There are certain bounds which evil cannot cross. And if you ally yourself with God, then you're going to have the kind of knowledge necessary to overcome the evil. And you know, you're going to be part of that victorious group. It's not a. It's not a civil war against equal power. But without aligning yourself with the kingdom of God and these keys of the kingdom, as Joseph called them, you are vulnerable and susceptible to the influence of the devil. But when you're allying yourself with the kingdom and the keys of the kingdom and the knowledge that is available in the kingdom, you're on much safer ground. Is that fair?
- [26:15]
Casey
Yeah. I may be still a little buzzed from our conversation with Jonathan Stapley, but it's a cosmology, right?
- [26:22]
Scott
Right.
- [26:22]
Casey
The way Jonathan defines it. If you look at Section 129 as an instruction, to you, it does seem bizarre, right? Like something you'll never use. But if you look at section 129 as a peek into Joseph Smith's cosmology, how he sees the universe, it becomes really powerful that mankind is the same type of being as an angel. We're not a little lower than the angels. Like Shakespeare expressed it, we are angels just in a different phase of progression. And it's playing into the great last theme of Joseph Smith's teachings, which is that humans, angels and God are the same kind of being, just in different phases of development. And he's going to take the idea even further when we get to section 130. But its final and furthest form is the King Follett sermon, which is given just a couple months before Joseph Smith's death. But, yeah, that theme is, we're not the same as God, but we're the same kind of being as God. An acorn doesn't seem like an oak tree. If you didn't know anything about either one of them, you'd never look at an acorn and go, that's an oak. Oak tree. But it's the same type of being, and one can become the other, given the right conditions, given the right nourishment as we'd say. So this is us tiptoeing down that road to that grand final truth that angels, humans and God are of the same kind, which is a really important piece of cosmology that really does set us apart from other religious traditions and.
- [27:49]
Scott
Lays the groundwork for the fullness of our temple theology to be understood. Right. That's where everything is headed. And so. Okay.
- [27:58]
Casey
All right, Scott, So let's talk consequences of section 129. What are the consequences we take away from this?
- [28:04]
Scott
Humans, angels, gods? We are ontologically like one. Now, that's radical. That is wildly radical and not shared by hardly anyone else. My good friend, I was talking to him once. He's an evangelical, great guy. I said, why is it that. That Christians take so much umbrage against Latter Day Saints for this belief that we can become like God? And he said, because in Christianity, traditional Christianity, we believe in a very strong division between creator and the created, and that the creation, the creation cannot become like the Creator. And when Latter Day Saints say that, it just. It strikes us as off. Right, listen, like, we get that we do have a very different assumption than that we do not believe in the Creator. Creation divide. Section 93 has already obliterated that. But now, right, we're in section 129. And now we're going to section 130 real shortly here. And then when we get to the temple and the King Fallet discourse, like, really like Latter Day Saints are committed to this idea that we are of the same type of being, that God is. And angels are one form of development on that path. Right. Resurrected beings. So that's fascinating. And then secondly, I think we do want to say, and I don't know what detail we can go into, but. But elements of this teaching, even like the handshakes and calling that like the keys or signs like Joseph called it, does make it into our temple liturgy. That. That is part of the endowment liturgy. I think SEC. Connecting section 13 with section 129 and what Joseph said about these being keys of detecting false messengers is a. Is a. A fruitful rabbit hole to go down.
- [29:51]
Casey
Yeah. I mean, this is. I'm loving this word. But part of the cosmology of the temple, right, Is the idea that there are humans and angels and devils and it's all part of the work of God. And here's how they all kind of fit together, that it's valuable and most valuable when you look at it from that standpoint. So good stuff.
- [30:12]
Scott
Okay, let's head to section 130. Drop us into our first C here, Casey. This is a really good, rich and diverse section of the Doctrine and covenants.
- [30:26]
Casey
Section 130 is basically Q and A with Joseph Smith, which he must have been the most fascinating person to sit down and talk to. And it also shows you a little bit about the type of questions the saints were asking. Like, when I'm in a Q and A, I usually don't ask stuff like, hey, what's the reckoning of the planet where God, angels and stuff live? But. But the saints are asking stuff like this. So here's a little bit of the context. So it's April 1843, April 1st. Joseph Smith travels to this little settlement called Ramos, Illinois. Ramos is a Latin word that literally just means branch. And you and I have been to Ramos together. Like, we went there on a field trip.
- [31:07]
Scott
Not a typical stopping point on a church history trip. There's not much there, but we still wanted to go.
- [31:12]
Casey
Most people don't make it because there is no, like, plaque. There's literally like a red door in the middle of a field with some spray painted lettering on it that says, this is where Ramos, Illinois was. I think it's called Webster, Illinois today too.
- [31:29]
Scott
But Joseph Smith's sisters also are buried there. So that was cool. That was cool to see their graves.
- [31:35]
Casey
Yeah, we went and we found Catherine's grave, I think, while we were there, didn't we? And Sophronia lives there too. Sophronia McCleary, who's Joseph Smith's sister. We don't talk a lot about his sisters. We should then, like Benjamin and Melissa Johnson lived there. And Joseph travels here in April 1843. He takes along William Clayton, his secretary. He also takes along the apostle Orson Hyde. And the morning after their arrival, Orson Hyde gives a discourse to the saints in Remus, where he uses 1 John 3:2 and John 14:3 as the basis for his speech. Now, both texts discuss what it's like to come into the presence of the savior. For instance, 1 John 3:2 written reads, Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be. But we know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. And then John 14:3 says, and if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also. So after sharing these scriptures, Orson Hyde gets up and he's talking about the Second Coming. And he said something like, when he shall appear we shall be like him, and he will appear on a white horse as a warrior. And maybe we shall have some of the same spirit. Our God is a warrior. And then Orsonheid added this phrase, which really sets off section 130. It is our privilege to have the Father and the Son dwelling in our hearts. And Joseph Smith's history records that after this discourse given in the morning, he dines with his sister Sophronia. And Elder Hyde is there too. And this is what it says in the history. He says, I told Elder Hyde that I was going to offer some corrections to a sermon this morning. And he replied that they would be thankfully received. So Joseph Smith gets up and gives the discourse that is canonized as Section130. And then later on in the afternoon, he kind of does a question and answer which becomes part of section 132. In fact, you can kind of bring break section 130 down into three basic parts. Verses 1 through 3 come from Joseph's teachings in the afternoon meeting 7 through 17 are the Q and A on various topics delivered in the afternoon and evening meetings. And then verses 18 through 23 come from a discourse that he gives in the evening. William Clayton keeps notes on all these sermons and other conversations held during the trip, and he expands and clarifies the conversations as he writes them down. So after the trip, Willard Richards copies Clayton's notes into Joseph Smith's journal. And while the original notes are no longer extant based on other discourses transcribed, this seems to be an accurate depiction of what was taught that trip to Ramos. So the selected statements that are found here are published in the deseret news in July 9, 1856. And then in 1876, Orson Pratt, acting under the direction of Brigham Young, puts these into the Doctrine and Covenants too. And thank goodness they do. Like, what a great addition. They're so, so much neat stuff in section 130 that I can't even get over it. And so, yeah, that sort of a long context. But an interesting. Here's what it would be like to spend the day with Joseph Smith. Here's some of the things you talk about. Here's some of the answers he would give. Here's how he treats the people around him. I love the fact that he goes to Orson Hyde and says, hey, can I correct some of the things that you said? And Orson says, thankfully, yes, please do. That's the kind of relationship they had.
- [35:19]
Scott
Well, first of all, I am very grateful that Orson Hyde taught false doctrine that day, because if he does, if he doesn't teach the false doctrine. We're not getting some of these gems that we have here. And then second of all, super grateful for William Clayton for having the wherewithal to write it down. His notes just in that meeting become part of our scriptures. Like, I don't think he thought that's what he was doing, but that's eventually what happens with his note. So great job, William Clayton, and thank you, Orson Hyde. Okay, so let's go to our second C here. Now, the content. So verses one through three are. This is. This is Joseph's direct correction of Orson Hyde's false doctrinal teachings. Let's get into it. Verse 1. When the Savior shall appear, we shall see him as he is. That's coming from that verse Orson Hyde quoted. We shall see that he is a man like ourselves. So presumably he's not going to appear like a warrior on a horse, most likely. Verse 2. 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 joy. Now, from the context, I am not actually sure which of Elder Hyde's teachings that this is correcting, but I will say it's beautiful. It leads to some of Joseph Smith's greatest teachings that are coming again in the temple. We're going to start to really take seriously and have some liturgy around connecting the whole human family through a network of sealing that creates this eternal sociality. And if you want to dig more into that, then I do recommend. Recommend you go back to our conversation with Jonathan Stapley that we had last week. So good, so helpful. But the word sociality here, that's. It's a rich word. It encompasses socialness, the quality of being social, like having a society. And this is directly connected to the prophet's vision of the afterlife. It is a social place, right? It is, you know, like sometimes a popular conception of heaven that comes across is like this, like, stale and boring place. Maybe as a kid I had this perception, right? It's like, is it just strumming harps on clouds and stuff, just singing praises to God? Like, I like singing, but maybe not, like, for eternity like that, right? And it just doesn't feel like there's a lot of dynamic, you know, action or growth opportunities. But Joseph's theology, what's coming through Joseph, especially in Nauvoo, here in this Nauvoo time period, is a very vibrant heaven, a heaven that's meaningful, a meaningful eternal home, which actually is this earth sanctified. With the same sociality, except did you notice the exception? It will be coupled with eternal glory. So it's even like, take your best social moments of your life and then times those by eternal glory, and you start to get a glimpse of heaven. That's beautiful.
- [37:59]
Casey
There's a book called the History of Heaven that I really love. When I was a seminary teacher, I had a question box talks. You know, students could put questions in. And I swear, like, the second or third most common question was, it seems like heaven's boring. Like, what are we going to do for all eternity? And sometimes when people do sit and think deeply about what heaven actually means, if they have that kind of playing a harp on a cloud conception, it does seem like after a couple hundred years of that, you know, you'd start to be. Be turning into mental mush, I guess you'd say. So this is a quote from one of the authors of that book. He wrote, heaven is not dull. It is not static. It is not monochrome. It is an endless dynamic of joy in which one is ever more oneself as one was meant to be, in which one increasingly realizes one's potential and understanding as well as love, and is filled more and more with wisdom. It is the discovery, sometimes unexpected, expected of one's deepest self. Heaven is reality itself. What is not heaven is less real. And that is written by a non Latter Day Saint author. But man, does it capture what Joseph Smith was trying to convey here? Joseph Smith seems to be saying that rather than just sitting on a cloud playing a harp, heaven is the best parts of our life here, magnified and intensified the things that make life worth living, which I think almost everybody would say are the connections with the people that we love, that these endure and become even stronger than they were on earth. So let me quote the Latter Day Saint author here. This is Parley P. Pratt. Parley P. Pratt, I think, is playing off this. What do we mean by sociality? Because sometimes I have students say so, like, there's basketball leagues, you know, in the next life. No, it seems like what he's saying is there's family, which when you think about it, most Christian religion doesn't say that there's family in the next life. I mean, Scott, you and I have had conversations with our pastor, friends from other, other faiths, and this comes up a lot, right? Like, what do you think your relationship's going to be like with your wife in the next life? And because they don't believe in eternal marriage, you know, they kind of have to say, well, I think that they're amazing, but I don't think that. Contrast that with this statement from Parley P. Pratt. Parley P. Pratt says, it was Joseph Smith who taught me how to price the endearing relationships of father, mother, husband, wife, brother, sister, son and daughter. It was from his him I learned of marriage for eternity that the refined sympathies and affections which endeared us to each other emanated from the fountain of divine eternal love. I had loved before, but I knew not why. But now I loved with the pureness and intensity of elevated, exalted feeling which would lift my soul from the transitory things of this groveling sphere and expand it as the ocean. So to parley, he's basically saying, Joseph Smith taught him that we, without the connections, without the relationships of the people that we love, is it really heaven? I guess we can kick the can down the road and say it just transcends everything that we experience here. But it also leaves a gaping hole in the pit of my stomach to say that my wife isn't going to be my wife and my kids aren't going to be my kids, and I'm just going to transcend all this stuff down here on earth. When reality. There's a lot of good stuff about Earth. There's a lot of great reasons to be alive and a lot of joy that's experienced here. And Joseph Smith is saying the things that make life most worth living don't go away. Which was contrary to what most Christian religion was teaching in his time.
- [41:36]
Scott
Yeah. And to your Parley P. Pratt quote, I'd like to add a quote from his brother Orson, who said the following quote. A saint who is one indeed in truth, does not look for an immaterial heaven, but he expects a heaven with lands and houses and cities and vegetation and rivers and animals, with thrones, temples, palaces, kings, princes, priests and angels, with food, raiment, musical instruments, all of which are material, indeed, the saints. Heaven is a redeemed, glorified, celestial, material creation inhabited by glorified material beings, male and female, organized into families, embracing all the relationships of husbands and wives, wives, parents and children, where sorrow, crying, pain and death will be known no more, or to speak still more definitely. This earth, he says, when glorified, is the saint's eternal heaven. On it they expect to live with body parts and holy passions. On it they expect to move and have their being to eat, drink, converse, worship, sing, play on musical instruments, engage in joyful, innocent social amusements. Amusements visit neighboring towns and neighboring worlds. Why not? So Just a great image of heaven that starts to grow out of sections like this and teachings like this of the prophet Joseph.
- [42:59]
Casey
I've always been amazed that, you know, when you walk into a celestial room in a temple which is our representation of heaven, there's like, comfy couches and, you know, there's tables. It looks like, you know, you could. You could set up a board game and start playing with your family and friends, or you're sitting around telling jokes and talking and stuff like that. It's so comfy. And I love that comfortableness compared to the grandeur that sometimes people try to associate with heaven to just say, oh, it's so much beyond what we can understand. Well, I mean, is it happy? Is it comfortable? Are you with the people that matter the most to you? Because if it's not those things, is it heaven? Like, does it seem that great to do it? And we're caricaturing a little bit here. We're maybe doing a disservice to our Christian friends, but at the same time, too, I like this idea of heaven. This is a lot more delicious to me, I guess you'd say, than the idea of just something that completely transcends all of our thing that, that we can't even begin to comprehend.
- [44:08]
Scott
Yeah, I'm with you. I want to go to verse three here, where I think this is a direct correction of Orson hyde. So John 14:23, the appearing of the Father and the Son in that verse, Joseph commenting 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. Remember, Orson Hydraulic said, it's our privilege to have the Father and Son dwelling in our hearts. Joseph says, no, that's, that's not right. Particularly when you think that Jesus has a body of flesh and bones. And then impressively, at the end of this section, we're going to see that the Father does too, which has major implications which are then teased out in the King Follet sermon. But we're starting to see the seeds here of what's, what's coming. But Joseph's teachings on this matter are clear. Here's another discourse he gave January 4th 5th, 1842. He said, that which is without body or parts is nothing. There is no other God in heaven but that God, who has flesh and bones. John 5:26, says, as the Father has life in himself, even so hath he given the Son to have life in himself. And then he says, God the Father took life unto himself. Precisely as Jesus did. And so you see that Joseph is building up to this idea that the God, the Father, Father also has a body of flesh and bones, which we won't get away from this day, the 1st of April, when he's giving these corrections until he says those very words. So that wraps up his first correction of elder Hyde's false doctrines.
- [45:40]
Casey
Yeah, so thanks to Orson Hyde for teaching false doctrine. You gave us some really good stuff and a lot of stuff to chew on. So let's pick it up. In verses 4 through 17 are the sort of Q and A section. This is questions posed between him in the afternoon and evening meetings. And again, the saints are amazing. Here, for instance, the questions they're asking. Take a look in verse four. In answer to the question is not the reckoning of God's time, Angels, time, prophet's time, and man's time according to the planet on which they reside. What a great question. If a student asked this question in class, I would be mentally high fiving myself, right? Because it's a great question and it's a question of the soul. Joseph Smith's answer, yes, but there are no angels who minister to this earth, but those who do belong or have belonged to it. So he gives a really short, simple answer. Yes, the reckoning of time is based on where you live. But then he adds to it and says, but there are no angels who minister to this earth, but those who do belong to it or have belonged to it. So let's break this down a little bit because this whole thing could be its own mini sermon. Right? There's a lot of scripture that reinforce this principle that time is relative. For instance, Abraham recorded this principle in relation to the Lord teaching him about the fall of Adam and eve. In Abraham 5, 13, it says, Now I, Abraham, saw that it was after the Lord's time, which was after the time of Kolob. For as yet the gods had not appointed unto Adam his reckoning. This seems to suggest that the nature of time on earth is different than the nature of nature of godly time. And in an 1832 revelation, Joseph Smith prophesied of the Savior's return that the people of Zion would declare, satan is bound and time is no longer. That's section 84, 100. And these words seem to suggest that time will be perceived differently after the Savior's arrival. In fact, in the Book of Mormon, Alma maybe does the most elegant job approaching the Savior subject, where in Alma 48 he says, all is as one day with God and time is measured only unto men. So here in verse four, Joseph Smith appears to be teaching that time is relative to the place in the universe where a being lives. And God's attempts to describe the nature of time to mortals are really difficult. Right. Like the analogy I would use is that it's like trying to describe color to a person who's blind. Time is vital and vibrant, but in our present state, we can't perceive all the hues and tones. And the fact that we can't doesn't mean that it's not there. So God's trying to cross the gap and explain to us, but we live in a different kind of time than he does. So perhaps the most immediate application of what Joseph Smith is saying here is that idea that there's no end. Angels who minister to this earth, but those who do belong or have belong to it. This connects to what's taught in section 129, that angels are just men and women, just in different stages of development, like he taught earlier. So, wow, great question. Like I said, if my students had asked the time question, I'd be like, let's talk about this. This is going to be a great class today. So he moves on to another statement as he continues to discourse verse on angels. That's in verse six.
- [49:05]
Scott
Yeah. And it seems like he continues the thought from that question, picking it up in verse six. He says, the angels don't reside on a planet like this earth, but they reside in the presence of God on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord. Whoa, he's got to pause and chew on that. Past, present, and future, continually before the Lord. I remember Elder Maxwell once said that as beings of eternity, we can sometimes feel uncomfortable in time. He says time is not our natural element. We were made for eternity. And another analogy he uses, like goldfish in a bowl, you know, we are in this stuff. Like goldfish don't know that they're in water. But think about God outside of that, right? Looking at the goldfish bowl, we're in this stuff called time. But for God, past, present and future are continually before him. And one day angels and others who reside with God will have that same sort of perspective. That's crazy. Verse seven, that blows my mind. Verse eight. And the place where God resides is a great Urim and Thummim. This earth, being more specific now, verse 9. 9 in its sanctified and immortal state, will be made like unto crystal, and will be a Urim and thummim to the inhabitants who dwell thereon, whereby all things pertaining to an inferior kingdom or all kingdoms of a lower order will be manifest to those who dwell on it. And this earth will be Christ's. So that's a very big Urim and Thummim, in contrast with verse 10, a very small Urim and thummim. We're getting some really interesting theology here. Then the white stone that's mentioned in Revelation 2, verse 17, will become a Urim and thummim to each individual who receives one, whereby things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms will be made known. And a white stone is given to each of those who come into the celestial kingdom, whereon is a new name written which no man knoweth, save he that receiveth it. And the new name is the key word. Okay, so let's think about this. So Urim and Thummim, this is a. This is a biblical word. This was a word used. We've got this with Abraham and Abraham, chapter three, verse one. But it comes up first, probably Scripturally. Exodus, chapter 28, right? Verse 30, Leviticus 8. That there was this revelatory instrument is never described exactly, that the high priest of Israel had. We don't know the precise nature of it or use of it even in Exodus. But this idea of Urim and Thummim, this is very at home in Latter Day Saint doctrine. Right here. Joseph Smith is saying, and I've heard Mike McKay, one of our friends at BYU, talk about theology of seer stones and saying he. He used this verse to say, or these verses to say, we believe that our earth is going to become a massive, like, seer stone, like a sea of glass that is itself a Urim and Thummim that will give knowledge somehow. And in addition to that, that you've got your own private white stone mentioned in the book of Revelation that also allows you to have revelation. Now that probably seemed way more wild and crazy to people who lived in the 1800s, Casey, than you and me who have. It's not a white stone, but I have melted sand that has been turned into a thing that I can look and I can find information. And now with AI, it's like, oh, my word. Obviously all that's pretty rudimentary compared to what the Lord's describing here. But we're starting to make progress along those lines of looking into an instrument to gain knowledge, a personal one, and the globe itself. Somehow, in a way I don't fully understand, but so fascinating.
- [52:47]
Casey
I Love this kind of mechanics. It's like he's trying to explain technology too advanced to us. You know that Arthur C. Clarke quote that's in the movie Thor, that any technology sufficiently advanced would appear to be magic to people. Again, we're using our context to try and describe it. You're making it sound like God's going to give you an iPhone, Infinity or an Android, whatever you prefer. But it is interesting that Joseph Smith is kind of getting into the nitty gritty of the next life. Like how we do things, how knowledge appears, and it reinforces that idea too. That's taught throughout the Doctrine and Covenants, which is, it's not just about the salvation of humans, it's the salvation of their ecosystem. Like, everything around us is transformed, including the earth itself. And the earth literally becomes an instrument of revelation, which. Yeah.
- [53:42]
Scott
And by the way, it's interesting to like, this seems pretty esoteric and like, kind of out there stuff. And this, I would, I will say this. This was not what Joseph prepared to teach on that day. This is the stuff that he thought, oh, everybody needs to know. Know this. But you had some inquiring minds there, a little Q and A. And Joseph's like, all right, yeah, let's play, let's go, let's, let's do this. They're asking some really kind of out there questions and Joseph has some really fascinating answers to those questions. So I wouldn't call this core doctrine that, you know, we feel like needs. Everybody needs to know this. The missionaries should go tell the world. But the fact that these, like, disciples in Ramos, Illinois, this small little town, are just kind of asking the prophet, you know, fascinating questions that they've been wondering about to see his answers to. This is so cool. Seamless flow of understanding as they ask the questions.
- [54:33]
Casey
It must have been so fun to be there. And I would compare this to the Book of Mormon where Alma's going around rebuking every town, right? And then he gets to Gideon. This is Alma 7, and everybody in Gideon's doing great. And so you kind of like sense in the text Alma relaxing. And all of a sudden, instead of having to like rebuke them for righteousness, he starts to talk about the atonement and talk about the mysteries of God. I think Ramos was a little piece of heaven to Joseph Smith and he's not sent there to make corrections. Everybody's doing pretty good. So he's going to dole out some knowledge that might not be essential to your salvation but is really, really interesting to know. And provides a little glimpse into the mechanics of eternity. So just fun stuff. So as the questions progress, anytime there is a Q and A, inevitably there is going to be a second coming question. Right? And I want to point this out. The way Joseph handles this is a model of how all questions relating to the end times should be handled. But let me contextualize this a little bit, too. So they may have been asking, because around this time, there was a Baptist preacher named William Miller who had recently predicted that the second coming of Christ was going to happen between March20, 21st, 1843. Remember, it's April 1st, 1843, when this discourse is recorded, and March 21st, 1844, based on his own interpretation of the Bible, specifically the dates, the days in the Book of Daniel. A lot of Christians in the United States were all abuzz about William Miller's predictions and that the second coming was going to happen that year. And so it seems really natural that the people in Ramos would say, hey, what do you have to say about this? Like, what's your feeling on the second coming? And again, I just think Joseph Smith's response here is a model of how we should approach this kind of thing. So let me read the verses. I prophesy Joseph Smith said, in the name of the Lord God, that the commencement of the difficulties which will cause much bloodshed previous to the coming of the Son of Man will be in South Carolina. Carolina. It will probably arise through the slave question. This a voice declared to me while I was praying earnestly on the subject. December 25, 1832. This is an obvious reference to Section 87 of the Doctrine and Covenants which we covered in depth. Go and read section 87. Then he says this. I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a Voice Repeat the first Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art 85 years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man. Therefore, let this suffice and trouble me no more on this matter. I was left thus without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, or whether I should die and thus see his face. I believe that the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time.
- [57:36]
Scott
Which would be. That would be what, 1890.
- [57:38]
Casey
Yeah. Joseph Smith would have turned 85 years old. He's born in 1805. So it would be 1890. Okay, so part one. He's referring to the Civil War. Section 87 again. He's just reiterating, confirming it's going to happen in South Carolina. It's going to be linked to the slave question. We mentioned when we did section 87, that in 1832 when the Civil War prophecy was received, it seemed pretty obvious that South Carolina would be the trouble spot. But this is over a decade later and Joseph Smith is sticking to his guns and saying it's going to happen in South Carolina and it's going to happen because of the slave question. So it's just kind of a mouth of two or three witness of the Civil War prophecy. However, the second part is where I think it gets interesting. Okay, Joseph Smith is told if he lives until he's 84, 5. And instead of offering a definitive interpretation, he does what any responsible person would do. He acknowledges that this prophecy could be fulfilled in multiple ways. For instance, Joseph has received a ton of revelations about the signs of the time. Section 38, section 45, section 133, which we're going to cover next week. But he never claimed to know the precise time time of the Savior's return to the earth. One of his revelations, in fact, declares the hour and the day of the second coming. No man knoweth neither the angels in heaven, nor shall they know until he comes. That's section 49. 7. And in a discourse from the final months of his life, Joseph declared, jesus never did reveal to any man the precise time that he would come. Go and read the Scriptures, and you cannot find that specifies the exact time he would come. And all that say so are false teachings teachers. So he's definitely calling out William Miller here and basically saying, anybody that's giving too many specifics is probably a false teacher. And to me, that's responsible eschatology. Right. He's describing the second coming and saying, here's what I know, but here's a couple possible ways that that could play out. And when we read prophetic materials about the second coming, it's responsible for us to look at it as and say, well, here's one way that could happen, or another way it could happen, or another way it could happen. We believe that there will be a second coming. But where we get into trouble is when we try and get really specific in trying to interpret the signs that God has given to us.
- [60:09]
Scott
Yeah, William Miller dialed it into within this year. And by the way, I don't know if we have to say this or not, but that prediction failed. Jesus didn't come that year. And by the way, but when, when that prophecy failed, his followers Then recalculated a new date of October 22, 1844. And so they're like, let's just move the goalposts a little bit. And then when that day passed without incident, then a period of profound disappointment known as the Great Disappointment actually followed. You can Google it. Great Disappointments about William Miller's failed prophecy. That event actually led, leads to, by the way, a scattering of his followers and a remnant forms the basis of what is known as the Seventh Day Adventist Church today. So that's kind of fascinating. But by the way, they no longer set specific dates for Christ's return, which is the good news.
- [61:05]
Casey
Yeah. And lest we misrepresent our Adventist friends, I think they do have an explanation for why the second Coming didn't happen that day. We're not criticizing them. We're just saying it didn't happen the way most people thought it was going to happen. Take that for what it's worth.
- [61:21]
Scott
And Joseph Smith, maybe he was being a little more direct when he says those who say so are false teachers. So maybe he is. He's doing a little calling out here. He says, go read the Scriptures. And you cannot find anything that specifies the exact time he would come. But a lot of people think if you just crunch the numbers. Right. In the Book of Daniel and in the book of Revelation, I see members of our church, Church Casey, that sometimes are susceptible to this. There's. There's some popular YouTube videos that people go into, like, but this. And then this. And then if you look at the verse like this and this number of years and like this, it's like, you know, bless you for being so interested in the Second coming. People in Joseph Smith's day shared that interest. But since Jesus, since Jesus until our day, like, it's been pretty emphatic from prophets all the way up that we don't know. And I will say, by the way, that when Jesus, when Joseph Smith says, I was left not knowing what he meant by 85 years, and that some people have tried to criticize Joseph for that and say he said the second coming would be in 1890 and it didn't happen, therefore he's a false prophet. And I just kind of chuckle at that. Because if you want to see what Joseph Smith looks like when he's prophesying with confidence, look at verse 12 and 13. I prophesy in the name of the Lord, Lord, that this is what's going to happen previous to the bloodshed. It's going to come out of the South Carolina somehow. He's Being so clear and explicit. And then when he talks about the second coming, he's like, I don't know. A voice once said this to me, and I don't know what that means. So I think that that's not fair to say that he's prophesying 1890. Although church members did take a hint from this, and a lot of them thought it would happen. Wilford Woodruff was like, maybe it's got happen in 1890. And I don't know if I have to say this, but it didn't happen in 1890.
- [63:05]
Casey
There was some kind of divine appearance in 1890. That's when official declaration one is issued which ends the practice of plural marriage. And in the discourses that accompany that that are included as additional material in the Doctrine and covenants, President Woodruff does say, the Savior showed me what would happen if we didn't end the practice of plural marriage. But then his three things are, that might be the second coming, and it might be a personal appearance, and I might die and go and meet with him. I'm saying, what if the personal appearance theory is the one that was born out? True, because apparently there was some sort of visionary experience that Wilford Woodruff has. That's the context he uses to describe the decision to end the practice of plural merit. So I'm just putting that out there. It still happened in 1890. The bottom line here is that Joseph Smith is responsible. He doesn't like, lock in if he doesn't know the answer. He says, here's a couple possible ways that could be fulfilled.
- [63:59]
Scott
Okay, very good. Well, let's. Let's go to now the end verses, verses 18 to 23, which are given during that evening meaning. As you pointed out, Joseph said in his history. He says, at the close of the afternoon meeting, we expected to start for Carthage, but the bad weather prevented. So I called another meeting in the evening. And by the way, I. Again, I'm thankful for bad weather because during that meeting, we got some serious precious gems. For instance, verse 18, whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection. And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come. That's cool, right? Joseph's teaching that intelligence is something to be sought after and developed here because it was, will actually give us an advantage there. And there's actually a lot of revelations that are given to the prophet Joseph that reference the importance of education. I'm thinking like School of the prophets in section 88, when that's first founded there, section 93, other places, just commanding them to study, be diligent. Does that have an impact here? 100%. But now Joseph is saying, and it also gives you an advantage in the world to come. In fact, here's an interesting quote from elder Dieter F uchtdorf who summarizes this nicely. He said, for members of the church, education is not merely a good idea, it's a commandment. It's a commandment. And Joseph suggested that intelligence is gained not just through education, but if you notice carefully there in verse 19, it's also through diligence and obedience. There's a certain kind of understanding that comes through diligence and obedience. Some lessons are learned in the class classroom and others are learned through the work of keeping God's commandments and enduring to the end. There are insights that can be gained in no other way. And on that point, let me just drop one more beautiful quote from the prophet Joseph about this. He says, when you climb a ladder, you must begin at the bottom and ascend step by step until you arrive at the top. And so it is with principles of the Gospel. You must begin with the first and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It's not all to be comprehended in this world. It will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave. So what, we start here, we continue there. Again, a glimpse into Joseph Smith's cosmology. If we're going to keep using that word.
- [66:31]
Casey
I like the idea of heaven being a spirit school a lot more than being a perpetual harp fest. I don't know, I'm oversimplifying here, but the idea that what you do in heaven is learn amazing stuff and learn how the world and the universe and everything works, I can get on board with that. I mean, I'm an educator, so I like school. To begin with, like, school's good. Okay, but this is next level. Okay, so, all right, I'm picking it up in verse 20. There is a law irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of the this world upon which all blessings are predicated. And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated. So this is another oft quoted teaching of Joseph Smith that has profound implications. It's just that going Back to. We already touched on this a little bit in section 129. But God governs the universe through law. There are moral laws that are as unbreakable as the laws of physics. And God's laws govern everything from the motion of the planets. Planets which you can actually hear Alma talk about in the Book of Mormon. One of his proofs that God exists is the planets moving in their regular form. Section 88 mentions the same thing. Law governed the deliverance of his children. Nephi says that in 2 Nephi 9, 25 and every kingdom that God creates has a law. That's from section 88 too. And the overarching principle. Principle is the laws work in this way. If you obey the law, you receive blessings in accordance to your obedience to the law. However, I want to emphasize here too that this doesn't mean that our relationship with God is transactional. Like it's not just what D. Todd Christofferson called a cosmic vending machine. Right? You put in the stuff, you get the blessing back. It's true that when we obey God's laws, we receive blessings. Blessings. And as a loving father, God also goes to great lengths to provide us with gifts. Just as simple acts of mercy, like he arranges the sacrifice of his only begotten Son to answer the ends of the law unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And the Father and the Son carried out the atonement to bring about the plan of mercy, to appease the demands of justice, that God might be a perfect, just God, and a merciful God also? So Joseph Smith appears to have been attuned to this idea of laws. Let me quote a letter he wrote in 1834. He wrote, can we suppose that he has a kingdom without laws? Or do we believe that it is composed of an innumerable company of beings who are entirely beyond all law, and who consequently have need of nothing to govern or regulate them? Would not such ideas be reproachful to our great parent and an attempt to cast a stigma upon his glorious character? Would it not not be asserting that we had found out a secret beyond Deity, that we had learned that it was good to have laws? And yet he, after existing from eternity to eternity and having power to create man, had not found out the fact that it was proper to have laws for his government? We admit that God is the great source and fountain from whence proceeds all good, that he is perfect intelligence, and that his wisdom alone is sufficient. And on another occasion, Joseph Smith just states that God is the Author of law. So that's another old philosophical question, like, is God the author of law or did he just discover it? Joseph Smith says it this way. God has made certain decrees which are fixed and immovable. For instance, God set the sun, the moon and the stars in the heavens and gave them their laws, conditions and bounds by which they cannot pass except by his commandments. They all move in perfect harmony in their sphere and order and are as lights, wonders and signs unto us. So he's even saying, yeah, God assigns law to people, that the laws of physics are something that God assigned, and the way that things work in the universe happen in an ordered fashion. So there is a little bit of predictability here, but there's also room for mercy, justice, and things that sometimes allow us to deal with law in creative ways.
- [70:41]
Scott
Okay, so I remember we had a fun time in section 88, doing a deep dive into law and the implications of God being a being of law as well as one who offers law. He obeys it and he issues it. And so if you want to. If you want to go have fun and do another deep dive with us, jump into section 88. And that section, that was really. That was a good time. I really liked recording that section together. I want to end this section. Verses 22 and 23. These are nuggets. And by the way, maybe this is a continuation of the correction of Orson Hyde's false doctrine. Not sure, but it certainly fits. He says this. The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's. The Son also. But the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us. A man may receive the Holy Ghost and it may descend upon upon him and not tarry with him. That's interesting. Is he putting a fine point on Elder Hyde's false doctrine here? Maybe, maybe. Yeah, maybe. But this is the most concrete place in Latter Day Saints scripture to teach that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones. Like I think most Christians agree Jesus has a body of flesh and bones. At least he did at the resurrection. Then some Christians died diverge as to whether or not he kept his resurrected body or not. But here you go. Now you have the Father has a body of flesh and bones. What are the implications of that? That's pretty radical. Like, if the Father has a body of flesh and bones, how does one get a body of flesh and bones? Right. I know a lot of Latter Day Saints. If you ask them, when Did Joseph Smith learn that God has a body just like Jesus does? I think a lot of Latter Day Saints would say the first vision, right? And that's. That's possibly true. That's possibly where he learned it. But we actually don't have Joseph articulating that as a fact until right here. Right here is where we have him articulating that. And so did he learn this in the first vision? Very possible. Did he ever teach it? Never. Not until here, which I find that really, like, this is a gym again. This is such a little gem. Now I want to just talk about how, like rain radical this idea is that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones, because we know how Jesus got one. Jesus got a body of flesh and bones by being born and living a life and then being resurrected, right? That's how you get a body of flesh and bones. You got to be born on an earth somewhere. And this is where Joseph is laying some seeds for what becomes, again, maybe his most beautiful and controversial speech he ever gives. The King Follet discourse. In that discourse, let me actually just quote a paragraph from that. According to Wilford Woodruff's version, his journal of it, Joseph says this about God the Father. This is in 1844, April. Okay. So about a year after section 130 comes, he says this. God who sits in yonder heavens is a man like yourselves. That God, if you were to see him today, that holds the worlds, you would see him like a man, in form, like yourselves. Adam was made in his image and talked with him, walked with him. As the Father hath power in himself, so hath the Son power in himself to do what the Father did. Which was what? To lay down his body and take it up again. And then he says, you brothers and sisters, you have got to learn how to make yourselves God, king and priest. By going from a small capacity to a great capacity, to the resurrection of the dead, the dead to dwelling in everlasting burnings. I want you to know the first principle of this law. How consoling to the mourner when they part with a friend, to know that though they lay down this body, it will rise and dwell with everlasting burnings. To be an heir of God and joint heir of Jesus Christ, enjoying the same rise, exaltation and glory, until you arrive at the station of a God. So not only does mankind look like God, but in actuality, God is a resurrected being, just like Jesus is a resurrected being. And, ooh, Cayce, he goes on in the sermon to say, The God, the Father of us all, was once a man like us and dwelt on an earth somewhere and he laid down his life and he took it up again. Casey. That is a radical departure with most all of Christianity right there. That moment is big. But that is the logical conclusion. Conclusion from this nugget in section 130. If God the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's, there's one way you get one of those. There's one way you get one. You get born, you live a life, you die, you're resurrected. This is how it works, right?
- [75:24]
Casey
If you take section 93 and section 130, it's just hard to come to any conclusion other than what the King Follett sermon teaches. Again, all these sections are kind of reinforcing that point. God, angels and humans, they're all the same kind of being, right? Can I deal with one more thing? That's kind of a personal hobby horse for me, and it's not good to have hobby horses. But Joseph also explains this. He says the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of spirit. And back when I was a seminary teacher and I had my question box, I think maybe the third most common question was, is the Holy Ghost going to receive a body? And so I did dig into that a little bit. And in two discourses that are recorded in Nauvoo, one's recorded by Franklin D. Richards. The other one is by George Lamb, I believe this is the Franklin d. Richards Discourse, August 27, 1843. So several months after this statement, Franklin D. Richards records, Joseph also said that the Holy Ghost is now in a state of probation, which if he should perform in righteousness, he may pass through the same or similar, similar course of things as the Son has. And so, wow, a lot to digest there. One, I would stress that probation isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's always spoken of as a bad thing in our society today. But the Book of Mormon uses the word probation not in a negative way, just that we're on a mortal probation. We're being tested, essentially.
- [76:54]
Scott
So is the Holy Ghost being tested.
- [76:56]
Casey
In the sense that we're all being tested, right? That we're proving ourselves, essentially. The second part where he says he may pass through the same or similar course of things that the Son has. That could mean a lot of things. I'm going to suggest that on its most basic level, it just means that he has to receive a body and be resurrected. Then here's the other discourse. This one's from June 16, 1844. George Lamb, he recorded that Joseph taught, but the Holy Ghost is yet a spiritual body and waiting to take upon himself a body as the Savior did, or as God did, or as the gods before them took bodies. So that seems to suggest that he's going through the process and he's not going to do the same thing Jesus did, as in be a messianic figure or a person that carries out a proxy atonement, just that he's going to come, receive a body and go back to God. And again, I find this endlessly fascinating. Usually when students bring up the question of will the Holy Ghost get a body? I do landscaping. Right. This is a skill professors use where landscaping is. You saying, I don't know what's over the hill, but I know what I can see, and what's over the hill probably won't be radically different. So I'll sit down with my class and say, a, is the Holy Ghost a child of God? Yeah. B, is the Holy Ghost a pretty righteous person? Yeah. Do you have to have a body to become like God? According to to our theology, yeah. Will the Holy Ghost get a body? Yeah. It seems like the landscape just indicates that that's the case. Do I have a good source to draw from for that? Other than these two discourses? No. Do I know when the Holy Ghost will be resurrected and receive a body? No. But it seems like it would be unfair if the Holy Ghost was withheld from any of the privileges of God. So I think, yeah, resurrection, marriage, family. I do think that it's not blasphemous to just look at the landscape and say, yeah, that seems to be the way that he's headed. But I don't have any concrete source, any canonized source, any scriptural source that says that. It just seems to make sense.
- [78:57]
Scott
Yeah. Good thought. Well, that's the end of the content of section130. I do want to bring up a controversy, Casey, that is really interesting. I was made aware of this controversy by a really interesting article written by CES educator named Ron Bartholomew. It's in BYU studies. It's called the Textual Development of DNC 13022 and the embodiment of the Holy Ghost. And he did a really deep dive. And I recommend this article if you want to go check it out, to where he notices that the language for the Holy Ghost, and actually for the first part, too, about the Father having a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's was not in the original notes that William Clayton took. This is interesting. So let me. Let me actually read the most original notes of William Clayton and then talk about what developed here. And I want to get your take on. Like, how controversial is this, Casey? So according to the original, Original notes of William Clayton, here's what Joseph Smith said. The Holy Ghost is a personage, and a person cannot have. Have the personage of the Holy Ghost in his heart. Close quote. That's it. That's the whole thing of verse 22 today. It says actually a lot of different things than that. And one of them almost seems contradictory, where he says, the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us. But according to William Clayton's notes, what he said originally was, the Holy Ghost is a personage and a person cannot have the personage of the Holy Ghost in his heart. That. That seems a direct contradiction. Then fast forward like a year or two between that time and February 4, 1846. I guess that'd be three years, almost. This is where Willard Richards adds the line at the top. The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's. The Son also. But then he still keeps the same notes. The Holy Ghost is a personage, and a person cannot have a personage of the Holy Ghost in his heart. So you see the controversy. This is a really important doctrine about God, that having a body. And it's a really important doctrine about the Holy Ghost and his nature. You know, that. Which one is it? Can he dwell in us or can he not? The original notes say he can't. But then it gets changed, and he traces this. It gets changed in 1854 under the direction of Brigham Young and Jedediah M. Grant. That First Presidency and George A. Smith, they change it to how it sounds. Now that where it says, were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us. That's it. So then 1854, we get that finalized version, which now is how it is in the Doctrine of Covenants. So you see why this could be controversial. Did the 1854 first presidency fundamentally change what Joseph Smith actually said? Or are they getting at something that's just rounding out William Clayton's notes that he wrote down? Kind of clunky. You know, that's an interesting question. There's more in the article I want to share. But first of all, what's your reaction to this controversy of verse 22?
- [81:57]
Casey
Oh, this is a good one. This is a really good one because, yeah, if you're looking at Clayton's notes, it does seem like what the section says now is the opposite of what Clayton recorded Joseph Smith as saying. And, yeah, if it first appeared in the form we're familiar with in 1854, that would mean that the First Presidency changed it, which I'm sitting here going, that might be their right. Right. Maybe they had a discussion about this and decided that there was something important here that needed to be corrected, and they therefore made the correction, which is their right to do. Like, that's literally their role as prophet, seers and revelations. And part of me, too, is, I mean, on the one hand, I want to say, is this really a big deal? Like, is this how many angels can fit on the head of a pen type thing?
- [82:49]
Scott
This is about the nature of the Godhead. Isn't that important?
- [82:53]
Casey
I'm going back and forth because it was a big enough deal that Joseph Smith felt the need to correct Orson Hyde when he taught something similar about the Father and the Son. And it seems to fit better with what he's saying that he would also say the same thing about the Holy Ghost. So the way William Clayton recorded it seems to be more tonally consistent. I'm trying to think of a good reason why they would change this. And I'm also open to the possibility that there may have been a mistake or something like that. What else is in the article? Like, does Ron say it looks like it was a deliberate change, it was a change that they made purposefully, or if it was something that could be have been accidental.
- [83:33]
Scott
He says it looks deliberate under the direction of Brigham Young, this was a deliberate change. And then this is interesting, he says that in the 1981 edition of the Scriptures, when, you know, this was a new edition that was coming out, they're scrutinizing every source again. He says that elder Bruce R. McConkie and members of the Scripture Committee responsible for that 1981 edition were aware of these descriptions, discrepancies. But they just. They chose. They made a decision to leave the text as it had been canonized originally in the Doctrine and Covenants, which is how we have it now. And so there's like, there's awareness from the brethren about this discrepancy. And so he says they chose for whatever reason, to keep it as is. But the way he lands the article, let me tell you how he kind of reconciles and talks through this in the. The conclusion. And again, I'm not doing this justice. So I recommend Everyone go check this article out. But he says the phrase, were it not so the Holy Ghost could not dwell in you is probably a reference to a plural you, meaning amongst the bodies of the saints, amongst the way that Paul was using this term to the Corinthians, saying, don't you know that ye, y' all are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwells in. In you? You know, like the. We don't have a good plural ye, like Greek does, but y', all, I guess y' all is our. Y' all are the temple, and the Spirit dwells in you. And so. So he. He thinks that this might be the First Presidency, saying, well, there is a sense in which the Holy Ghost does dwell in us, and it's collectively. And so that's. That's where he lands. And here's his conclusion. He says, quote, although it's not possible to know if this interpretation is what was originally intended, this. This collective you by those making the revisions to Joseph Smith's teachings, it does illustrate how these changes helped bring those teachings in line with other Scriptures while still retaining the original intent of the corrections that Joseph Smith made to Orson Hyde's sermon on that day, April 2, 1843. So, in other words, he says this exegesis, this explanation of Scripture here shows that the phrase, were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us, rather than referring to the literal indwelling of the Holy Ghost in each individual saint, which Joseph Smith's teachings indicate is not possible, actually refers to the fact that the Holy Ghost dwells in us collectively as a body of saints or in the church membership as a whole among us.
- [86:01]
Casey
Might have been a better way to phrase it. Yeah.
- [86:03]
Scott
Yeah. Which brings it in harmony with other biblical teachings. So. So that might have been what the First Presidency is doing in 1854, is to bring this in harmony with the teachings elsewhere in Scripture that the Holy Ghost does dwell in us as a body, as a group. Although Joseph Smith's point stands that he doesn't dwell individually inside of us as a being. Right. And so there you go. That's an interesting landing for that article, which I thought he did a good job trying to work through that controversy.
- [86:34]
Casey
And that's a great insight to say that Elder McConkie and a group of people looked at it and decided to retain it, which, again, if the change was accidental, fine. If the change was deliberate. It's also the right of Brigham Young to make that change if he feels it's necessary. And it's been reviewed and sustained by other leaders of the church. That either means that they think this is a more correct, correct way of saying the truth being conveyed, or it could mean that they think that it's not a big enough problem that they felt the need to intervene and make corrections. So either way, I'm good with it. Compliments to Ron. That's a really, really amazing article and really, really cool thing to sort of sit and think about a little bit. But I am sort of, again, sitting here thinking, this is a big deal to people like me and you. Is it a big deal to anybody else? Like the Holy Ghost can dwell at our heart or the Holy Ghost can dwell in us. Tomato, tomato. Maybe we're making a mountain out of a molehill here, but there is a case which you eloquently made for saying it could be a mountain, it also might be a molehill.
- [87:45]
Scott
Yeah. So again, the article is called the Textual Development of D&C 130, 22 and the embodiment of the Whole Holy Ghost. Go check it out. By Ron Bartholomew. Okay, so, Casey, fourth C, Consequences, section 130. What do you want to say about that?
- [87:59]
Casey
Oh, so many consequences, and I'm not going to go through all of them, but let me just maybe share one anecdote. That verse that says the same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there. I was sitting in a class once, and our instructor was joining Joseph Fielding McConkey, and he read that verse to us. And then he said, in reading this verse, I have just tripled your gospel knowledge. And I was like, what? What are you talking about, man? And he goes, well, sociality is such a broad word that he's basically saying, everything that we know here about social interaction applies in the next life. You've just doubled your gospel knowledge, right? Family matters here, it matters there. Relationships matter here, they matter there. I've doubled your gospel knowledge because I've explained to you what sociality is and why it matters here and there. And then I raised my hand and I was like, okay, I get it, but how does it triple our knowledge? And he pushed up his glasses and goes, do you think that premortality was completely different from mortality and post mortality? And I was like, oh, huh. So the same sociality exists there too. And that's a little bit shakier because I could see problems with us saying we knew who our mom and dad were in premortality and were organized into families and stuff like that. But maybe the more base elements of sociality that we love, loved that we cared about people, that we expressed faith in Jesus Christ and we progressed could work. So, I mean, that could be one consequence of this section is it's possible that when you read the sociality verse, you triple your gospel knowledge because we all of a sudden understand how it works here, there, and maybe before as well. So that's one consequence.
- [89:59]
Scott
Well, we certainly had in premortality a father and a mother. Right. Eternal heavenly father, mother. So there's a family structure and a sociality. Yeah, I don't think that's too radical.
- [90:08]
Casey
Oh yeah, that works. Nice job, Scott. You solved it. Well done. And then I would add to that all the other great stuff that you shared too, especially about the nature of God. So if you read through this section, you've learned a little bit about the afterlife, the way time works, how to responsibly approach the signs of the second coming, and most importantly, secondly, a few really important things to know about the nature of God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. And that's about as much meaning as you can get from any revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants. Like, I can't think of a better grab bag of really important truth than section 130 out there. It's just good, good stuff.
- [90:47]
Scott
Yeah. Amen. Okay, awesome. Let's head over to doctrine and Covenants 131. I think we're going to make this the last section in this episode and then stay tuned for section 132. We'll do that all on its own in our next episode. This section is fascinating that we also have William Clayton taking notes on stuff that Joseph Smith says, and his notes become part of the Doctrine and Covenants. Again, I so thankful for what William Clayton for pulling out a pad and a pencil and actually writing things down as Joseph was teaching. Because again, section 131 is like section 130 where we're getting a couple really important nuggets that are, I'd say theology altering nuggets that no wonder they eventually made it into the Doctrine and Covenants, which they're put in in 1876 when so many other sections were added to the Doctrine and covenants. Section 131 is one of the those. Typically those are related to temple or priesthood, and in this case it happens to be both. So talk to us about the context here because it seems like there's actually a couple contexts. How should we approach the context of section 131?
- [91:59]
Casey
Yeah, there are several contexts because this is several different discussions that you like. Said that there's excerpts from each one. So it's not an entire discourse put together, which sometimes people read it as it does have kind of a disjointed nature. Like. Like, oh, he changed the subject. Oh, he changed the subject. That's because it's William Clayton's notes from three separate occasions that happened on May 16th and 17th of 1843. So this isn't really added to the Doctrine and covenants until 1876 with those 26 additional sections that Orson Pratt, under the direction of Brigham Young, adds. And because the context is different for each kind of nugget in the section, it might be best if we. If we sort of break it down that way, if. If that works. Okay, so let's do part one, which is basically verses one through four in section 131.
- [92:50]
Scott
So we'll do a separate. Like a separate context, content, controversies for each little segment. Should we do that?
- [92:56]
Casey
Yeah, it's kind of like three little sections that. That, for convenience, were. Were put into one. Okay. So verses one through four, part one. On May 16, 1843, Joseph Smith. Smith and his scribe, William Clayton briefly visited Carthage, which is the county seat, more on Carthage, coming up to attend to some business there, and then proceeded to Ramos, which we already talked about. Ramos. It's a little church settlement that's kind of in between Nauvoo and Carthage, which had also recently been renamed Macedonia. So according to William Clayton's journal, he wrote that in the evening, President Joseph and I went to Benjamin F. Johnson's to sleep. Benjamin, just I should mention here, is a dear and close friend of Joseph. Joseph calls him Benny. And whenever Joseph was in town, he stayed in the home of Benjamin and Melissa Johnson. And then William Clayton's journal continues. Before we retired, the President gave Brother Johnson and wife some instructions on the priesthood, which instruction, according to William, was in part as follows. He said that except a man and his wife enter into an everlasting covenant and be married for eternity, while in this probation, by the power and authority of the holy priesthood, they will cease to increase when they die. That is, they will not have any children in the resurrection, but those who are married by the power and authority of the priesthood in this life and continue without committing the sin against the Holy Ghost, will continue to increase and have children in the celestial glory. So clarifying what it means to commit the sin against the Holy Ghost, Joseph said the unpardonable sin is to shed innocent blood or be accessory thereto. So William Clayton's journal continues. He also said that in the celestial glory, there was three heavens or degrees. And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood. And if he don't, he can't obtain obtain it. He may enter into the other, but this is the end of his kingdom. He cannot have increase. So it's this last statement in William Clayton's journal that's later excerpted and slightly modified. They clean up the language a little bit. They take out the don't. And included as verses 1 through 4 in the 1876 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. And again, the modifications made here are primarily grammatical with one clarifying clause added in brackets in verse two. So with that said, that's the context text for verses one through four. So let's dive into the content.
- [95:25]
Scott
Perfect. So verse one, and you already read William Clayton's version of this. But let's look at this. In the celestial glory, there are three heavens or degrees. This verse is commonly interpreted as saying that the highest degree of the three degrees of glory, called the celestial kingdom, is itself subdivided into three additional heavens or degrees. But KC going to introduce a little complexity, a little controversy right here. This is possibly a mistaken reading of that text, as it is based solely on the assumption here that the phrase celestial glory is a reference to the celestial kingdom. Now, that might seem like a very logical thing to assume. However, in Joseph's day, as well as in our own day, the word celestial is also a generic word that simply means heavenly, or in the realms above. Right. If William Clayton recorded his words accurately here, it appears that Joseph is using the word celestial in this more generic sense to refer to heaven or the heavenly glory. So in the heavenly glory, there are three heavens or degrees. And to strengthen that reading, we know that Joseph had previously taught this. He said, quote, the term heaven, as intended for the saints eternal home, includes more kingdoms than one. So a subdivided heaven, right? Yeah. And he discovered in his vision recorded in section 76, that there are, in fact, to be specific three heavenly kingdoms within what he terms the eternal world, or the world of glory, namely telestial, terrestrial, and celestial. So we also find elsewhere Joseph explicitly speaks of these three kingdoms as being three heavens, the same same phrase being used here in verse one. So it could be that verse one is introducing a new doctrine here about the highest of the three kingdoms being subdivided into three additional heavens or degrees. But it's also likely, maybe even more likely, I don't know, we can have a controversial discussion about this that Joseph is just reaffirming to Benjamin and Melissa Johnson what he had already revealed in section 76 that in the celestial or the heavenly glory or the realm, there are three heavens or degrees, namely celestial, terrestrial and telestial. And then in verse two, he goes on to then explain what would be further clarified in section 132, which we'll talk about this week as well in our next episode. That quote, in order to obtain the highest of these three divisions of heavenly glory, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood. And here's the bracket the Orson Pratt adds meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. So to get the highest heaven, you must enter into this order of the priesthood, eternal marriage. And if he does not, he cannot obtain that highest heaven. He may enter into the other degrees, but that is the end of his kingdom. He cannot have an increase, meaning according to Joseph's teachings just prior to this paragraph, that William also noted. But not having increase means you can't have children in the resurrection. William said that Joseph said so in this reading, then, the prophet Joseph is teaching that marriage in the everlasting covenant is required to attain the highest of the three heavens within God's eternal world of glory. Fascinating in that reading are verses one.
- [98:45]
Casey
Through four are saying that there are three degrees in the celestial kingdom, which is traditionally how we interpret these verses. Or just for stating that there are three degrees of glory of the celestial, the terrestrial and the telestial. That's kind of a big thing, right? And I think we can put a little heat off ourselves by saying Steve Harper introduced this idea to us.
- [99:07]
Scott
He did? Yes. Who's Steve Harper? Remind our readers who that is or our listeners. Sorry.
- [99:11]
Casey
Steve Harper is like our patron saint. He knows a lot about the doctrine confidence, and we bounce a lot of ideas off him. And we both want to be like him when we grow up. Can we just say it that way?
- [99:23]
Scott
He was one of the scholars on Joseph Smith Papers Project. He was editor of BYU Studies. Very thoughtful man. So when he speaks, we consider his words. And yeah, he's the one that said verse one may not mean what we typically say it means because the way Joseph uses the word celestial is not always to refer to the kingdom, but sometimes just generically as heaven, which would then put verse one as just a restatement of what section 76 already is saying. So that's intriguing and I think that might be right. But I'm open to pushback here. Cayce, what do you want to say about that?
- [99:59]
Casey
It seems like something that I was taught growing up. Right. You would always draw the three kingdoms and then you would draw the two lines in the celestial kingdom to suggest that there's degrees within the celestial kingdom. And I mean, that is how it's taught. To preach My God Gospel, which is an official current correlated publication of the church. You sent me searching through the Scripture Citation Index, which is a great resource. It's free. It basically is an app and a website where you can go in and anytime that a scripture is quoted in a General Conference or the Journal of Discourses, they have cited it. So if you click on doctrine and Covenants 1311 4, you can see all the places where it's quoted. And I just kind of ran through those quickly to see, well, how have people taught it? And it does seem like in the early church, they may have taught it the way that you and Steve are suggesting, but it seems pretty clear that in the recent teachings of leaders of the church, they're teaching it the way most people in the church see it today, which is that there's three separate degrees within the celestial glory. So I'm going to say that the current prophetic leadership of the church members matters, and the way that they interpret Scripture does take precedent. So I'm going to say the theory that this isn't talking exclusively about the celestial kingdom is an interesting historical theory, but given the way that we formulate doctrine in the Church, I just don't think it lines up with what the current leadership of the Church is teaching and what they've been teaching for quite some time too.
- [101:37]
Scott
All right, well, thank you for a great back and forth, Casey, as always, as our fourth C for this particular section, verses one through four, I just want to give a little postlude. There's an interesting follow up to this episode that happens in the Johnson home. About five months later, on October 20, Joseph again visits Benjamin and Melissa Johnson at their home. But this time he actually seals them together as husband and wife, which I think is just a cool. We need to put those two stories together because he teaches them the doctrine and then. And then four months later, boom. Seals them together actually in their home because the temple is not finished yet. So he just does it right in their living room. In fact, Benjamin journaled about this. He recalled like this. He said, quote, in the evening, Joseph called me and my wife to come and sit down, for he wished to marry us according to the law of the Lord. I thought it a joke and said I should not marry my wife again unless she courted me. For I did it all the first time. And then Joseph Chides my levity, he said. He chided my levity. He told me he was in earnest. And so it proved, for we stood up and were sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise. Close quote. So a cool benediction to verses one through four.
- [102:45]
Casey
Part two would be verses five and six. All right, this is nugget number two. Here's the context. So William Clayton recorded in his Journal that on May 17, after breakfast, he wrote we he took a pleasure ride through Fountain Green, which is a town near Macedonia, which Macedonia is. Ramos. It's confusing. Stick with me, he said. Then At Macedonia, at 10am President Joseph preached on the second Peter, chapter one. He wrote Joseph had focused on two Peter one in a sermon only three days earlier and would again focus on this same text in another sermon four days later. There's clearly something in the New Testament chapter that the prophet wanted the people to understand. But what was it? Well, knowledge in another word, maybe salvation in 2 Peter 1. Specifically, the apostle Peter speaks of a certain kind of knowledge which he calls the knowledge of God and of Jesus Our Lord. That's 2 Peter 1:2. And he testifies that as we steadily develop the divine attributes within ourselves, we will not imply Peter's words be unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. That's verse 8. So Joseph gives this sermon, and then William Clayton records. He showed that knowledge is power, and the man who has the most knowledge has the greatest power. Also, that salvation means a man's being placed beyond the powers of all his enemies. So in Peter's chapter, he speaks of degrees of knowledge of God and Christ which advance until a personal assurance is given that one's salvation is made sure and certain. That's the category of knowledge that it seems like Joseph Smith was speaking of. Peter explained that it's one level of knowledge to know that Jesus is truly God's beloved Son. That's the foundation of a strong testimony. But he says there's a higher, surer form of knowledge still. And Peter cryptically calls a more sure word of prophecy. That's in verse 19 of 2 Peter 1 and 1. Does that mean, according to William Clayton's journal, Joseph explained what the phrase means. He said, this is William Clayton's journal. The more sure word of prophecy meant a man's knowing that he was sealed up unto eternal life by revelation and the spirit of prophecy through the power of the priesthood. And then Clayton's journal continues. He also showed that it was impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance.
- [105:06]
Scott
That's verse five and six. Right there. Right. It's that portion of Clayton's notes that. That's excerpted from the sermon, slightly modified grammatically, and then included right there in the 1876 Doctrine and Covenants as verses 5 and 6 of this section. So in context, these two verses underscore the strong relationship between one's knowledge of and through God and Jesus Christ and one's salvation. That's the ignorance that Joseph Smith is talking about. You cannot be ignorant of God and Christ and still be saved. Hmm, this is interesting.
- [105:37]
Casey
And.
- [105:38]
Scott
And I think it leads to some controversies. Casey, should we just jump into that?
- [105:41]
Casey
Yeah, let's jump into them.
- [105:44]
Scott
So the more sure word of prophecy, this is coming out of 2 Peter 1, like you mentioned, there's also another phrase in 2 Peter 1 called making your calling an election sure. Peter encouraged his readers to make their calling election, sure. And in those other sermons you mentioned, the Joseph gave before and after this one, he mentions that explicitly, and he says, brothers and sisters, go forward and make your calling election, sure. What does that mean? Well, same thing as the more sure word of prophecy, right? How do you do that? How does one go forth and make your calling and election sure. How does one go forth and receive the more sure word of prophecy? More sure than knowing that Jesus is the Christ, is knowing that you will be saved with Jesus Christ because he told you that. Okay, see, I guess that's my first question is, is that attainable? Is that something we can actually achieve? And if not, then what's the relevance of having this in the Doctrine and Covenants?
- [106:39]
Casey
It is achievable, right? It is possible. A couple months ago, we did an entire episode where we talked about this. We used another title that's been used for it that's not necessarily scriptural, but it's called the Second Anointing, which is an interesting little rabbit hole to go down. And. And I mean, again, we're not speaking out of turn here to say that this was an ordinance that did happen in the church, especially in the Nauvoo period. There are records, published records, records put out there by the Church that speak of people receiving their second anointing, which was having their calling and election made sure, receiving the more sure word of prophecy, being assured that they would receive eternal life provided why did they remain faithful? So, yeah, it does mean all those things. All those things are connected together, and there's no reason for us to deny it. In fact, it's a really, really neat thing.
- [107:36]
Scott
I think that's really helpful when you connect that to the ordinance that used to be done in Nauvoo, like we have explicit statements that the second anointing ordinance was about making your calling election. Sure. Right. And if you go back to that verse, if you go back to verse five, I think verse five makes more sense when you know there was an ordinance connected to this where he says through the power of the holy priesthood. Right. That's how this is done. It's when a man knows he's sealed up unto eternal life by revelation, spirit of prophecy and through the power of the holy priesthood. So right there you already see, there's, there's the hints of that being an ordinance. So here's my follow up, my follow up question for you then is a, is this still relevant to us today? And is if so be, why don't we emphasize this anymore? Like, I think it's been a really long time since prophet and apostle has talked about this. I think I traced it one time. I think it was Elder McConkey back in like 1984. Don't quote me exactly. But somewhere back then is one of the last times an apostles mentioned having our calling and election made sure in General Conference, for instance. So I don't know your thoughts that this is above both of our pay grades. But like, what do you think? Why don't we emphasize this anymore when it's right here in section 131.
- [108:46]
Casey
This is so sacred that we don't talk about it a lot in the same way that, I mean, we've become a little bit more comfortable recently. But we don't talk about the temple ordinances a lot at all outside the temple. Right. And this could be one of those cases where it's one of those things where one, it might just be difficult to understand if you haven't experienced it yourself. Two, it could be so sacred that it's probably not appropriate to talk about it outside of circles where people have received it. But another thing that comes to mind is when I teach ordinances to my class generally I say, hey, there are two kinds of ordinances in the church. There's saving ordinances that a person is required to receive to gain exaltation. So baptism is a saving ordinary ordinance and confirmation. And there's a whole list of these in the church handbook. And then there are other ordinances that aren't necessarily required for salvation. So you don't have to get a baby blessing in order to be saved and you don't have to get a patriarchal blessing to be saved and you don't have to create a record. When you give somebody a blessing of healing or comfort, you're just invoking the power of God to do something good is the more sure word of prophecy a saving ordinance would be. My question, like, is it required for a person to be saved? If it's not, and it seems like it isn't because one of the big tests of saving ordinances is do we do it on behalf of people that are deceased? It seems like it might not be necessary for us to talk about at length because we have such a big job to do. We've got to get the work done for everybody that's ever lived on the planet, ever. That adding to the already existing workload, which consists of baptizing, confirming, endowing, sealing, initiatory, all that stuff, it might not be that necessary that this is a blessing that's given to people. And it's wonderful and it's amazing and it's true, but it could be something that distracts us from the essential work that we have have to do that it's, it's such a blessing and it's so good. But we've got to worry more about the essential saving ordinances of the gospel. I, I don't know. What do you think?
- [111:04]
Scott
That was a good thought. I remember Elder McConkey again. He's one of the last apostles to really like, do a deep dive into this. In his commentary on Second Peter one, he. He goes at length there as well. One of the things that he points out is that what this does essentially is advances judgment, Judgment day into this life where you can get a promise from God that you're going to be exalted, you're going to be saved, and that you're in that. You, you have proven yourself after all hazards to like that you're going to be loyal to, to God and Christ. And so Judgment Day is being advanced. Essentially. You know that you're going to have eternal life. Now. He said, that's a beautiful blessing. Like you're saying it's a blessing that you can get in in this life. But does that mean if you don't get it in this life, you're not going to be exalted? No, certainly not. Judgment Day is going to happen for everybody. But there is the possibility, Peter is saying that you can have that judgment Day advanced. That's all. So one day God the Father will say to you and to me and to everyone at Judgment Day individually, whether we are going to be exalted or not, like the day will come when we will Receive. Receive the more sure word of prophecy. That day is Judgment Day. Could that be in this life? It can. Is that typical? For most people, it's not. Was Joseph teaching it during the last year of his life? He was. Is this connected to the temple? Apparently, yes. But again, Joseph is. He's putting all of this together, all the pieces. But this is a possibility. But no, I think you're right. This is not a request required ordinance. But what a blessing if it's something that you did have the chance to receive.
- [112:44]
Casey
Yeah. And so, I mean, it might not have been emphasized because, well, there's all kinds of stuff in the scriptures that are there and help us understand the order of the universe and the way things work, but that are a blessing received by very few people. And church policy is designed to do the most good for the greatest number of people. And so it just seems like, first of all, this stirs people up. Right. You get excited when you find out about something like this, but it might not be pertinent right now to your salvation. And so it's a good thing to know. Put it in your. That's interesting file, but don't stress too much about it. I also would worry a little bit. We mentioned this in our episode on the second anointing that we did a little while ago. While ago. But Joseph Fielding McConkey, I'm quoting him a lot. When I asked him about this, he said, those who know don't tell. And those who tell don't know that it's considered to be such a sacred thing that it might not be talked about very much. Because those who have received this blessing don't want to dilute the sacredness of what's happened to them by sharing it openly and publicly. There are settings where I'd be really, really hesitant to share my experiences in the temple. There are other settings where I'd feel very free to share them, especially when I'm in the temple. Right. But I don't want to dilute the sacredness of what's happened to me by sharing it in what might be an inappropriate setting.
- [114:17]
Scott
Yeah. And I think if anyone's interested in having the more sure word of prophecy happen to you, then you do exactly what you've made covenants to do in the temple. That's the path. That's it. Like, you just. You don't do anything extra. You be a good boy and a good girl and you keep the covenants that you made and you repent when you mess up and you continue to move forward. And that's the path. So again, whether it's in this life or the next, that doesn't matter. But the day will come when God the Father will make a judgment on our souls. And how beautiful to have him say, well done, thou, God, good and faithful servant, Enter thou into the rest of your Lord. Whether it's God the Father or the Son saying that. That's amazing. That's what we're striving for. And we know how to do that. We know how to do that. We don't have to get weird with trying to do extra. Right? We don't have to do extra. Sometimes we feel like there's maybe there's something like a secret path. There's not. It's make covenants and you keep your covenants and you repent all along the way. And that's the way.
- [115:17]
Casey
Great insight. We know the path, so don't worry too much much about it. You'll get there eventually. All right, let's keep it rolling and go to the last two verses. That's verses seven and eight. So here's many context. All right, these last two verses involve a Methodist minister named Samuel Prior, who apparently had come to investigate the saints and Joseph Smith and was in attendance when Joseph Smith gave the sermon on on 2 Peter 1 and had been really impressed at what he heard. In fact, in a nice little ecumenical moment from the early restoration, Samuel Prior had been invited, most likely by Joseph Smith, to preach there in Macedonia that very evening to a congregation of Latter Day Saints. In fact, Samuel wrote this. He said, in the evening I was invited to preach, and did so. The congregation was large and respectable, and they paid the utmost and attention. This surprised me a little, he said, as I did not expect to find any such thing as religious toleration among them. So he was expecting us to be like, you know, a bunch of insular we're not going to hear from a Methodist minister. And he's like, actually, they were pretty open, and I was really surprised to see how happy they were to hear from me. So we don't know exactly what Samuel Prior said, but William Clayton did take notes, and it seems like from his notes that Samuel had for some length of time preached on Genesis 2:7, which speaks of the moment of creation when, according to the verse, the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. And this verse had prompted a lot of discussion among Christian commentators from that time, who noted the dualistic distinction here between man's body and his spirit, and who speculated as to their makeup and duration. A theological dictionary from that time, for instance, stated that the generally received opinion among Christians was that the human soul began to exist in his mother's womb and that it consisted of the vital, immaterial, active substance or principle in man. So comparing to that view, Joseph's misunderstanding of the nature of man's spirit differed in a big way, dramatically. In fact, just a year prior, Joseph Smith had published an editorial directly opposing this traditional idea that the spirit of man is immaterial, arguing that the body is supposed to be organized matter, and the Spirit by many is thought to be immaterial without substance. With this latter statement, he said, we should beg leave to differ and state that the spirit is substance, that it is material, but that it is more pure, elastic and refined matter than the body. So it seems like this is a response to Samuel Prior's speculation on the nature of the Spirit or how man was created. That might be what's going on here.
- [118:14]
Scott
Yeah, it seems like Samuel Pryor said something in his commentary on Genesis 2:7 that sort of triggered a corrective response from the prophet. I want to continue, if I can, Samuel's own account of what occurred next. I love this moment. He says, quote, after I closed, elder Joseph Smith, who had attended, arose and begged leave to differ from me in some few points of doctrine. And this he did mildly, politely, and affectingly, like one who was more desirous to disseminate truth and expose error than to love the malicious triumph of debate over me. I love that description. And then he says, I was truly edified with his remarks and felt less prejudiced against the Mormons than ever. Close quote, hurrah.
- [118:56]
Casey
There was a. A warm, ecumenical response. You just don't see a lot of those in. In early Church history. So, hey, yay for Samuel Pryor. Good, good guy.
- [119:06]
Scott
Yeah, we'll count that as a V, A victory, then. William Clayton. Here's where it gets scriptural for us. William Clayton's journal captured the details of the prophet's corrective. Here. Here's what his journal says. In the evening, we went to hear a Methodist preacher lecture. After he got through, President Joseph offered some corrections as speaking of eternal duration of matter, he said, there is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes. We can't see it, but when our bodies are purified, we shall see that it is all matter. That part made it into our Doctrine and Covenants. And then Clayton says the gentleman seemed pleased and said he should visit Nauvoo immediately. Close quote. So later, as we can see, these excerpts from Clayton's account of the prophet's gentle correction to this humble Methodist minister's sermon were also included here as verses 7 and 8. That was kind of the context and the content right there, wasn't it, Casey?
- [120:07]
Casey
Yeah, you've covered both beautifully, Scott. Well done. Are there any controversies associated with 7 and 8 that you can think of?
- [120:16]
Scott
I guess there's the metaphysical debate there about the nature of spirit that Joseph's weighing in on, again, contradicting a lot of kind of established Christian thinking of the day. And that's par for the course for Brother Jesus, Joseph.
- [120:32]
Casey
I think it seems like Joseph Smith did kind of go against, like, too much mysticism. It seems like Joseph Smith is arguing here that your spirit has atoms and molecules. Right. And that might be his way of just kind of bringing these more ethereal concepts down to Earth and basically saying, just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I mean, nowadays we're comfortable with a lot of stuff like that. You can't see, obviously, oxygen molecules. You can't see ultraviolet light unless it's under the right circumstances. And so this seems to fit in with Joseph's cosmology that the universe is organized matter. Right. And instead of trying to imagine something that is beyond that, that's sort of mystical or magical or too well undefined. No, let's just work within the existing framework that we have and say there's a part of you that's made of spirit, but. But it still consists of matter.
- [121:26]
Scott
Yeah. The cosmology, the theology that's coming through the prophet Joseph Smith is radically material. Right. We believe in a very material eternity, very material heaven, very material beings. And this just takes it to its logical conclusion, doesn't it, that even your spirit is material. There's no such thing as immaterial material. Material.
- [121:50]
Casey
Yeah. The cosmology that we understand doesn't have to come up with some kind of magical explanation for what spirit is. Spirit's matter. It's just like Joseph Smith said, a more refined or pure matter that we can't discern right now with the eyes that we have. And I'm completely comfortable with that idea.
- [122:06]
Scott
Okay, well, let's talk about that final C, then. Consequences of section 131. And I would just summarize it like this. That section 130, 31 again consists of three excerpts from the Journal of William Clayton of The remarks that Joseph Smith made on three separate occasions. The first is super insightful on Joseph's teachings to the Johnsons on how marriage is required to attain the highest level of heaven. Can we settle on that, Casey? The highest level of heaven is attained through eternal marriage. Second is Joseph's explanation about Peter's cryptic phrase on the more sure word of prophecy, underscoring a very strong relationship between salvation and a very special kind of knowledge that comes directly from the Lord. And third is this wonderful correction to a sermon of a Methodist minister emphasizing the eternal and very material nature of the spirit of man. And those are, those are all really precious nuggets. And they do continue, continue to help build out the Latter Day Saint cosmology.
- [123:09]
Casey
Yeah. And you can see from these three sections we've covered in this episode that things are getting more complex and that's not bad. That things are getting more beautiful. That the underlying theology that we believe in today is coming together in these final precious months of Joseph Smith's life. This is just a really, really incredible time and, and, and, and wonderful, wonderful teachings that completely changed the game.
- [123:36]
Scott
And speaking of game changing revelations, stay tuned for our next episode when we talk about section 132. Here we go. We're doing this, Casey. We're doing this. Let's go for it.
- [123:48]
Casey
Let's do it. Yeah. So we'll see you in our next episode with section 132.
- [123:56]
Scott
Sam.