← Church History Matters
Church History Matters
182 - The Articles of Faith CFM - Intro to Latter-day Saint Beliefs - E50C December 8-14
01:36:54
Loading summary
Transcript118 lines
- [00:00]
A
God sent his son to die for us. By obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel, we pledge our fidelity, our pistis, our faith, to Christ.
- [00:08]
B
There's a difference between saying I was healed by the atonement and saying I was healed by Jesus Christ.
- [00:14]
A
That's exciting and that keeps things, I think, interesting.
- [00:17]
B
We can be different, but we can work towards positive aims for all people.
- [00:22]
A
Hi, Casey.
- [00:23]
B
Hello, Scott. How are you?
- [00:24]
A
Excited to dive into our Articles of Faith this week. This is kind of a fun one. This isn't even in the Doctrine and Covenants, Casey. This is the Prayer of Great Price. And yet here we are during a Doctrine and Covenants here.
- [00:36]
B
I'm glad we got a chance to talk about this. The Pearl of Great Price is sort of an anomaly, right? It's got Old Testament stuff in it, it's got New Testament stuff in it, it's got church history stuff in it. And so you kind of do have to split it up because we don't have a Pearl of Great Price year.
- [00:49]
A
It's a grab bag.
- [00:50]
B
It's a curio of curiosities. It's a great, great thing. But I'm glad we get to drop it and talk about the Articles of Faith because I've had experiences in the last couple weeks with the Articles of Faith and made me realize these are super useful when you're dial from another faith.
- [01:05]
A
I'm curious now, what was the occasion?
- [01:07]
B
Well, in early October, I attended the General Conference for the Church of Jesus Christ, also known as the Bickertonites, that's their nickname. They of course prefer Church of Jesus Christ, just like we prefer Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
- [01:23]
A
This is Church of Jesus Christ in.
- [01:25]
B
Monongahela, Pennsylvania, based in Monongahela, Pennsylvania. And I went to Greenberg, Pennsylvania, where they hold their World Conference. And they are a church that springs from the tradition, but has a number of things that are the same as us. They believe in the Book of Mormon, things that are different. They don't believe in the Doctrine and Covenants. And as I was trying to find common ground with them, I found myself walking up and saying, well, do you believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God and the Bible, so far as it's translated correctly? And they'd be like, yeah, I do. And then I'd get into more intense things, like, do you believe that Zion, the New Jerusalem, would be built upon the American continent and that Jesus Christ will reign? Personally, they were like, yeah, I do. And by the end of the weekend, I'd hit up pretty much all 12 articles of faith, and we agreed on all of them. Now we still had some big disagreements on other matters, but it was so smooth.
- [02:20]
A
12 articles of faith. Was there a 13th that they disagreed on?
- [02:24]
B
I don't know if I had the 13th memorized sufficiently enough. And that one seems obvious. Like, do you like praiseworthy things?
- [02:31]
A
Do you believe in being a good person?
- [02:34]
B
It's a great way to interact with people. And, you know, even in my dialogues with other religions, even I run into, you know, a, a person from another church. You know, I'll, I'll sometimes just go, yeah, we believe in God, the Eternal Father and the Son, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. You know, they're just very succinct and they don't cover everything, but they're a good introduction.
- [02:54]
A
Yeah, they are. And it's interesting that in your conversation with the Bickertonites, they kind of follow the Sidney Rigdon branch, right? It goes Rigdon and then William Bickerton. And they don't really adopt any of the Nauvoo doctrines. And so it's interesting that the articles of faith that's telling bas basically is that we actually share most of those in common. All of them, I guess, which are kind of not Nauvoo doctrines. And so we're going to talk about that later. But why aren't the Nauvoo doctrines in the articles of faith? We'll come to that during our controversies. How's that sound? We don't want to get too far ahead of ourselves here. Let's begin with why we even have this document. Casey, like, what's the context? Drop us into the history of where this came from.
- [03:41]
C
Hi, I'm Dowell Wilson, CEO at Scripture Central. A couple things I want to do here for just a minute. First, I'd like to thank you for your engagement, for watching and listening to our programs. We love your feedback. We hear from so many of you literally every day. We get hundreds of comments from you. Thank you for listening and supporting our shows. Second, as you know, we're approaching Giving Tuesday. I'm sure you're aware of that Scripture Central is a donor supported organization. We receive no revenue from any of our shows. We've resisted advertising both for our listeners and for us. We never have to worry about the purity of what we're doing and whether we have to be beholden to an advertiser or somebody who is worried about content of a show. We just do it because we think it's the right thing to do. And the right support of the Savior Jesus Christ and of his mission and of his church. And that's what we try to do here at Scripture Central. Which brings me last of all to the purpose of this interruption in your schedule today. Since we are donor supported, I'm here to ask for your support on Giving Tuesday. And as you contemplate your year end giving, we would love your support of our programs, of our content providers. There's information below where you can contribute and how you can contribute, but it's the lifeblood of our organization. Let me just reiterate to us, your support is the widow's mite. We take it on a very consecrated basis. We invite you to look at the methods below for how you can support Scripture Central. That we can continue our mission to bring people to Jesus Christ through faithful disciple, scholarship and the good word that is provided to us through the Scriptures and our prophets. Thank you for being a faithful listener and we look forward to your ongoing support.
- [05:39]
B
The Articles of Faith first appeared in the church newspaper the Times and seasons on March 1, 1842, and they're part of a larger letter written by Joseph Smith at the request of John Wentworth. It's popularly known as the Wentworth Letter. And I've gone on record before saying, I wish we'd put the whole Wentworth letter in. Like I think the whole thing's great. But we did canonize it in part. We canonized the Articles of Faith. Anyway. John Wentworth was the editor of the Chicago Democrat, a newspaper, and he had requested a brief summary of the history and doctrines of the Church and from what we've been able to track down. Wentworth's request came at the urging of a friend named George Barstow, who was a Boston lawyer who was working on a history of New Hampshire. Now, neither Wentworth nor Barstow actually used the material that Joseph Smith provided in their in their final publications. And the original letter is lost. We don't know where it ended up. But the version that appeared in the Times and Seasons became one of the most important early recollections of the history of the Church and its teachings. So the structure of the letter is basically Joseph Smith tells his story, which is Joseph Smith's 1842 history. He recounts the first vision. It gives some detailed information about the coming forth, the Book of Mormon. He goes into depth about the book plates and their dimensions and described what they looked like and everything, and then gives the Articles of Faith. And then I think the Standard of Truth comes after the Articles of Faith. We had to memorize the Standard of Truth on my mission.
- [07:10]
A
And it's got the fourth of Joseph's firsthand accounts of his first vision in it. Right. I mean, it's super, super valuable.
- [07:16]
B
Yeah. Super important. And that's why I'd be okay canonizing the whole thing. It'd be great to have another history of Joseph Smith. The one we have that is canonized right now is written in 1838. This one was written in 1842. He does share some interesting details, so it's more recent. The Articles of Faith specifically were meant to summarize the beliefs of the church. During the writing process, Joseph Smith probably drew from earlier outlines of Latter Day Saint beliefs written by other church officials. For instance, in 1834, Oliver Cowdery presents a short outline of church teachings, and he prints them in the church newspaper. That one called the messenger and Advocate. And then two years later, Brigham Young's brother, Joseph Young, created a written statement that contained, these are his words, creed, doctrine, sentiments, or religious notions of the church for an editor living in Boston. Then, in 1840, Parley P. Pratt condenses parts of his 1839 document, History of the Late Persecution, into a pamphlet summarizing church beliefs history. The Late Persecution is about the saints in Missouri specifically. A little while after that, Parley's brother and a fellow apostle, Orson Pratt, publishes a pamphlet called An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions. This is while he's in Edinburgh, Scotland. And it seems likely that Joseph Smith would have had access to all these when he's writing the Articles of Faith. Joseph Smith was also collaborative too, so he may have actually sat down with Orson Pratt and had him help write the Articles of Faith.
- [08:49]
A
And he seems to have drawn probably heaviest from Orson Pratts. Is that. Is that fair to say?
- [08:54]
B
Yeah, we'll go through that in a few minutes. But there's some definite parallels. I think the Articles of Faith are much more succinct and much more precise than Orson Pratt's version of it. But Orson Pratt's version is worth a read. And then as time goes on, the Articles of Faith sort of grow in stature.
- [09:12]
A
This is printed in the church newspaper, but like, how does it become part of our scripture? Was it Scripture in Joseph Smith's lifetime, or how does that process work?
- [09:21]
B
It doesn't seem like it was Scripture in Joseph Smith's lifetime, but it grows in importance. And there's some interesting geographical reasons for this. In 1851, the Articles of Faith appeared in a collection of writings published under the direction of Franklin D. Richards, who was president of the British Mission. And this included selections from the Book of Moses, the Book of Abraham, extracts from Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible, including the Revelations, now in Doctrine and covenants as section 77 and 87, an excerpt from Joseph Smith's history, and several other items. You may have already guessed the name that Franklin D. Richards gave this work. It's called the Pearl of Great Price. The full name being a choice selection of the revelations, translations and narrations of Joseph Smith, first prophet, seer and revelator to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
- [10:10]
A
That's a long title.
- [10:11]
B
I'm glad we shortened it. The Pearl of Great Price became really popular with the British Saints. And we've mentioned this a couple times, but for a while there were more Saints in Britain than there were in America. We're so successful over there, but most of them gather to the western United States and they bring along the Pearl of Gray Price. And so it's really popular among the saints in Britain who bring it to Utah. The leaders of the church Notice this. In 1877, Orson Pratt recommended the creation of a second edition of the Pearl of Great Price. He does this under the direction of John Taylor, and he revises the text. And he was the first to give these 13 statements a title. He titles them Articles of Our Faith. Then A little over two years later, at the October 1880 General Conference, the Pearl of Great Price was officially canonized, becoming one of the standard works of the church. Then in 1888, the title was just simplified to Articles of Faith. Then in the 1902 edition of the Pearl of Great Price, their final title appeared as the Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
- [11:14]
A
Okay, so 1880, these are canonized in our scripture. And so would you say that these constitute, like, the LDS creed? Is this our creed, Casey?
- [11:25]
B
No, because we don't like the word creed. I don't know if they're as authoritative or binding as a creed would be. Probably the best label for them would be a missionary tool. They're clearly intended to interact with other faiths. They start with ideas that almost any Christian can relate to, like the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Then they introduce things that are a little bit more different, like the Bible, but also the Book of Mormon. And then they get into ideas that probably would be new to most Christians, like the New Jerusalem being built upon the American continent. So they're a great way to start a conversation with a person from another faith. But they're not a comprehensive explanation of our beliefs either.
- [12:05]
A
Joseph Smith In Nauvoo said the Latter Day Saints have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist as they are made manifest from time to time. Joseph Smith was decidedly anti creedal. Although these statements, 12 out of 13 of them, start out with we believe, which is what creed means, credo, which is I believe. But the word creed is just such a charged term in Christian history. And Joseph Smith was kind of allergic to that term. And so he just, yeah, he says we are. We don't have creeds. He didn't like how they kind of locked you into believing just this much. He said, I want to believe everything that's true. And so what? We'll see that attitude come out in the 13th article of faith when we get there that we believe in all things that are true. So anyway, more to say on that, but I like that.
- [12:51]
B
I don't want to downplay the importance of the Articles of Faith either. For instance, in 2007, the church published an article that was sort of a landmark. It was called Approaching Mormon Doctrine. Because up to that point we didn't have much of a statement explaining what our doctrine actually is. And since then, there's been great talks given by D. Todd Christofferson and Neil L. Anderson that helped further explain this. But in this 20002007 essay, which was approved by the Church, but again as a statement, it said, the doctrine of the Church, this is the wording they use, resides in the four standard works of Scripture. The Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. Then they say official declarations and proclamations and the Articles of Faith. So they list the Articles of Faith right next to the four standard works and official declarations and proclamations, which it's interesting that they kind of singled the Articles of Faith out there and put it along alongside them.
- [13:50]
A
It's almost like they mentioned the Articles of Faith twice because they said the Pearl of Great Price and the Articles of Faith. It's like Articles of Faith is in the Pearl of Great Price, but just to be clear. And the Articles of Faith, that's interesting.
- [14:04]
B
It's a big request to ask somebody to read the four standard works. Maybe they were hoping people that read that would start with the Articles of Faith, because that's kind of your. That's your appetizer. Then you get to the full meal, which is the four standard works, and then your dessert is the proclamations and declarations of the Church. So they aren't held in high esteem by the Church, although they should be recognized for what they are. Nothing more, nothing less.
- [14:28]
A
With that then, let's get into the content here.
- [14:36]
Let me start with Article of Faith 1. Maybe we'll just leapfrog. We'll just go every other one and and have a good time walking through these. Casey and viewers, listeners, feel free to say it along with me. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. There it is. This first article of faith addresses, I think it's fair to say, the most basic of Latter Day Saint beliefs, like our belief in the Godhead. And to be honest, like this sounds like classic trinitarianism. Okay, Father, Son, Holy Ghost. Most Christians would agree with this article of faith, by the way, like they they. In fact they would assume that we meant one God in three co. Equal co Eternal persons as laid out in the early Christian creeds. This was not written by Joseph Smith to be polemical, to be argumentative, or to draw any sort of sharp contrast between like Latter Day Saints and other Christians. That's not his intention. Right? Yes, Latter Day Saints reject the ontological unity formulation of the Trinity as taught in Christian creeds. But. But that's not Joseph Smith's point here. This is an outreach. This is a missionary tool. This is a way to build on common beliefs with other Christians and then to also highlight some of the distinctiveness of Latter Day Saints. Most outsiders in 1842 Casey, they're probably not going to grasp yet that Latter Day Saints are moving toward a more non creedal, non nicene understanding of the Godhead. So I think to most readers in the 1840s like this looks very orthodox, very orthodox.
- [16:14]
But we'll find out later that the real clash is less in the wording and more our rejection of the classic traditional creedal explanations of the relationship, the oneness of God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, which if we back up and just kind of do just a brief Christian history here, the dilemma that the earliest Christians faced was that the Old Testament and the New Testament affirm one God, and yet the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost are God. And so that was the dilemma. How do we maintain monotheism while also acknowledging the godness of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost? And there wasn't a word in the Old Testament or the New Testament, neither in the Hebrew or the Greek in the text themselves that explained that oneness. And so that's what the creedal like discussions and arguments even were about for weeks and months on end to try to figure out what is the nature of that oneness. And they came up with a word. The word is homoosios. Okay? Homo usios. That means the same, like, essence. The same essence. And that's the word we disagree with. That's it. We disagree with that. That essence word. If you look in our scriptures, like, we also believe that they're one. They're one God. Like, let me just. Let me just give you a couple. All right, this is from. How about the book of Mormon? 2nd Nephi 31, 21. Nephi says, speaking of the doctrine of Christ, says, now behold, this is the doctrine of Christ and the only and true doctrine of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen. Mormon seven, seven. Unto the Father and unto the Son and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, Nephi says is one God, Mormon says are one God. Jesus comes down amongst the Nephites and Lamanites in 35:11, and he testifies, quote, the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are one. And then just as recently, Casey, as last General Conference elder D. Todd Christofferson, now President Christofferson, ended his talk in a way that made me go, wait, did he just say that? So I went back, and indeed he did. Here's how he ended. He said, I bear testimony of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, who in perfect unity of word, thought, purpose and action, are the one God to whom we may look for all good things. The one God. They together are the one God to whom we may look for all good things. And this is the dilemma, right? This is the challenge of trying to parse this out. Jesus was emphatic that he's one with the Father and he never uses the word homoousios. And that word is the problem I mentioned. And it's about essence. Here's what we have in common, okay? Three persons, the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost are distinct, okay? We all believe that. Actually, most Latter Day Saints have a misnomer that other Christians don't think they're distinct. They do. Number two, we both agree that they're one God. Three persons constituting one God. They're perfectly united in will and love and purpose. We and other Christians would agree with that, that oneness of God is best defined as ontological unity. Latter Day Saints reject that. That is that this idea that they are of one indivisible substance or essence or being, that's. That's that Greek word they grabbed. That's not scriptural. And we just don't we just don't agree with that. We like to say instead of ontological unity, it's relational unity, right? It's the oneness of God is best defined as relational unity. Three divine personages acting in perfect harmony and unity, like Elder Christofferson said, which most Christians wouldn't have a problem with. They just want to go a little extra level to that ontological unity. Latter Day Saints, our analogy is that they're more like a presidency, three distinct leaders acting as one team. And other Christians analogy is more like he's like a triangle, like one shape, three corners, distinct, indivisible at the same time. And that's the part that we wrestle with. So I think we have a lot more in common than we often think. But there are some distinctiveness that I think we can appreciate about each other. We can disagree without being disagreeable.
- [20:27]
B
Hopefully you are more optimistic about other Christians accepting this than I am. Let me just share a quote really fast. One Christian thinker wrote, until Mormons reject their foundational beliefs about God and Christ and a lot more, and accept the classic creedal definitions of the faith, they have no business calling themselves Christians. Now at the same time too, from our side, this is President Gordon B. Hinckley. We do not accept the Athanasian Creed. We do not accept the Nicene Creed, nor any other creed based on the tradition and conclusions of men. We do accept as the basis of our doctrine the statement of the prophet Joseph Smith that when he prayed for wisdom in the woods, the light rest upon me, and I saw two personages whose brightness and glory defy all descriptions standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name, and said, pointing to the other, this is my beloved Son, hear him. So, yes, I agree with you that there is some commonality here, but there's some huge differences too. I have met some people of other faiths that are people of goodwill that will say, okay, we'll accept you into the family, even if you're a little strange. But most Christians that feel strongly about their teachings, this is a deal breaker and we got to acknowledge it for what it is. I mean, I don't want to change. I hope that they soften a little bit. But I mean, it's just always going to be a major difference that we've got to be honest with people about. Clarity is kindness.
- [21:55]
A
In this case, Joseph is not using this to start a fight. He's like most Christians will just nod their head to Article of Faith one honestly. So you're going to have to do something. You're going to have to get a little more sophisticated than that. You're going to have to talk about homoosios, like, argue about that that's not biblical.
- [22:12]
B
I've even had some Christian friends that I quoted the first vision to as a way of saying they're separate and distinct. And they were like, yeah, okay, the Trinity is flexible enough that you could say Joseph Smith saw two beings and still believe in the Trinity because they do believe that they're separate beings. They just believe they're one. All right, we gotta keep going because we've got 13 article of faith. So article of faith number two. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam's transgression. And this is maybe tiptoeing towards some theological controversies here. Latter Day Saints reject the notion of original sin that's accepted by most Christians. I'm going to quote Joseph Fielding Smith, who summarized this view when he said, I never speak of the part Eve took in this Fall as a sin, nor do I accuse Adam of a sin. This was a transgression of the law, but not a sin, for it was something that Adam and Eve had to do. In other words, we believe that a fortunate fall. We believe that the Fall was part of the plan and not a deviation from it, that God had to incur consequences, but that he wasn't displeased with the Fall. Ultimately. That's not to say that we don't believe there weren't consequences to the choice made by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. The Book of Mormon prophet Samuel teaches this. He said, because of the Fall, all men and women, in his words, are cut off from the presence of the Lord and are considered dead, both as to things temporal and to things spiritual, which I think is language Christians can relate to. That's Helaman 1416. But rather than seeing the Fall as this kind of huge tragedy, Latter Day Saints believe that the Fall was part of the plan that it forwarded the plan for Heavenly Father, Sons and Daughters. And the teachings found in the Book of Mormon essentially transformed the Fall from a tragic event to a glorious one. Part of the way they do this is by clarifying that Eden was not a paradise. Eden wasn't like, like the best possible scenario that they could be in. In fact, Lehi clarifies that Eden was a static place with no change, no joy, no misery, no good, no sin, and no possibility that Adam and Eve could keep the Lord's commandment to have children found in Genesis 1:28. While their choice to partake of the forbidden fruit was technically a transgression of the law, it was not opposed to the will of God and it wasn't a sin.
- [24:36]
A
Well, what do you mean it wasn't opposed to the will of God? Didn't he say, of every tree thou thou mayest freely eat, but of that tree thou shalt not eat, for in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. How is that not against the will of God?
- [24:47]
B
Adam fell that men might be. I think it wasn't against the will of God that men might be. So I'm gonna say it's a transgression, not a sin. Does that make sense? You can transgress a law without going against the will of God. Does that make sense? The story I give in my classes are that 21 years ago, my wife woke me up in the middle of the night and said my water broke. She was pregn. I had seen what happens when water breaks. I loaded her in the car, we drove to the hospital going down Lehigh Main street, where the speed limit is 30 going 75, and it was 3 in the morning. I was looking to see if there were other cars there. I also went through most of the red lights because it was three in the morning. I did technically transgress the law, right? But I transgressed the law. Thou shalt not go faster than 30 mph on Lehigh Main street to obey a higher law, which is thou shalt not let thine wife while thou art on thine way to thine hospital to deliver thine child. So I chose between the higher of the two laws. And I think that's what Adam and Eve did. The commandment to have children was first in sequence, and it was also first in importance. In my mind, it's way more important than not eating the fruit of the tree. And so they had to make a choice. God set them up to make a choice. And when they made the choice, I don't think it was opposed to the will of God.
- [26:09]
A
Okay, your analogy is a good one. I like it. And it's analogous to Adam and Eve having babies.
- [26:14]
B
So it's all coming together. So as the descendants of Adam and Eve, we inherit a world where death and sin are present. Those are the negative consequences of the fall. But we don't believe that men and women are depraved from birth, which is sort of what original sin teaches. Rather, the Lord taught that this is section 93. Every spirit of man was innocent from the beginning. And God having redeemed man from the Fall, man became again in their infant state, innocent before God. And this teaching allows us to see children as innocent souls who are to be guided and helped through mortality by families that love them. And a bonus, as part of Church's teachings on the Fall, which come from the Book of Mormon, Adam and Eve are often seen by Christians as foolish or unwise. And using this paradigm, they're rehabilitated. Adam in Latter Day Saint thought is the Archangel Michael. He's the great leader who overthrew Satan. Eve and all her daughters who are sometimes derided as the weaker sex, are also given proper respect. An article I'm going to quote here, an article that was in the Latter Day Saint magazine, the women's exponent in 1879 even went so far as to say this. We are taught that Eve was the first to sin. Well, she was simply more progressive than Adam. She did not want to live in the beautiful garden forever and be nobody. So we talked about this. But the revelations of the Restoration, specifically one that we talked about a couple weeks ago, section 138, say that Adam and Eve are doing okay. They're among the righteous. When Jesus appears in the spirit world on the day he's crucified, they are part of the group that's sent into the spirit world. And they're still together. They're doing great. So this one little sentence, article of Faith 2, gives us a more nuanced view of the Fall and also helps us understand that we're not being punished for what Adam and Eve did. We get punished for our own sins, but there are consequences that come with it.
- [28:11]
A
Yeah, I'm just thinking from an 1840s perspective. I think that is a contrast with most Protestant Christianity and Catholic. The only exception is probably the unit. And Universalists. Right. Like they also rejected original guilt and they. They stressed human moral ability. So I think they would resonate with this. Your own sins and not Adam's transgression bit. They diverge with Latter Day Saints elsewhere on other points, but I think the only ones in the 1840s nodding their heads would be the. The Unitarians and Universalists.
- [28:45]
B
So they're generally open to a lot of things. One of my earliest papers was about Universalism and the family of Joseph Smith. And if there was a Smith family religion, religion before the church was organized. Joseph Smith's dad was a Universalist and there were people on his mother's side that were Universalists too. Just to summarize, Universalists believe that God will eventually save all people Even if they have to be punished briefly, there's a lot of variance. But that's the gist of the matter is that universalists teach that God eventually saves everybody, which we'd have to sit down and say, what's your definition of salvation? But you could make a case that Latter Day Saints teach that too.
- [29:17]
A
Okay, so on to article number three. We believe that through the atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. So right out the chute. One thing I want to highlight here is the cooperative nature of our salvation through the atonement of Christ. That's his part. What section 19 calls Jesus finishing his preparations unto the children of men. His part, and then by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel would be mankind's part. Uh, it's a covenantal relationship. It's this early first century understanding of grace which is not a free gift, but it is rather a, a reciprocal relationship. Right? Grace for grace. We give the grace of our obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel for the grace of Christ's atonement. And we both collectively cooperate in our salvation. That is for many from the Lutheran tradition, the Protestant Lutheran tradition, like that's, that's going to be too far, right? Some are going to say, o, you're going too far. You're a works based faith based on that. Catholics and orthodox Christians would say, yeah, we're with you. Laws and ordinances are channels of grace, right? And so a lot of the disagreements amongst Christians with this really swirl around our understanding of the word grace. If you understand it in the 1500s, Martin Luther version, where it's just a free gift, then you're going to interpret the Bible such that obedience to laws and ordinances of the Gospel is unnecessary. But if you go back further, there's this awesome movement amongst Protestants I'm so proud of them called the New Perspective on Paul. And it's in that understanding where they're actually saying, well, what did grace mean in the first century? And that is, as I said, they've come to understand that grace actually was a reciprocal, where the word is charis in grace. And it was about a reciprocal relationship. So a covenant relationship is a perfect example of a charis relationship, a grace relationship. God sent his son to die for us. By obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel, we pledge our fidelity, our Pistis, our faith to Christ. And that reciprocity of our obedience to God's gift of his Son is a grace relationship. And so that's spot on. I love the new perspective on Paul. Check that out. If you want to go down a constructive rabbit hole. Just google the new perspective on Paul. Very, very helpful. So article faith 3. Beautiful man. I would also want to highlight that President Nelson, right before he became President of the church, this is a talk he gave back in 2017 about the atonement of Christ. He just gave us a gentle caution, and maybe this is as good a place as any to talk about it. A caution on how we talk about the atonement. He said, it's doctrinally incomplete to speak about the Lord's atoning sacrifice by shortcut phrases such as the atonement or the enabling power of the atonement, or applying the atonement, or being strengthened by the atonement. When he said that, Casey, I was like, I think I've used all those phrases. I think I have said all of those. And he was gentle. But he said this. He said, these expressions present a real risk of misdirecting faith by treating the event of Jesus's atonement as if it had living existence and capabilities independent of our Heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. And I've totally noticed this since President Nelson said it. Like, sometimes we'll say stuff like this. See if any of these phrases sound familiar. I've literally wrote these down as I've listened in church meetings. Just how we talk about the atonement in our culture. Quote, the atonement can help us with anything we struggle with. Quote, because of the atonement, we don't have to face our struggles alone. Quote, I know I don't use the atonement like I should. I should use the atonement more. As if the atonement's like a tool that you can pick up and use. You know, I know that the atonement is there for us when we need. That's a subtle shit. That's the problem President Nelson is talking about. You catch the problem. Here's what he says to do. Here's his solution. He said, remember this. Under the Father's great eternal plan, it is the Savior who suffered. It is the Savior who broke the bands of death. It is the Savior who paid the price for our sins and transgressions and blots them out on conditions of our repentance. It is the Savior who delivers us from physical and spiritual death. And so his. His counsel to us to try to keep the doctrine pure about the atonement, He. He said, is to expressly and clearly connect it to him when we talk about it. Like, I was a curriculum writer for a short time for seminaries and institutes, and one of the instructions we were given explicitly when we, when we write about the atonement is to always say the atonement of Jesus Christ, just to keep that together for clarity. And there's a little doctrinal drift that can start to happen where you start to think of the atonement, as President Nelson called it, an amorphous entity called the atonement, that you start to reach out to you. I need help from the atonement. I need to be strengthened by the atonement. That's not it. It's Jesus. It's just Jesus. It's what he did for us. And Jesus can be there to help us when we need it, but he is not the atonement.
- [34:42]
B
I've run into the same thing, especially since President Nielsen gave this talk, that I realized I do this a lot. It's a hard habit to break and it's not the worst possible sin. If this is the worst thing you're doing, you're going to be ok. But it does make you think. There's a difference between saying I was healed by the atonement and a difference in saying I was healed by Jesus Christ. He is a real person who ministers to people who somewhere right now doing things and speaking in that way gives Jesus a living identity and makes him a living force in our life. So great counsel from President Nielsen. All right, article of faith 4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are first, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, second, repentance, third, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, and fourth, the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. The first principles and ordinance of the Gospel are at times simply referred to as the doctrine of Christ. That seems to be how prophets in the Book of Mormon refer to it. In 2 Nephi 31, in Jacob 7, in 3 Nephi 2. And these four simple actions open the door for men and women to gain eternal life. And the revelations of the restoration proclaim the knowledge that these principles and ordinances have always been the key to salvation. They didn't come into being when they were taught by Jesus or John the Baptist in the meridian of time. In fact, Adam was the first person to exercise faith in Jesus Christ, repent of his sins, receive baptism and be given the gift of the Holy Ghost. That story is found in Moses 6, 64, 68. And then using the priesthood, Adam taught these principles and performed these ordinances for his wife Eve and all that were willing to receive them. So fairly straightforward. I'll just add another little asterisk that the sealing power which we've been talking about in the last couple sections, makes it possible for people to also exercise faith and repent after death, to work in tandem with living people on earth to receive priesthood ordinances. In fact, that big vision of the spirit world we talked of a little while ago, President Joseph F. Smith said this. He said departed spirits were taught faith in God, repentance from sin, vicarious baptism for the remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. So it's very straightforward. But the vast majority of humanity doesn't learn these principles or receive these ordinances while they're in mortality. But our beliefs allow for the great plan of happiness to give every human being a chance in this life or the next to hear the good news and enter into sacred covenants with God. So four part Gospel, very simple, very straightforward. But I would also say this is an introduction to the ordinance of the gospel. Here's the first principles and ordinances. Joseph Smith is saying not all the principles, principles and ordinances of the gospel. Here's your starter pack, basically.
- [37:40]
A
And recently, Casey, I've been listening to Aristotle, his Nicomachean ethics, specifically, as I'm driving, because why not? Because it's Aristotle. And the concept of first principles struck me. This is a concept that Aristotle articulated. The very phrase first principles are kind of the irreducible thing. It's like you can't explain deeper than first principles is how he explained it. And I know early Americans were reading Aristotle. I wonder if that phrase comes into Joseph's language here. First principles. This is like the irreducible beginning of a disciple's life right there. I like that a lot.
- [38:22]
B
You got me. I'm listening to Harry Potter on the way home. I haven't fired up Aristotle in quite a while, but you may have convinced me that it's time to set up that playlist again.
- [38:32]
A
Okay, number five. We believe that a man must be called of God by prophecy and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority to preach the gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof. Boom. Now, most major Christians believe in some sort of a call before a ministry, even even formal ordination in a church by church officers. And once they felt that call, those most serious about pastoral work will often go and do some training, receive some degrees and theological training before embarking in a career in the Ministry right now, Latter Day Saints have something akin to that, but also some differences. Like Latter Day Saints often feel called that same feeling of like, I want to share this stuff, right? This is why, this is why we serve missions. So many of us serve missions because we want to share this, right? And some people are even crazy enough, Casey, to want to lifelong religious educators. Can you believe that? But we, but we take a different, a different route, right? But this isn't talking about a full time profession. This is talking about the called ministry. And the called ministry is purely ecclesiastical. And it's not something that you can sign up for. It's not something that you can say I want to be a bishop. So what's the track to becoming a bishop? How do I do that? I want to become a 70. Like how do I become a 70? I want to be the presiding Relief Society president of the Church. Like what's the, the track that would get me there? Like, we don't do that. Article of faith 5 is this idea that those kinds of ecclesiastical calls must come of God by prophecy, meaning by revelation to those who are in authority.
- [40:17]
So that that comes like Elder Causse was just called to be an apostle. It was just announced as of the of our recording here yesterday and that's big news. But there wasn't an apostle tract that Elder Kase followed to become an apostle like he's called of God by prophecy to President Dallin H. Oaks to be an apostle that comes to you, you don't seek it. And I think that's an interesting distinction in Latter Day Saint practice that's being highlighted here in article Faith number five. What else, what else do you want to say about this article?
- [40:53]
B
It speaks of a man being called of God by prophecy and by laying on of hands. But we also believe that this applies to women too, right?
- [41:04]
In recent years there's been discussions about priesthood authority and we've gone 10 rounds on this. Right? Dallin H. Oaks and Russell Ballard. Others have taken to becoming more comfortable saying priesthood authority is also given to women when they're called of God by prophecy and, and have laying out of hands given to them. For instance, Jean Bingham, who was the general president of the Relief Society, she said this once. She said in my colleagues, because I'm serving with priesthood authority given me by one who holds the keys. There have been numerous times when I've had thoughts or words given to me that are just what a young woman or Relief Society sister or primary child needed to hear. I know those words came because of the Priesthood authority that I was given when I was set apart for this calling. So again, we could easily add in a woman here in this context and say that they're called of God and that they're given authority by the laying on of hands. Whether you want to call that priesthood authority or just church authority. President Oaks argument was that there's no other kind of authority in the church, so let's just call it priesthood authority. But that's one amendment I would add in the 21st century version of the Articles of Faith.
- [42:13]
A
Well, it's so interesting because these were written in 1842 and it just so happens that in March of 1842.
- [42:21]
We get the Relief Society that same year, right. Now, was that too early to start talking about that to other faiths? Maybe. I don't know. I don't know why he didn't put that in here. But the point, the point is generally in the 1800s, mostly the ecclesiastical positions and the Christian churches broadly are held by men. And we had just barely, just that year, just the year that these were written, just called women officers in our church for the very first time, which is a cool landmark. We're going to have to probably dedicate a whole series to next year to.
- [42:57]
B
Talk about, but not long after that, female officiators who actually performed ordinances with authority. That's a major innovation. So I get Joseph Smith is speaking the language of other religions, but you're right, that's a good temporal connection, that there was some interesting stuff happening probably while he was putting these articles of happening. The paper.
- [43:18]
A
Yeah, yeah, super interesting.
- [43:20]
B
Picking it up in article of faith 6. We believe in the same organization that existed in the primitive Church, namely apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists and so forth. Now I 100% agree with this, but let me make a clarifying point first too. We don't believe that the modern church precisely mirrors the organization of the primitive Church. For instance, there's no mention of a primary or a Relief Society in the New Testament. But both organizations are really important part of the church. And many of the offices and the organizations and programs of the church are not found in the records of the ancient church. And that's okay. We firmly believe in the role of priesthood leaders who can by revelation establish new callings, organizations and programs to fit the needs of the current Church. The role of modern prophets and apostles is to receive the revelation necessary to allow the church to adapt, adapt to the conditions that exist in, without compromising the unique nature and integrity of the Church. So in declaring this article of faith. I think Joseph Smith was aiming to directly tie the offices of the church to the Scriptures because he's literally quoting Paul here. Right. Paul makes this statement in Ephesians and he clarifies and explains what some of the offices actually mean too. For instance, evangelist is just kind of a general term of someone who preaches the gospel. Right. Joseph smith, in an 1839 discourse, clarifies and says, an evangelist is a patriarch. Wherever the church is established on the earth, there should be a patriarch for the benefit of the posterity of the saints, as it was with Jacob in giving his patriarchal blessing unto his Son. So a clarification that evangelist means patriarch. And some other restoration movements like Community of Christ, they use the term evangelist because it's more gender neutral than saying patriarch. And I would just emphasize that new offices and roles, roles in the church will continue to be revealed. Like we have young men's leaders and Sunday school presidents. None of those are mentioned in the Scriptures, but they're a vital part of what we do. But the essential principle taught in the six article faith is that the church is led by those with priesthood authority who receive revelation from God. So again, he's speaking the language of other Christians by directly invoking Paul. But I would just caution and say these aren't the only offices in the church and they aren't the only offices we'll ever have. We'll get all kinds of new offices and responsibilities. Ward technology specialist, ward chat, GPT ninja or something like that. That can. That would be you, Scott. I know of nobody who's better at it than you. So if I was your ecclesiastical leader, I'd be like, Scott. Scott should be our ChatGPT specialist.
- [46:09]
A
In the 1840s, I think most people would. Most Christians would believe that the office of apostle, apostle and prophet was like scripturally foundational. But a lot of them would say it's once for all. Meaning that office ended in the New Testament era. Like, we're not on board with that. They would be on board with pastors and priests and deacons and bishops and elders, of course. But. But it's. This is. This is radically new in terms of what most Christians would be on board with this idea, idea of living apostles and living prophets. That part's a point of sharp divergence, I think it's fair to say.
- [46:48]
B
Yeah. And we should recognize that the restoration doesn't take place in a vacuum.
- [46:55]
That Sidney Rigdon, for instance, was involved with Alexander Campbell and they were seeking to restore the primitive church.
- [47:04]
When Joseph Smith comes along and Sidney Rigdon is converted to the Book of Mormon. And that's part of this language here too, is Latter Day Saints would sa that we don't think we're exactly the same as the New Testament Church, but we believe that we have the same authority and divine sanction that the New Testament Church did. And in that we reflect the organization, especially the most important parts, which is.
- [47:25]
A
Prophets and apostles, which Paul says is foundational. Right. Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone, but then prophets and apostles, then on top of that, teachers and evangelists and so forth. Good. Okay. Article seven. We believe in the gift of tongues. Prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth. So this is also a New Testament phenomenon. Right. There are a couple different lists of the spiritual gifts. The major spiritual gifts in various parts of scripture. For instance, 1 Corinthians 12, 13, 13 is one list that's the earliest list. A very similar, almost exactly parallel list is found in Moroni chapter 10 and also in Doctrine and Covenants 46. And in section 46, we're actually invited to seek earnestly the best gifts, the best gift for the situation. And Joseph Smith taught that sometimes you won't even know what your spiritual gifts are until the moment arises when you would need such a gift to be used. And that's when manifest, which is interesting. And the point of the spiritual gifts is never to show off or to show how spiritual you are. But in section 46, it says it's given to help you benefit the church. Right. These gifts are to help benefit other people. So I have a controversial question, Casey.
- [48:48]
B
Yeah.
- [48:49]
A
Do you think we still believe in all of these gifts today as a church? Like, do we really believe in the gift of tongues? Like Brigham Young standing up in the temple and speaking in a tongue and someone else stands up and interprets. Do we believe in prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues? Seems like some of those. Most Latter Day Saints would say yes, and others maybe not. I don't know.
- [49:18]
I guess my question's coming from this, Casey. Like, it seems like a lot of these gifts help have not been seen by very many of us, with the exception probably of the gift of healing and the gift of faith to be healed, as well as maybe the gift of maybe revelation and prophecy at general conference and hearing people bear witness of Jesus in sacrament meetings. But I don't know. Do you think we believe we collectively as a church still believe heartily in these gifts?
- [49:49]
B
The short answer is. Is yes, of course we do. The long answer, I think we believe in all these but maybe not in the same way that the early members of the Church did, because their cultural context is so removed from ours. So the gift of tongues in the 1830s looks like Brigham Young speaking in an unknown tongue. The gift of tongues in the 2000s is a missionary learning Korean unnaturally fast and being able to understand it. Like, we believe in the gifts of the Spirit, but they're manifest differently in different cultural contexts so that they can have meaning maximum effect. Picking it up in article of faith 8. We believe the Bible to be the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God. And I'm just going to say the 9th and the 8th article of faith are related. Spoiler. But the 9th article of faith is about continuing revelation. But they do highlight one of the biggest differences between us and other Christians, specifically this idea of an open canon of Scripture. Like I mentioned, thinking of a talk Jeffrey R. Holland gave a few years ago where he came out and just basically said, if we're being intellectually honest, there's two points where we disagree with almost all of Christianity and we've just got to be direct about what that is. The Godhead and the Open Canon. And then he gave one talk on the Godhead and then he gave a talk six months later on the Open canon, which I'm going to quote from liberally in just. Just a second. But I mean, if we were to actually paraphrase this, it's kind of written in a friendly way. We believe the Bible to be the Word of God. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God. But we'd also say we believe the Doctrine and Covenants to be the world of God and the Pearl of Great price. And we believe the statements made by living prophets to be the Word of God. I mean, the Doctrine and Covenants existed when Joseph Smith made this statement. The Pearl of Great Price didn't. Maybe he should have, but maybe that was like opening a can of worms. This is a missionary statement. We believe that the message of the Restoration is the Scripture. Prophets and revelation can come to all people in any time or place. In fact, on its title page, the Book of Mormon declares that Jesus is the Christ, the eternal God, manifesting himself to all nations, and that the children of God are found everywhere in the world, and the Lord speaks to them through prophets called to them. The Doctrine and Covenants testifies that God doesn't discriminate according to the time or place that his children comes to earth. He speaks in all ages and to all places. So this is disguised in a nice way. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it's translated correctly. But what we're really saying is we don't think God just spoke to people in Palestine. We think that he spoke to people in America. We think that he speaks to people today. We're open to the idea that he may have spoken to numerous groups of people. Now, I'm going to quote from Elder Jeffrey R. Holland. He said this. The fact of the matter is that virtually every prophet of the Old and New Testament has added the Scripture to that received by his predecessors. If the Old Testament words of Moses were sufficient, as some could have mistakenly thought them to be, then why, for example, the subsequent prophecies of Isaiah or Jeremiah or who follows him, to say nothing of Ezekiel and Daniel, of Joel, Amos and all the rest? If one revelation to one prophet in one moment of time is sufficient for all time, what justifies these many others? What justifies them was made clear by Jesus, Jehovah himself when he said to Moses, my works are without end and my words never cease. So this is. We're getting into some major theological controversies, which open canon has got to be near the top when we're speaking with other Christians to say, hey, we have additional books of scripture and we're open to the idea of receiving new books of scripture. That's going to be a deal breaker for a lot of Christians, but it's also something that we just can't back down on and we won't back down on. And we should. We shouldn't back down on.
- [53:42]
A
Yeah. Amen. Well, let's go to number nine, which you said goes right along with eight. I agree. This, this idea of continuing revelation is highlighted. It says, we believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal. And we believe that he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God. So while Latter Day Saints do hold the Scriptures to be sacred, and we always emphasize their study, we emphasize their study maybe better than, I don't know, most. There was a pew research that was done recently, just came to my head where Latter Day Saints are among the highest scripture studiers in America. Did you know that, Casey? Have you heard about that research? That's, that's, that's so cool. We emphasize scripture study a lot. We, we have our teenagers go to seminaries. We call them seminaries. It's release time, school, class to study scripture. Scripture. We do it a lot in our Sunday schools. Like, we are big fans of Scripture. We try to live it. We try to, you know, let it alter our lives in positive ways. But we also believe that more could come and more probably will come. And we haven't had anything canonized recently, but we believe that that can happen and hopefully will. Right. Like, we're open to that. So. And part of this is because all problems, like Elder Holland was talking about, talking about in that quote you were saying, like all problems can't be resolved by an appeal to Scripture. Many problems can, but not all of them. And I mean, this is highlighted by Joseph Smith when he first is struggling, right? When he says, I found the teachers of religion of the different sects. They understood the same passages of Scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible. He went to God directly and received a rabbit revelation. Elder Holland, he actually said something else super insightful in that same talk you were quoting. He said, he said the Scriptures are not the ultimate source of knowledge for Latter Day Saints. They are manifestations of the ultimate source. The ultimate source of knowledge and authority for a Latter Day Saint is the living God. The communication of those gifts comes from God as living vibrant, divine revelation. And then the revelations in the Scriptures are the, the record of a revelation, right, that was received, but they're not the revelation themselves. But perhaps the most tantalizing part of this ninth article of faith is, is the promise that God will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God. We, we look to ancient texts as Latter Day Saints for inspiration and guidance, but we also anticipate, anticipate the word of God to prophets in our day and in future days will come. And that's exciting. And that keeps things, I think, interesting in a pretty vibrant church. Now that's obviously in contrast with a lot of Christianity in the 1840s and still today. A lot will believe that public revelation is closed, like with the death of the apostles. They call it public revelation. Revelation, that's done. However, I have noticed among a lot of Christians, they believe that the Spirit of God still illuminates individuals, guides believers, illuminates scripture studiers to have inspiration in their lives. And so they believe on that level of revelation, but they don't believe that any new doctrines could be added that are on par with the Bible. And Latter Day Saints do believe that we actually do. And so that's an interesting distinction.
- [57:22]
B
That's a good insight. I've never run into a person from any church who didn't believe God couldn't speak to them. Right. They just don't believe in authoritative revelation that comes to prophets and apostles. That would be a big thing for them because then they have to commit to a church and it's still something that we work through. Right. What is revelation? What is a prophet? Speaking as a prophet, all that complexity but meeting them halfway to say, yeah, we believe God can reveal things to anybody, which I think most, most Christians would agree with. God speaks to people.
- [57:51]
A
We're kind of unique that way.
- [57:53]
B
Yeah. So picking it up in article of faith 10, this is where we get into some very distinct Latter Day Saint believes. We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the ten tribes. That Zion, the new Jerusalem will be built upon the American continent, that Christ will reign personally upon the earth, and that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory. So, so let's qualify a couple terms here. We believe that Israel is the royal family of humanity. But what makes Israel unique is that anyone can join it just by accepting the principles and ordinances of the Gospel. An ancient scripture largely is a record of God's dealings with the House of Israel. In fact, one stated purpose of the Book of Mormon is to show unto the remnant of the House of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for the their fathers, and that they may know the covenants of the Lord that they are not cast off forever. That's the title page of the Book of Mormon. The history in the Old Testament, in the Book of Mormon and in other ancient scripture, tells the story of Israel. Its rise, its fall, its scattering among the nations. The Scriptures brought forth in the latter days are intended to facilitate a gathering of Israel. So teaching his disciples in America, Jesus Christ prophesied of a sign signaling the beginning of the gathering of Israel. This is in 3 Nephi 21. He told his disciples, when these things which I declare unto you shall be known unto the Gentiles, that the sign would be fulfilled. That's 3 Nephi 211 3. So the coming forth of the Book of Mormon according to a prophecy of Jesus Christ himself, is the sign that the promise of the gathering is beginning to be fulfilled. So Israel, what we believe, and we had conversations about this when we did, section 133 is currently scattered among all the nations. That seems to be the most elegant and simple way to describe it. Many of those who gather to modern Israel, we also believe, are not blood descendants of the original House of Israel. They're adopted. And the Lord doesn't really make a distinction between a blood descendant or an adopted member of the House of Israel. They just have to choose of their own accord to be part of the House of Israel. And part of that gathering includes a return to their ancestral homelands. But probably the most important part of the gathering would be that they realize their true identity and purpose. So I know it is controversial to say that Israel should return to its homeland, but we don't want to put the cart before the horse here. Right. The most important thing is that they return to their heritage and understand who and what they are. The land and all those things can kind of work itself out. As things go, the spiritual gathering is first in importance and takes priority over the physical gathering. For instance, Mormon pleads with the members of the House of Israel. This is in his final address to them, to know that ye are of the House of Israel and know ye that ye must come unto repentance or ye cannot be saved. So Mormon talks about repentance before he says, says, and we've got to get our land back, or anything like that. Ancient prophets testified that the miracles associated with the gathering of Israel would actually eclipse the earlier gathering of Israel. That what happens in the latter days would be greater than what happened, say, under the time of Moses. For instance, Jeremiah said, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that it shall no more be said. The Lord liveth that brought up the children of Israel out of of the land of Egypt. But the Lord liveth that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north and from all the lands which ye have driven them, and I will bring them again into their land which I gave unto their fathers. In other words, Jeremiah is saying, yeah, today when we talk about God having power, we talk about Moses. But a time is going to come when people, when they want to express the power of God, will say, let's talk about the latter day gathering and what that meant and how important it was. And a component of the gathering which the article of faith here express is a physical gathering too. But for all our discussions we've had, Scott, about the location of Zion or if the city of Zion has to be rebuilt, we also need to state that we firmly agree, and I think you agree with me, that the spiritual gathering of Israel is the top priority. Right. Let's get that done. And then where we're supposed to gather to is going to work itself out if we get ourselves to the right place spiritually.
- [62:20]
A
Yeah, absolutely. Like, and that's solid Book of Mormon doctrine, New Testament Doctrine that when you receive Christ, you become of the house of Israel, you become Abraham's seed heirs according to the promise. Like, doesn't matter. Lineage. That's the most important thing. Yes. And then Israel will gather to locations. Jesus in the Book of Mormon highlights how there will be places on this continent for Israel to gather. And in addition to the Jews in. In the old world, and in addition to other sheep, which I have, which are not of this fold or that fold, that will have places to gather. And so we've had presidents of the church, like President Kimball forward saying things like, the place of gathering for the Koreans is in Korea, the place of gathering for Brazilians is in Brazil, etc. Right. That this idea of, like, now we gather in the stakes. This is our physical gathering. We gather in the stakes, uh, that of where we're from, we don't. And he's pushing against the idea of what we used to do, which was gather to. If you're in England, you gather to Nauvoo and then to Utah. Wherever you are, you gather to where the temples are. But now we're taking the temples out to all the people. And so now you can stay where you are because really what matters is the gathering.
- [63:33]
You know, that occurs. Like you're saying it's a spiritual gathering, which I don't really love the word spiritual gathering, because you're. You're doing. You're doing things physically. You're, you're. You're repenting, You're. You're coming unto God. You're going to temple. You're. You're changing your life the way that you live, to be in accordance with the covenants of the temple. And, and that is. That is the gathering that's, like, of ultimate importance. Right? So. So, yeah, no, I. That's a long way of saying I agree with that. And I'll just point out one more thing here is that this is 1842, when Joseph wrote this. And remember that in 1841, that's when in January, Section 124 was given where the Lord alleviated Joseph Smith's major worry, which was, what about Missouri? What about Missouri? He still wanted Missouri. He went to Washington D.C. in 1840 to try to get help from the federal government to get Missouri back. But the government wouldn't help. I mean, he's put some serious effort into figuring out, what do we do about missing Missouri and Section 124. The Lord says, I require that work no more at your hands. And so I think what's Reflected here. When Joseph says Zion, the new Jerusalem will be built upon the American continent. I think he would have loved to have said Jackson County, Missouri. But in 1842, you know, it's like, well, somewhere on this continent it will be built. I think, you know, in Joseph Smith mind, like somewhere.
- [65:03]
That'S, you know, that's as far as he's willing to go. In 1842.
- [65:08]
B
We have earlier revelations that say where, but we'll leave it at that.
- [65:11]
A
Okay. All right, let's go to number 11. We claim. This is the only one that starts out with we claim. We claim the privilege of worshiping almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience and allow all men the same privilege. Let them worship how, where or what, what they may. Okay, so this one's awesome. This one's very pro religious freedom, right? We want the same privilege of worshiping God that we insist on allowing other people to exercise. Like church leaders from Joseph Smith to the present day have taught the importance of religious tolerance and cooperation among people of faith and goodwill toward all men. Like one really great example is in the Council of Faith 50 minutes where Joseph Smith says this. He says, God cannot save or damn a man only on the principle that every man acts, chooses and worships for himself. Hence the importance of thrusting from us every spirit of bigotry and intolerance towards a man's religious sentiments. That spirit which has drenched the earth with blood. When a man feels the least temptation to such intolerance, he ought to spurn it from him. Close quote. In that same discourse he said, the principles of intolerance and bigotry never had a place in this kingdom, nor in my breast. Nothing can reclaim the human mind from its ignorance, bigotry, superstition, etc. But those grand and sublime principles of equal rights and universal freedom to all men. Hence in all governments or political transactions, a man's religious opinions should never be called in question. A man should be judged by the law independent of religious prejudice. That's so good. That is so good. So broad minded. It's so refreshing. This is our stake in the ground. We believe in religious liberty for all. And by the way, I think that sounds an 1840s like very American mainstream. I think most Christians and others in America would nod their head in the 1840s to what Joseph is saying here. So that one's not really controversial and not really distinctive to Latter Day Saints. But I think it was important for Joseph to say it, to proclaim it.
- [67:30]
B
But let me point out one thing. That quote comes from the council of 50 minutes which we've talked about, the council of 50, before which they functionally called the Kingdom of God. They believed that The Council of 50 was going to be the government of the Kingdom of God, that article of faith 10 talks about. And that seems to say that when Jesus comes again and rules not only as the ecclesiastical, but the civil ruler of the earth, there will be religious freedom, that not everybody's going to be forced to be a Christian, that there will still be Buddhists and Muslims and all manner of faiths under the law. Because again, it's in The Council of 50, this governmental structure, that Joseph Smith is making these statements and saying, hey, of course vital part of the Kingdom of God is going to be that a person worships according to the dictates of their own conscience, that their religious opinions are their own and they're judged by the law independent of religious prejudice, which is what the minutes say, essentially. So that's an interesting insight that we're not all necessarily going to be Latter Day Saints when the Kingdom of God is established. I mean, I think most people will convert, but if they're stubborn and they don't want to, nobody's going to to force them to.
- [68:42]
A
Yeah, we talked earlier this week About Official Declaration 2 and the call from our modern prophets to get racial prejudice out of our system. We just got to get it out of our system. Like it still lingers. It still lingers the, you know, racist ideas and concepts. But I love this, let's add this to that, what Joseph Smith is saying. Let's get the spirit of bigotry about other people, religions, our intolerance towards other people's beliefs out of our system. Let's let them worship God how, where, or what they may, and never shame somebody for believing different than we do, never treating them poorly, for believing differently than we do, but coming together in the spirit of love. I like how Joseph Smith would say, he'd say, keep every good thing you've got and see if we can add to it. Right. And I would, I would also flip it around and say, see if there's something we can learn from them too. Like, that's a much more beautiful way to live than living in the spirit of bigotry and intolerance. Like you said, it's that spirit that has drenched the earth with blood. I think we've had enough of that. Let's do it a different way. Let's do it the Lord's way.
- [69:55]
B
Well, I'm going to pick it up with article of 8 12, we believe in being subjects to kings, presidents, rulers and magistrates, in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law. This is written when the church is just in a handful of countries, the United States, Canada, a little bit to Western Europe. But today this is more complex. The church is a big global family that's scattered around the world. Almost every nation on earth has a congregation of Latter Day Saints, and they live in a wide variety of political climates, systems, and various forms of government. But in all nations, a consistent value among Latter Day Saints is this desire to contribute to their home country and to be good citizens. And church leaders even ask Latter Day Saints to participate in the political processes and to work to better themselves and the societies that they're part of. For instance, President Oaks said, we should be knowledgeable citizens who are are active in making our influence felt in civic affairs. So I was on a trip once with some scripture central kids, and we were talking about a recent election, and one of them was like, I didn't vote because I don't think it's going to matter. And I went off on him. I was like, hey, you know what? That's the kind of stuff that gets societies into trouble. And I didn't bring the hammer down and say, and you're disobeying the Council of the First Presidency. But he kind of was. So it's a commandment that we are involved in what's happening that seems to.
- [71:30]
A
Be part of, or you could interpret it as being part of Jesus's statement that we ought to be in the world. Right, but not of the world. So part of being in the world is being involved in civic affairs. Like we need to be in the world in order to make a difference in the world. And so anyway, that's one way. That's not the only way, but that's one way that certainly applies.
- [71:53]
B
Dallin H. Oaks, by the way, has a fascinating civic theology that we need to do a series on. It's good stuff.
- [72:00]
A
How would you summarize it?
- [72:02]
B
Let me put it this way. There are a few places, a few places, like where you and I live, Scott, in Utah and Idaho, where Latter Day Saints are the majority. But most places, Latter Day Saints are the minority. And that means that we've got to work with people of goodwill and we might have to come compromise to find ways to safeguard public morals, health and safety. Where Latter Day Saints are majority, they're taught by our leaders to be sensitive and cautious towards minorities. For instance, when we create laws, Latter Day Saints can be informed by their religious belief. But we should also be sensitive to everybody around us. Like President Oaks taught this. He said believers should not be deterred by the familiar charge that they are trying to legislate morality. Many areas of the law are based on Judeo, Christianity morality, and have been for centuries. Our civilization is based on morality and cannot exist without it. But while our beliefs spiritually and religiously do drive our political beliefs as well, politics is the art of compromise, right? And that is where we have to seek out people from different areas. And the other thing I'll say too is in the last couple years, the church has been kind of a sanctuary for me politically, because I go there to meet with people of different political persuasions, and I'm not going to give a lot away about my politics. But I remember back during the pandemic when we weren't meeting as a church and we were siloed, right? And everybody's like, reading their social media feed and it started to get crazy and people started to post crazy stuff. I was so grateful to go back to church. And all of a sudden I'm sitting in elders quorum with a guy whose political beliefs are very different from mine. But I can see he's a good man. He loves his family, he serves his calling, he is a decent fellow. And it's much harder for me to demonize or hate him when I'm serving alongside him in the church. So I think the church is an important third space in society where people of different political persuasions can come together and can work to make things better. And we can find compromise and not demonize the other side, which we are so prone to do, especially the last couple of years. So I'm grateful for that, too. I'm grateful for this teaching that, you know, we are subject to different kinds of laws, different kinds of people. But the civic theology that we believe in in the church is that we can be different, but we can work towards positive aims for all people.
- [74:31]
A
Well said. Okay, we made it to the 13th article of faith. Here we are, last one. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men. He's quoting from Paul here, and then he acknowledges that indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul. We believe all things. We hope all things. We have endured many things and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything, anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things. Ah, that's so good. What a good succinct. Description of who we are. A couple of things I want to point out. Number one, when he says we believe, believe all things, we hope all things. Of course, that's a Pauline phrase, but I think Joseph Smith loves this idea of keeping, keeping it open, right? Like, like we said at the outset, Joseph was anti creedal. He didn't want to be boxed in by creeds. He, he said, I don't want to feel hemmed in. I don't, I don't want to set up stakes of what we believe and say we will go no further in our beliefs than this. He always wanted to keep it open like we believe all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, good report, praiseworthy. That's what we're after. We want those kinds of things and we believe in those things and we're gonna go out and get them. And so that's just. To me, that's, that's incredibly beautiful. We are seekers. We are seekers who seek the good, the true, the beautiful. Here. Joseph Smith once said, another occasion, he said we should gather all the good and true principles in, in the world and treasure them up or we shall not come out true Mormons. He said. Another time he said one of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth. Let it come from whence it may. We don't care about the source. Is it good, is it virtuous, is it lovely, is it praiseworthy? Boom. Then. Then we seek it. We seek it. Brigham Young added to that same speaker spirit. He said, whether a truth be found with professed infidels or with Universalists or the Church of Rome, or Methodists, the Church of England, the Presbyterians, the Baptists, the Quakers, the Shakers, or any other of the various, numerous different sects and parties, all of whom have more or less truth. He said, it's our business to gather up all the truths in the world, wherever it may be found, in every nation, kindred tongues, tongue and people, and bring it to Zion. That's so good. Bonus quote from Brigham Young. He said Mormonism incorporates every system of true doctrine on the earth, whether it's ecclesiastical, moral, philosophical or civil. It circumscribes the doctrines of the day and it takes from the right, it takes from the left, and it brings all truth together in one system and leaves the chaff to be scattered hither and thither. I love it. I love the aspiration of Article of Faith 13 and these related quotes from prophets and apostles who just. They've at least set out what we aspire to do. Maybe we don't always rise up to that, but that's what we aspire to do. Okay, one more Brigham Young quote. He said, I want to say to my friends that we believe in all good. If you can find a truth in heaven, earth or hell, it belongs to our doctrine. We believe it. It is ours, we claim it. I love the aspiration of that. So good.
- [78:01]
I've told you, Casey, I teach world religions and these are some of my guiding quotes that I share with my students at the beginning of the semester. To say, we're going to study a lot of people who believe a lot of things in this world. As we go out seeking, let's the article of faith 13 be our guide and let's let these quotes from the prophets be our guide too. That if it's good, if it's true, if it's beautiful, let's adopt it. Because that's Mormonism right there. Joseph Smith says that's Mormonism. So I love that. Anything else about Article 13 you want to say?
- [78:33]
B
It basically gives us permission to say there's good found everywhere in the world and we can seek it out. Like I started my college career as a theater major. I came to BYU on a theater school scholarship. Then I met my wife and realized I was just doing theater to meet girls. But my theater professors would put theater in the context of the Gospel and my humanities professors and my geology professors. Everybody was able to say, hey, studying geology should strengthen your testimony because I remember my theater professor sharing this quote by Brigham Young. Brigham Young said if I were placed on Accountable island and given the task of civilizing its people, I should straightway build a theater. He felt like theater was a great way to teach morality, to help people understand the consequences of good and evil. And I'm just grateful that I don't have to close my eyes to the world around me as a Latter Day Saint, that I don't seek out the bad and there is genuine bad and evil out there, but there's so much good too. And we seek those things. We seek to bring those things back to us. And we acknowledge them as part of the work of God as well. That God works among all people and all faiths and there's a lot of good stuff going on to counter the evil and the rising darkness that we also see sometimes in the world.
- [79:53]
A
Yeah, well said. Some of these are really comfortable in American Christianity of the 1840s. Like article of faith 1, 2, 3, 4, 11 through 13. Those are very. I think most Christians would know Nod and say, okay, you people are a lot like us people, you know.
- [80:14]
That would resonate. And then will they overlap with other sort of restorationist movements which are maybe not so mainstream Protestant? Article of faith 4 and 6, 7 and 9, and then maybe article of faith 10. Even with this idea of there are some groups in the 1840s that are really looking for the second coming to happen, maybe with the exception of being like, in, you know, the American continent. But. But there are. There are many that would resonate with. With that to some degree. But then there's like some that, I guess we would call them fault lines, you know, sharp fault lines between Latter Day Saints in the 1840s and American Christianity. That would be article of faith 5 and I think 6 to some degree, definitely 8 and 9, as you. You pointed out, some elements of sacramental practice as outlined in 3 and 4. This idea that we need ordinances in order to cooperate in our own salvation with Jesus Christ. And then for sure, article of Faith 10 with the new Jerusalem on the American continent, a literal gathering to it. Those make us very, very distinct. The Book of Mormon, the gathering, especially on Israel, America. Wow. Big, huge. The fact that we believe in living apostles and prophets claiming authority from God.
- [81:38]
Very distinctive. Very distinctive. So there's a nice mix here of both, you know, common ground and distinctive ground. And so we know that Joseph Smith knew who his audience was, right? American Christians. And so it's fun to see how he's. He is showing our common ground with Christians and he's also showing where we're distinct. And then there's an invitation to kind of come and see, you know, in the rest of the Wentworth letter, come and see what God is doing in Nauvoo and come join us.
- [82:11]
B
Well, that was all 13 articles of faith. Let's talk controversies here. Scott.
- [82:22]
A
It's well known that Orson Pratt wrote up a very. I'd say a lot longer version than what we just went through. That's very. It's similar order. He doesn't hit every point that Joseph Smith hits, but most of them, and some of the language is even similar. Certainly the concepts are. And so some people have accused Joseph Smith of stealing the Article of Faith from Orson Pratt. Casey, what do you want to say about that? Did Joseph steal the Articles of Faith from Orson Pratt?
- [82:53]
B
Plagiarism. Wow. I mean, Joseph and Orson Pratt knew each other. And yeah, if you read through Orson Pratt's pamphlet, it's clear that there's tons of parallels between the two. But that's assuming that Joseph Smith never had a conversation with Orson Pratt or that they weren't part of the same church or that they didn't collaborate together. I mean, you and I collaborate on a podcast, right? And I hope people won't accuse me of plagiarizing you when I, you know, borrow explanations that you give to share with other people. I mean.
- [83:29]
Let'S just take an example. For instance, Orson Pratt's Articles of Faith, which I'm not going to read. They're really long. I'm just going to pull two samples here, okay? These are found in an interesting account of several remarkable visions. His pamphlet published in Scotland in 1840, which, by the way, contains the earliest printed account of the first vision. First time, First Vision appears in print. It's a very important document in our history. And in it, he goes through a kind of Articles of Faith, which. Here it goes. First, we believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in his Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, who bears record of them, the same throughout all ages and forever. That is clearly very similar to Article of Faith one. Right. It's a little bit longer, but the language is almost precise. Article of faith 2. We believe that all mankind, by the transgression of their first parents and not by their own sins, were brought under the curse and penalty of that transgression, which consigned them to an eternal banishment from the presence of God and their bodies to an endless sleep in the dust, never more to rise, and their spirits to endless misery under the power of Satan, and that in this awful condition, they were utterly lost and fallen and had no power of their own to extricate themselves therefrom. So.
- [84:42]
A
Okay, that's a little longer.
- [84:44]
B
It's about the fall. Joseph Smith said.
- [84:47]
We believe mankind will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam's transgression. So maybe Joseph Smith just had a better editor or something like that that was like, hey, let's punch this thing up, pal. Let's make it a little bit more succinct for the kids out there. But that's just an example. Yeah, they're similar, but I mean, accusing Joseph Smith of plagiarism is misunderstanding how Joseph Smith Smith operated. There's so many people that just assume that everything came from Joseph Smith when Joseph Smith was constantly working with people and collaborating and getting input and help from others. He does put his signature at the end of this. But that's not to say that he couldn't have run this past orson Pratt or W.W. phelps. And Orson Pratt himself never comes out and says, hey, you stole my pamphlets or anything like that. I mean there's, there's just so many faulty assumptions here. And the other thing is we're comfortable today with the idea that prophets and apostles collaborate to produce material for the church. The leaders of the church have been very open. President Oaks has talked about how there was a year long collaboration to produce the family proclamation, that they went back and forth and discussed ideas. They would probably say the same thing about the living Christ, the Restoration proclamation in any of these unified documents. I just don't know why we feel like we have to hold Joseph Smith to a different standard or I don't know any members of the church that would be disturbed by this. But I have honestly seen anti church tiktoks and things like that where they're saying, well, Joseph Smith stole all the Articles of Faith from Orson Pratt. That's misunderstanding fundamentally the relationship of Joseph Smith and Orson Pratt and all church leaders to begin with. They work together, they share ideas. This wasn't a revelation, strictly speaking, like the sections of the Doctrine and Covenants. So it's fair game for collaboration. And I'm glad he did. I think the Articles of Faith are a considerable improvement over Orson Pratt's ones, which are very good, by the way, but really wordy. We read two of the shortest ones. The next one about the atonement honestly goes on for quite a while, which.
- [86:56]
A
I actually like it. I like what you saying a lot, but it's not succinct. It's not succinct. So yeah, if you want to be punchy and succinct. Yeah.
- [87:06]
B
It'd be hard to write a primary song that, that lets you memorize Orson Pratt's Articles of Faith. Be tough for a kid to memorize. So I'm glad for the Articles of Faith that we have. Have no heartburn over this.
- [87:16]
A
You highlighted that. It's. It's in that same pamphlet that Elder Pratt published in, In Scotland that we get the 1840 account of the first vision which Joseph Smith will draw on Orson Pratt's wording in his 1842 telling. In this Wentworth letter, he's clearly interacting with Orson Pratt's pamphlet. Right. It would be as silly to accuse Joseph of plagiarizing the Articles of Faith from Orson Pratt as it would be to say that he plagiarized the first vision from Orson Pratt. Like let's, let's be clear here about which one is derivative of the other. Right. Like Orson. Orson is learning this stuff from Joseph and his revelations and so, yeah, Joseph. But I think it's a cool compliment to Orson Pratt that Joseph Smith thought that he was a clear thinker in his organization and that Joseph.
- [88:06]
Will borrow from that same organization. I think that's a great compliment, and I think that's a fair way to kind of say it. Like, Joseph's 1842 Articles of Faith are an absolute abstraction of Orson Pratt's articles. Like, they preserve the essential principles and the theology, but they. They're not feisty like Orson Pratt is feisty. He is. He's fighting a little bit.
- [88:29]
B
He's.
- [88:29]
A
He's polemical. He's. He is arguing with other Christians in, In the way he writes. Joseph Smith is not being argumentative. He's being very diplomatic in the way he is writing this out. So it's. It's more succinct. It's. It's an abstraction. But he actually does add some stuff. Right. He like article Faith 11:12. Like, Orson Pratt doesn't talk about government at all. So that's. That's unique. There's a. There's a couple others.
- [88:57]
B
I don't think there's an article of faith 13 in Orson Pratt's, is there.
- [89:01]
A
There's not an article Faith 13 in Orson Pratt's as well. Yeah.
- [89:04]
B
So Orson Pratt's one of our greatest theologians, and nothing can ever take away from that. But, I mean, you're. You're missing the collaborative nature. Like, we've had a number of Joseph Smith originalists kind of rise up in the church, who, unless it came from Joseph, I don't trust it. And that's fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of the Restoration, which was God didn't just raise up one prophet. He raised up an entire generation of gifted people and brought them together so that they could collaborate and produce these beautiful works that we use today to explain and defend our faith.
- [89:38]
A
Yeah, well said.
- [89:39]
B
One more controversy. The Articles of Faith are wonderful, but they don't seem very complete. They leave out stuff like temples, eternal families, baptism for the dead. What do you say about that? How come the Articles of Faith don't talk about some of the most important things the Latter Day Saints believe, like eternal families?
- [89:56]
A
A couple things about that I'd say is those are all Nauvoo doctrines, right? Those are all Nauvoo things that were in development in 1850, 42, when Joseph wrote this. The doctrine of baptisms for the dead had been taught, and it was being practiced. The first endowments will be practiced 1842. This year.
- [90:18]
Eternal marriages will start. I think the next year. But I would say that's all kind of proto like, that's all like just getting off the ground. The temple theology is coming together. The temple hasn't even been fully built yet. Right. It's under construction when he writes the article Miracles of Faith. So I think that would have been premature to talk about those doctrines, honestly, because most Latter Day Saints at that point didn't, didn't fully understand those doctrines. And we've talked about how those doctrines continue to develop. At least the implementation and practice of like work for the dead isn't really complete until St. George, where we're doing all the ordinances for the dead. And then the idea of ceilings isn't really worked out until like 1890 with Wilford Woodruff. And so I would say it's under construction. Those doctrines are under construction. They're, they're being elaborated and iterated and practices are starting to come together as the temple's being built. So that's my initial reaction is like, that would have been premature. Secondly, like the audience that Joseph is reaching out to here, we've seen he's not afraid to draw distinctions between Latter Day Saints and other Christians. But yeah, I don't think at that time in that context that would have been the right, the right move as you're reaching out to other Christians. Maybe it would have been, I don't know, but it doesn't seem like it. And I also like what you said earlier about this is Latter Day Saints 101. This isn't the higher ed courses. This is the beginning stuff. So if our assumption is that this is exhaustive, then that's a false assumption. This is, is not exhaustive. But I don't know, what else would you add to that?
- [91:55]
B
They're the beginning of the conversation. They're not the end of the conversation.
- [91:58]
A
Casey, help us take this home. What are the consequences of articles of faith? Have they made a difference in our church? And if so, what's that impact?
- [92:12]
B
The articles of faith are sort of a first step towards a systemization of our beliefs, but they're only a first step. They're a good place to begin again. They're clearly designed to serve as an introduction and not a deep dive into Latter Day Saint beliefs. At the same time, a lot of our really good theologians and writers have used the articles of faith as the jumping off point to introduce Latter Day Saint theology. So I'm talking like James E. Talmadge writes a book called Articles of Faith that he just goes through and explores them. But even he starts out by saying the Articles of Faith aren't comprehensive like this. This is from Elder Talmage's book. He says the beliefs and prescribed practices of most religious sects are usually set forth in formal creeds. Latter Day Saints announce no creed as a complete code for their faith. For while they hold the precepts of eternal life are unchangeable, they accept the principle of continuous revelation as a characteristic feature of their belief. However, when asked for a concise presentation of the principal religious views of history, his people, Joseph Smith, the first prophet of the Church in this present dispensation, announced as a declaration of belief the Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. These include the more essential and characteristic features of the Gospel as accepted by this Church, but they're not complete as an exposition of our belief. And then another eminent theologian who I think just really liked James E. Talmadge and wanted to match his output was Bruce R. McConkey. So James E. Talmage writes Jesus the Christ, which is one. One volume. Elder McConkey writes the Messiah series, which is. What is it, seven volumes?
- [93:50]
A
Four or five?
- [93:51]
B
Yeah, yeah, four. Just on the life of Christ and then the premortal and millennial Messiah. So I guess that's six volumes. And then he even writes a book called the New Witness for the Articles of Faith. Because James E. Dallage did it. He summarizes the beliefs. He says this. It is the hope and prayer of this disciple, meaning Elder McConkie, that the doctrines announced and the truths taught in the Articles of Faith may live in in the hearts of the Latter Day Saints and all who will yet join them in striving to gain that eternal life which is the greatest of all the gifts of God. There is no salvation in an unused truth. It is only when men conform to the truth and make it part of their very being that they advance and progress and finally qualify to return to the eternal presence. So Elder McConkie, who is a very sophisticated thinker who loved to do deep dives, felt like this was a good starting place. And then the last person I'll quote is El Tom Peter Perry, that great apostle that passed away a couple years ago. I remember he came and spoke in my mission, and he talked about how he taped up the Articles of Faith on his mirror. And while he was shaving, he would memorize them, which I tried to do. I haven't been as diligent as he was. But he then said what a great blessing it would be if every member of the church memorized the articles of faith and became knowledgeable about the principles of contained in each, we would be better prepared to share the gospel with others. I encourage each of you to study the articles of faith and the doctrines they teach. If you will use them as a guide to direct your studies of the Savior's doctrine, you will find yourselves prepared to declare your witness to the restored true Church of the Lord. They're a great introduction to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. And let's use them for that. Like, I really think we would all be better off if we memorized the articles of faith and could kind of stay snap them off at that. At that conference that I talked about at the first of the episode, I found them very useful in sparking conversations and finding commonality and also in helping point out the differences between our faith and those of the people that I was with.
- [95:47]
A
Yeah, and it's very appropriate that we use these, especially in primary classes. Right. Like, what a great. Like, if you don't know quite where to start with your kids, start with these. What a great place to start to help your kids start to have the building block of some sort of what I believe. Right? Here's what we believe about God the Father, about accountability for our sins, about Jesus and His atonement, etc. Ongoing revelation, Scripture gathering seeking. So good. So good. Love it. Well, thank you, Casey. This has been fun to walk through this. And we have next week another special treat which is not in the Doctrine and Covenants. We get to study the family proclamation. So we will look forward to that. And we'll see you then.
- [96:34]
B
Okay, see you then.