They decided you could be a half-Puritan, which technically sounds like you’re half dirty today, but hear me out. To be a full Puritan, and originally that’s the only religious option you had as a resident of the Bay Colony unless you wanted to be reduced to basic carbon, you were expected to produce evidence of a miraculous, heartfelt conversion to the truth of the Puritan interpretation of the gospel of Christ.

The problem was, you had generations of kids who had been raised in the Puritan community who were not able to provide dramatic testimony of their conversion, which is understandable for sociological reasons. So that generation grew up and had kids and then, what the heck is a good totalizing church-culture to do?  The Half-Way Covenant was a way to soften the requirements of membership in order to maintain some sort of control over the members by dropping the expectation of public confession of conversion.  One still had to pay dues, or taxes, to support the church and community, in order to live in the community. And I suppose one couldn’t be a raging heretic, although the Congregationalists (the organizational descendants of the Puritans )today are much less dogmatic and more accepting of heretics than their great-great-great-great-grandmothers.

So could Mormons adopt a half-way covenant to stop membership losses in the United States, Canada, and other First World nations, and what would a Mormon half-way covenant look like?

Every teacher is obligated by his responsibility to others to become a scholar in the gospel. He must obtain a sound and full understanding of the theology of the Church.  He must not give erroneous beliefs to his students or permit them to develop unsound inferences from what he says.

The pragmatic or experimental view of life has penetrated widely into the educational program of America, in the form known as Progressive Education…Most teachers who accept some of these ideas would indignantly reject any suggestion that the universe is naturalistic or Godless, that there are no fundamental moral truths, or that man is really an animal in the ultimate sense. They are simply unaware of the full logical implications of their adopted beliefs.  For this reason few L.D.S. people regard themselves as “Progressives” or “Naturalists,” even though they practice some of the things which are based on those positions.

Inequality of inheritance and opportunity among the children of men leads many people to question the Creator’s impartiality and justice, and, therefore, his very existence…Suffice it to say here that differences among men are not due to His partiality and favoritism.  He is doing all in His power for all men.  Men too are responsible for themselves and for one another.  This is man’s world as well as God’s.  The Lord’s influence among men is always for good, towards building a brotherhood of man.  Anything which tends to destroy the brotherhood of man is not inspired of God…Jesus, in his parable of the Good Samaritan, broke through racial bigotry and prejudice to teach the brotherhood of man on a spiritual plane.

Just what is the function and role of religion in one’s life? Let us suggest an experiment.  Take a piece of paper, divide it into two columns, place a plus sign above one and a negative sign above the other.  On the basis of your experience with life to-date list in these two columns respectively a) those things which have brought you most satisfaction in life and b) those things which are frustrating and destructive to fine living. In the positive column you may choose to list such things as health, economic security, achievement, friendship, love of folks, integrity, service.  In the negative column you may list ill-health, poverty, failure, hate, jealousy.  When your two lists are complete, ask yourself these questions: 1) Has my religion helped me to realize more fully these life-building elements? 2) Has my religion helped me to avoid or to partially eliminate these life-destroying elements? You will probably find, as many Latter-day Saint students who have tried this experiment do, that their religion has played a constructive role and produced happiness in their lives, more so than they had heretofore appreciated.

Every discussion of faith must distinguish it from its caricatures. Faith is not credulity. It is not “believing things you know ain’t so.” It is not a formula to get the universe to do your bidding. It is not a set of beliefs to be swallowed by one gulp. Faith is not knowledge. It is mixed with uncertainty or it would not be faith.

Who wrote it, and why wouldn’t this be published in a lesson manual today?

Welcome to my new series where I provide you, the reader, with an excerpt from an LDS church manual, uncited, which I LIKE. That means no Journal of Discourses nonsense like blood atonement, racism, or Adam-God for starters. (Sorry to disappoint some of our readers with that caveat).

You can guess if you want, such things as the author (the Church used to have individual authors stand behind their words), the title, the era, or which church program the lesson was used in. But that’s all trivia, really, compared to this: You get to list ALL THE MANY REASONS why the excerpt I give you wouldn’t make it past the Correlation Committee today!

Here’s our first one:
Young people sometimes doubt the truth of the Gospel or some part of it, and feeling the worthy desire to be sincere, they cease to be active in the Church. The answer to them is to be sincere always. One must never violate one’s integrity, whatever it may cost. But must one believe all or nothing? Must one cut off Church participation-the great source of righteousness in one’s life and in the community, because there is some doctrine doubted or disbelieved? Rather, is it not wisdom to begin, not with doubts and faults, but with the simple truths and virtues one can believe, then move on from there to others? Surely no one would claim to know all the Gospel. Great truths are always just around the corner for those who seek. Jesus told us to knock, seek, and ask, not just once, but continuously. One step at a time applies to progress in the Gospel as it does to education or any worthwhile achievement. One is not a hypocrite if he has honest questions and is active in the Church at the same time. The leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would offer this suggestion:

Start where you are. What do you believe? Start with that and take it as far as you can down life’s highway. Another truth will meet you at nearly every bend in the road. God has never intended that an honest mind should be humiliated or made unwelcome in the Church by any other member because of honest inquiry. Above all, keep the virtues of integrity, sincerity, and genuineness. Nothing else can be right in a man’s life if he is not sincere.

Go for it (here’s a hint regarding the author:)

There are many positions on which century the Book of Mormon originated in, but most seem to fall into two general camps: the book was largely produced in the fifth century by Moroni, or in the nineteenth century by Joseph Smith.

There is a third view: the text was largely produced in the 20^th century by committees of LDS Church employees.

Let me explain: when I say production, I mean the process of presenting, formatting, editing, shaping, and summarizing which goes along with creating a readable document for mass consumption. When I first read portions of the original and printer’s manuscripts of the Book of Mormon, I was struck by how differently the text read than the smooth twentieth century edition I was raised with.

The 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon was presided over by a committee of apostles including Thomas Monson (presumably for his professional background in printing) and Bruce McConkie and Boyd Packer (presumably for their doctrinal expertise). It is believed that the chapter summaries found in this edition of the Book of Mormon were written either solely or primarily by McConkie.

The 1981 edition is also the edition which has been most read by Mormons and non-Mormons, especially since President Benson’s push to flood the earth (or at least, thrift store bookshelves) with the Book of Mormon. Not many of us have the 1920 edition at hand or earlier versions. I remember my surprise when I compared my 1981 version’s rendition of “pure and delightsome” to refer to the Lamanites in 2 Nephi to my mom’s pre-1981 version of the same verse which read “white and delightsome.” Some twenty-odd major textual changes of this type were made to the 1981 edition, apparently by preferring the original manuscript to the printer’s.

Do you think a heavily edited production of the text (edited for spelling, grammar, punctuation, chapter summaries which highlight points of doctrine important to the editors, ) enhances respect for the text, and therefore increases the believability of, claims for historicity of the events depicted in the Book of Mormon? Or does it detract from the claims of historicity by seeming too clean, too “produced”?

]]> http://mormonmatters.org/2008/09/23/the-book-of-mormon-a-20th-century-text/feed/ 16 http://mormonmatters.org/2008/09/09/my-kind-of-evangelical/ http://mormonmatters.org/2008/09/09/my-kind-of-evangelical/#comments Tue, 09 Sep 2008 19:00:40 +0000 John Nilsson http://mormonmatters.org/?p=1676 As a Mormon kid growing up in the area of Southern California largely settled by Dust Bowl migrants from Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Missouri, evangelicals (we called them born-agains) were the enemy. They were the ones circulating anti-Mormon movies like the Godmakers, they were the ones telling me and my friends of the “swing-set set” that we weren’t saved, that we weren’t even Christian.

When I evolved into a liberal Mormon, theologically and politically, my opinion of evangelicals was one of the few constants in my worldview. I still had an instinctive dislike for them, their tactics, and theology.

Now that I am more comfortable in my own skin, though, I have discovered that I actually like some evangelicals. In fact, there is an entire subsection of evangelicals from whom I have learned a great deal theologically and spiritually.

My favorite Evangelical is Brian McLaren, former pastor of Cedar Ridge Church in Maryland. Author of many books like A New Kind of Christian, The Story We Find Ourselves In, Finding Our Way: The Return of the Ancient Practices, and A Generous Orthodoxy, Brian represents the emerging church, or emergent Christianity, which some polemically have called a return to the old social gospel, but which its advocates have pointed out is much more open to spiritual practices from Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. You are as likely to find Brian and those of his kind fasting, practicing fixed-hour prayer, and campaigning for Obama as you are to find them doing the traditional Sunday morning mega-church thing.

McLaren and others like Doug Pagitt are reinvigorating evangelicalism. What was once a monochromatic phemenon is now vibrant and varied. I love the way they talk about what the message of Jesus was and is.These are the kind of evangelicals I wish I had known as a conservative Mormon kid, or as a newly-liberal Mormon young adult. They are also evangelicals who don’t seek to exclude, but rather to include, even to accept that Mormons can be followers of the way of Jesus.

These emergent Christians help me see Christ in a new way and to be excited about His message and what it means for our world right now in a way I’m not getting from other sources. Why is that?

Take this assessment and find out:

(Taken from D. Jeff Burton’s For Those Who Wonder : forthosewhowonder.com. Similar to a Correlation Department survey on Religion and Life conducted among LDS Church members in the mid-1980s)

So share if you dare, or simply sit back and contemplate the combinations and their consequences for our church!

The last time I came, I was a young, single, childless university student. The world was my oyster, and Mormon Studies was, for me, a new phenomenon. I went to celebrity-gaze.

Whether I would continue to be involved with the Church was an open question for me.

This time I am an old, married, child-ful university employee. Mormon Studies is old hat to me now, and I went to see my friends.

I am committed to the Church more than I have ever been. All of which made Sunstone more enjoyable.

I had the best of intentions to see the morning devotional by Frances Lee Menlove called “Living the Questions: Loving the Mysteries” but I was sidetracked by the Benchmark Books room. Every conceivable Mormon Studies book was in that room. I bought New York Doll for my wife’s upcoming birthday and at the registration desk picked up a free copy of cartoonist Calvin Grondahl’s Freeway to Perfection and a CD from Lisa Arrington and the Fiddlesticks band called Farewell to Nauvoo (traditional renderings of old Mormon songs, which I am a sucker for).

I scanned the Sheraton Hotel corridors for friends, and met them. I met Bored in Vernal for the first time, surrounded by a phalanx of bodyguards, greeting every face she recognized, snapping pictures.

I saw the inimitable Clay Whipkey, thankfully recognizable with his modest tuft of hair under the lower lip (what is the proper term for that anyway, a third of a Van Dyke?)

I gave John Dehlin a man-love hug after a particularly moving presentation on crisis-of-faith experiences.

I learned that our frequent commenter Matt Thurston is even cooler in person, and that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree (his parents astounded me with their wisdom and courage).

I thanked Claudia Bushman for her writings on early Utah women and the medical profession (which have helped me win people over at the University of Utah to greater efforts to encourage young women to consider bccoming doctors). She was tickled to hear she was making a difference.

I thanked Richard Bushman for his book Rough Stone Rolling and the impact it has had on my family (it’s a book my Mormon mother-in-law and her Lutheran husband can listen to together).

I chatted with Armand Mauss about our mutual friend and his fellow Irvinian, Andrew Ainsworth.

I joked with Jeff Burton about his presentation, “Stories from the Borderlands”.

I learned the entrance requirement for the little-talked about second level of the celestial kingdom from Jess Groesbeck.

I heard from Claudia, Jeff, Morris Thurston, Lavina Fielding Anderson, and Greg Prince on “Why We Stay”. This session was worth the registration fee alone. Order it here when they’ve uploaded this year’s presentations to the website.

I made new friends too, sneaking out for lunch to Crown Burger (home of the pastrami burger for which a multitude of nations flow unto the Salt Lake Valley) with Bored, John, Clay, Matt, and many others.

I hope to go again next year for more catching up with folks like you.

So if you’re reading this and I didn’t see you there, why not?  (Reasons other than plane tickets are expensive nowadays).

Amos 5:21-24

For verily this is a day appointed unto you to rest from your labors, and to pay thy devotions unto the Most High; nevertheless thy vows shall be offered up in righteousness on all days and at all times;but remember that on this, the Lord’s day, thou shalt offer thine oblations and thy sacraments unto the Most High, confessing thy sins unto thy brethren, and before the Lord. And on this day thou shalt do none other thing, only let thy food be prepared with singleness of heart that thy fasting may be perfect, or, in other words, that thy joy may be full.

Doctrine and Covenants 59:9-13

Discuss,

my friends:

]]> http://mormonmatters.org/2008/08/11/evidences-and-reconciliations-81108/feed/ 10 http://mormonmatters.org/2008/07/24/for-pioneer-day-a-prophet-of-peace/ http://mormonmatters.org/2008/07/24/for-pioneer-day-a-prophet-of-peace/#comments Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:30:09 +0000 John Nilsson http://mormonmatters.org/?p=744 Prophet of Peace

This is why I love President Monson! He has the common touch and appears to love people.

If you watch the video linked above, you will see the news piece on Salt Lake TV. At the very end, President Monson ends the informal report by flashing a peace sign, saying “Peace!” and chuckling. I was completely enamored of him once again.

So watch him in the Pioneer Day parade and enjoy!

If you want to comment, feel free:

Would President Hinckley have flashed a peace sign?

Is this a subtle pro-Obama signal from our revered ecclesiastical leader?

Are Mormons just stuck in the 1960s?

Matthew 28: 1-2

And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun. And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

Mark 16: 1-5

Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them. And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?

Luke 24: 1-5

The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.
And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed. For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must arise again from the dead. Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.
But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.

John 20: 1-14

Discuss, my friends:

What does it mean to say you believe something or “believe in” something? Would a child say they believe in Santa Claus? Or would they simply act and react to situations as if Santa Claus existed? That is, if their parents took them on the Polar Express would they expect to meet Santa Claus tucked away in a cozy brick house at the North Pole checking his naughty/nice list and getting fist-bumps from Mrs. Claus before he gave rousing speeches to the elves?

Is belief as expectation the best way to understand religious belief in general?

Here’s a concrete example:

To be completely frank, I would no sooner expect to see the scene above in the Second Coming painting than I would expect the Polar Express to whisk me off to the North Pole to get a peek at Santa Claus in his workshop. That’s not to say that I don’t believe in Jesus Christ or His divinity. I do, as far as I can understand the concept of divinity, which is not very far. But I don’t ever expect to see a scene like this.

Nor do I expect any number of other things, including a physical Second Coming, the presence of multitudinous spirits hanging out with me every day influencing me for good or evil, or that the devil is sitting around thinking of how he is going to ruin my family’s picnic.

I expect that there is a residual influence from Jesus Christ which exerts an example on me and others to reach out to others in service, in compassion, and in the hope of eternal life.

I suspect that my expectations may have a greater influence on my behavior than my beliefs.

So,

If you don’t have an expectation of something, can you be said to believe in it? For example, if Mormons are supposed to believe in the Second Coming in some form, but we are also told not to expect it (or not to expect it in our lifetimes, though the practical value is the same to me), do Mormons still believe in the Second Coming?

What things do you expect, or not expect?

Are their other ways to analogize belief besides as expectation?

This is the last installment of Our Foundation Stories, I promise!

As a child, I heard the story of the restoration of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods this way: In May of 1829 Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were praying in the woods about baptism and had John the Baptist appear to them, put his hands on their heads, and recite the following, currently found in D & C Section 13: Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins…”

Some time later, Joseph and Oliver again were in the woods and John, James, and Peter appeared to them, put their hands on Joseph’s and Oliver’s heads, and restored the Melchizedek priesthood.

Certain details were fuzzy here, but I got the gist. Joseph and Oliver were ordained like every other 12 year old boy I knew, even dressing up for the occasion, as Church art depicted. (Can you imagine an imageless Church manual? We would have to use our own imaginations!)

I later majored in history at BYU, where I learned to distinguish primary from secondary sources, and to assign relative weights of reliability to certain primary accounts over others based on many factors like whether the person writing was an eyewitness to the events described, length of time between the event and its recording, potential motives of the writers, etc.

When I turned this rudimentary training on the sources describing the stories above, I found the records to be vague and contradictory, more so than in the case of Joseph’s different accounts of the First Vision. This is partly because Joseph had a co-participant, Oliver Cowdery, who left his own account of these experiences, and that many other early Church members wrote as if they did not hear of these ordinations until 1834 or 1835. Cowdery’s account is especially interesting, as he mentions only one occasion of priesthood bestowal, only one priesthood, only one angel visiting, and declines to name the angel as either John the Baptist or Peter, James, and John. (Note that the Church has added an “s” to “holy angel(s) in the link to the Oliver Cowdery account above to soften the ambiguity, under the guise of correcting “spelling, grammar, and punctuation”. Compare to the wording here)

Parley Pratt, John Corrill, Lyman Wight, and David Whitmer each leave accounts which make it appear that the Melchizedek or Higher Priesthood was first revealed to the church in a June 1831 conference, and was unknown before that time.

So where did our contemporary story of two separate priesthood bestowals come from? It appears that the line upon line development of church doctrine made clear after the organization of the church that two priesthoods, arranged hierarchically, were necessary for Church governance. Revelations included in the Book of Commandments (later renamed The Doctrine and Covenants) were edited later to include references to both priesthood bestowals. (Editing revelations was a common practice in the early years of the Church.)

B.H. Roberts of the Seventy even attempted to fix a timespan for the second bestowal of the priesthood to the period between the May 15 first bestowal and the end of June 1829, based on some conjectures flowing from assumptions based on the edited revelations (e.g. Section 27). This is likely where our sense of certitude on the subject comes from.

My questions are these:

Since I, and probably many others, were raised in the Church with the very definite, specific chronology for two separate priesthood bestowals, and this appears (although La Mar Petersen, Bill Hartley, and Larry Porter have attempted to rescue the Roberts chronology) to be highly questionable given the testimony of the sources, what do we do with this story?

Does the restoration of priesthood/authority need to have been a literal laying on of hands by resurrected beings in the same order in which 12 year old boys and 18 year old men experience it in the contemporary Church?

Does imagining that things happened this way make it easier for LDSaints to serve confidently in the Church, fulfilling their callings, learning to love God and their neighbor?

Could God have restored priesthood by an act of will, divine fiat?

Why do we rely on these stories as told and recounted in our secondary literature?

Alma 1:26

And the elders or high priests who are appointed to assist the bishop as counselors in all things, are to have their families supported out of the property which is consecrated to the bishop, for the good of the poor, and for other purposes, as before mentioned… And the bishop, also, shall receive his support, or a just remuneration for all his services in the church.

Unlike local leaders, who maintain their normal vocations while serving in church assignments, General Authorities set aside their careers to devote their full time to the ministry of their office.  The living allowance given General Authorities rarely if ever equals the earnings they sacrifice to serve full-time in the Church.

Marvin K. Gardner, “General Authorities,” p. 539, Encyclopedia of Mormonism

Discuss, my friends:

Joshua 10:40

Thou shalt not kill.

Exodus 20:13

Discuss, my friends:

What does the Book of Mormon mean?  Does it follow from its existence that Joseph Smith was (is?) a prophet, that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God’s only church on the earth, that Thomas Spencer Monson is the only one on the earth today that has the authority to officiate for God? Alternatively,does it mean that anthropologists are mistaken about the origins, history, and cultural practices of pre-Columbian Americans? That Latter-day Saints are in possession of the real history of the Americas?

Or does it mean, as many early Saints believed, that the Restoration of the lost parts of the gospel had begun,and that the tribes of Israel were about to assume their rightful seats in the order of things, and Christ to inaugurate his government from the Old and New Jerusalems?

Here are some meanings contained in, or suggested by the existence of, the Book of Mormon which LDSaints have suggested to me at one time or another:

1. That Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ.
2. That atheism, communism, and the welfare state are satanic creations.
3. That military actions are morally defensible and defensive wars are just.
4. That pacifism is a morally defensible alternative to military service.
5. That the United States is a land chosen by God for a special purpose.
6. That native inhabitants of the Americas are descended from Lehi.
7. That the United States is in the grip of secret combinations.
8. That faith is like a seed.
9. That cataclysms ravaged North and South America at the time of Christ’s death.
10. That Polynesians are the descendants of Hagoth.
11. That God speaks to all peoples geographically (the First Vision suggests God speaks to all people historically).

The only items above about which I have strong opinions would be 1 and 11.  Anyone like to make a case for meanings 2-10 or state others?

]]> http://mormonmatters.org/2008/06/23/our-foundation-stories-part-v-the-meaning-of-the-book-of-mormon/feed/ 9 http://mormonmatters.org/2008/06/16/evidences-and-reconciliations-61608/ http://mormonmatters.org/2008/06/16/evidences-and-reconciliations-61608/#comments Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:45:47 +0000 John Nilsson http://mormonmatters.org/?p=503 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Matthew 5:45

I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Ecclesiastes 9:11

And behold, all that he requires of you is to keep his commandments; and he has promised you that if ye would keep his commandments ye should prosper in the land; and he never doth vary from that which he hath said; therefore, if ye do keep his commandments he doth bless you and prosper you.

Mosiah 2:22

Discuss, my friends:

Was the Book of Mormon translated? Was the Book of Mormon revealed? Was it inspired? Was it all three, or a combination of the above? How much does it matter?

The accounts left by Joseph and others involved suggest that the translation of the Book of Mormon was conducted, with a few variations, largely in this manner: Joseph and the scribe sequestered in a room, with a sheet or curtain drawn up to shield them from the casual view of others in the house. The plates wrapped in a cloth on the scribe’s table, with the scribe writing down what Joseph dictates. Joseph himself at least periodically buries his face in a hat to peer intently at his seerstone, in which he sees words, whether one at a time, or in clusters is unclear. Joseph also feels free enough with his work to correct spelling, grammar, punctuation, and word choice, both immediately and after the Book of Mormon was published.

In later productions, like the Books of Abraham, Moses, and the revision of the Bible, there was apparently even less physicality to the process. Other than the Egyptian papyri purchased from Michael Chandler, there appeared to be no seerstone or other mechanical device used in the writing of these books. They were received much as most of the sections of the D&C (with the obvious seerstone section aside) were, by inspiration.

Given the above, what does it say about Joseph Smith that he began his prophetic translations with physical objects and moved away from them later on? That he “graduated” in a spiritual sense? Were the physical objects necessary prompts to revelatory experience?

Why would Moroni bother with giving Joseph physical objects like the plates which were apparently so cumbersome and the desire of his neighbors when God could simply reveal the contents of the book to Joseph? And why would Moroni take them back again? Were the plates themselves like the “slippery” treasures spoken of in the text of the Book of Mormon itself, a thing of great worth which is impossible to control?

For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.
2 Nephi 26:33

These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:  But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Matthew 10: 5-6

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
Acts 10:34

[A]ny man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] … in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ….
Brigham Young, quoted in Diary of Wilford Woodruff, January 16,1852

The limitation of priesthood responsibilities to men is a tribute to the incomparable place of women in the plan of salvation.
Boyd Packer, “A Tribute to Women”, Ensign, July 1989

Discuss, my friends:

As a child, the story of Moroni visiting Joseph Smith seemed familiar to me, but I couldn’t put my finger on just why. Only later, on reflection, did the mythic aspects of the story stand out more sharply.

First the repetitive structure: The angel Moroni appeared to Joseph three times during the night in his bedroom and tells the same things each time. Joseph comes back each year on the same night to the Hill Cumorah, from 1823-1827. Some accounts, such as his neighbor Willard Chase’s, have him being told to dress in black clothing and to bring his wife.

Each time he is denied the plates, and told to return the same time next year. His words are “at the end of the year”, which is an interesting phrase given that one would assume the end of the year was December 31^st. He repeats the phrase “end of the year” several times in his narrative. Why is this? And why so much preparation time for the plates?

In addition to the repetitive structure, there are remnants of Joseph’s magical/organic/agricultural worldview showing through here. The “end of the year” is not a phrase you would use unless you are tied to the rhythms of the land. The fall equinox is the end of the growing season, and as such the end of the natural year. Nature is beginning to die. Wouldn’t it have made more sense for Moroni, revealing a new thing, to have visited Joseph in the spring, have him visit the Hill Cumorah in the spring each year, and then allow Joseph to take the plates in the spring, when life is beginning?

As far as the years of preparation time, perhaps the Book of Mormon and it’s significance needed to “grow” in Joseph’s psyche, where the end of the growing season and harvest time would have impressed very forcefully on a farm boy how things grow, from crops to individuals to societies. It also would be a time of celebration and a reduction of physical activity to a certain extent, allowing time for more contemplation.

Perhaps the story of Joseph’s nocturnal hill visits is about something old, mysterious, and forgotten, something that has died. Certainly the contents of the Book of Mormon reveal that indeed, the narrative is about a death. The death is of Nephite civilization and Nephite righteousness, which are inextricably intertwined. In that sense, the time of year is perfect to discover something hidden and old, a record of a people who have died, perhaps to save it from complete oblivion.

It is interesting to consider a gold book in a stone box in a New York hill about a civilization which no one would have known anything about had not Moroni told Joseph about it. Are there other books, in other hills, about other civilizations history and archeology knows nothing of, awaiting an inquisitive seeker?

Now that we’ve discussed the nature of the First Vision, what did it mean?

There are many meanings, the most vital being those which each person can discover for herself or himself. Here are those we are most familiar with, because they have been written and spoken about at length in the official media of the institutional LDS Church:

1. The heavens are not closed. Revelation continues in our day.

Closely related to this meaning is:

2. God loves his children.

3. The Father and the Son are physically separate.

Closely related to this meaning is:

4. The Father and the Son are corporeal (have bodies).

5. All churches on the earth in 1820 are corrupt.

Closely related to this meaning is

6. The Restoration has begun

And/Or

7. Joseph Smith is a prophet.

Meaning 1 is quite obvious from Joseph’s account, although a minority interpretation has insisted from the First Vision that the vision itself reopened the heavens, which had been closed since the apostasy. The vision provides no evidence for this view.

Meaning 2 is not stated, but is an implied meaning deduced from 1 and fits with our other beliefs about God’s character. Meaning 3 is also fairly obvious from Joseph’s account, at least his 1838 one.

Meaning 4 I cannot defend based on the accounts Joseph has left us. I believe it is a back-reading from a section of the Doctrine and Covenants which is superimposed on our interpretations of the vision.

Meaning 5 is clear from the accounts Joseph left, especially the 1838 one.

Meanings 6 and 7 I cannot defend from the text, unless one takes Joseph’s statement that “many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time” refers to coming events like the Restoration and his role in it. I cannot defend this interpretation based on subsequent events like Joseph’s account of his 1823 vision of Moroni, wherein Joseph is apparently given his first Restoration “task” with no inkling that he was praying for anything but forgiveness from his sins.

There are other meanings which can be unpacked from Joseph’s accounts, especially when one integrates the earlier accounts with the version published in the Pearl of Great Price:

1. Prophets sin and seek forgiveness.

Closely related to this meaning is:

2. God forgives sins readily.

3. Spiritual experience confirms conclusions we have already reached.

4. Deity speaks in language familiar to the listener (King James English).

Meaning 1 is often trivialized in the LDS Church. The language of sin has fallen into disuse among us. Prophets do not sin. Instead, they have “frailties”, “weaknesses”, “shortcomings”, and make “mistakes.” The First Vision reminds us that all humankind sins.

Meaning 2 is a comforting one. Joseph’s sins are forgiven. He is not told to do works of penance, unless one takes the Lord forbidding him to join any other churches as a punishment for sin. If so, Joseph skirted this commandment, as he attended Methodist meetings in 1828!

Meaning 3 is more interesting, because here Joseph contradicts himself in the various accounts. In the 1832 account, he states that his conviction from reading the scriptures was that the true church could not be on the earth. The 1838 account ,on the other hand, makes it sound as if he believes that God just might tell him, for example, that the Universalists have it right, or that the Presbyterians are God’s church. I tend to believe that Joseph at the very least, strongly suspected that God’s church was not on the earth. He uses the conditional, “if”, to describe the question which drove him into the grove. If Christ’s church is on the earth, which one is it?

Meaning 4 is a comforting one to end on. God will speak to us in language we understand. If my primary reading matter, like Joseph’s, was the Elizabethan English of the King James Version of the Bible, and that is how I believe God speaks, God will speak to me that way. Conversely, if my thought world is informed by 21st-century American English vernacular, seasoned by occasional scientific reading, and a love of music and nature, God may speak to me through those means.

What meanings do you find in the First Vision story?

Exodus 33:23

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.
Doctrine and Covenants 130:22

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
John 4:24

And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
1 John 4:16

Discuss, my friends: