The Restoration Is On-Going, and We Can Be Restorers or Destroyers

According to Jacob 5, the tree will continue to be pruned right up until the end - and I see that as a pruning of incorrect traditions and misunderstandings, not as a pruning of people. It doesn't make sense to me, in the actual context of the allegory, to make it about people. Therefore, anyone who assists in proper pruning, undertaken at a pace and in a way that doesn't damage the root, is part of the Restoration, in my opinion.

Pruning to maximize production can be tricky, as anyone who has lived in orchard country knows (or even in application to business organizations), so it generally can't be done through radical surgery or, often, by removing every bit of infection all at once. "Here a little, there a little" works far better in many cases. There have been a few times in Church history when radical surgery was necessary (ending polygamy and the Priesthood ban, for example), but there was extensive collateral damage, as well. It was necessary, but risk management includes minimizing damage and maximizing recovery - not just eliminating infection.

That is a long-winded way of saying I believe many who agitate, to varying degrees, are part of the Restoration - while others (those who insist on too radical changes too quickly) are part of the Destruction. I can't always know exactly where that line lies, so I tend to err on the side of allowance and care - but if I believe someone is firmly over the line, I don't mind the pruning shears being taken away from them. Above all else, I believe in pruning my own tree to the best of my ability and not insisting on pruning others' trees for them or being in charge of the overall pruning of the orchard.

I'll express my views to the directors and managers of the orchard, but I won't try to grab their shears and start pruning for them.

Holding On and Letting Go: Mormonism Is Unique, but Not As Unique As Many People Think

I have heard a lot of Mormons bemoan what they see as the abandonment of some unique aspects of Mormon theology and history that they believe and cherish.  I share that general concern that we not lose our uniqueness and become just another Protestant denomination, but I disagree that we have abandoned our uniqueness in an attempt to become more mainstream.  I believe we have abandoned some of the unique aspects of our historical interpretations of doctrine that I have come to see as "the incorrect traditions of our own fathers".

To frame this around missionary work and the message that is presented currently to people who are investigating the LDS Church, let me mention a few areas of improvement I see now compared to when I served a mission:

Improvement #1) My daughter served a mission in Germany just last year – and she taught most of the things most people mention loving so much. She didn’t teaching a new, watered down version of Mormonism, different than I taught almost 30 years ago. She taught the same concepts and principles – but she could dig in and tailor what she said to each person in a way I couldn't when I served.

Improvement #2) I don’t want our “folklore” taught by the missionaries, and it isn't being taught. I don’t want much of our current culture taught by the missionaries, and it isn't supposed to be taught. I want them to teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, including the unique aspects of Mormon theology – and they are. I have no quibble whatsoever with the missionary discussions that are in Preach My Gospel – and I absolutely am a bit envious that my kids get to teach in a very different way than I had to when I served and said the same memorized words, in the same order, to every. single. person. I. taught. My daughter gets to rely on the Holy Ghost to help her teach individuals about the Gospel and the Restoration in different ways, not teach the exact same lessons to widely diverse people.

Improvement #3) I want all of the unique gems of our theology to be taught in ways that make as much sense as possible to those who are listening – and, often, that can be done better by using Biblical passages they already say they accept than to focus exclusively on the Book of Mormon. Our relationship to our Heavenly Parents is a perfect example. It is rich in the Bible and, essentially, non-existent in the Book of Mormon. Teaching it from the Bible through passages Christians supposedly already accept (even if they don’t understand them) isn’t sacrificing our teachings in any way. In fact, I see it as strengthening and emphasizing those teachings much more than I used to be able to do.

Improvement #4) There is a lot of stuff from our past that I and many people who read here don’t want taught. We’ve moved on from much of it, and we celebrate and thank God for that. Being unique and being similar (and, in some cases, exactly alike) are not mutually exclusive – and I believe it’s worth letting go of some “uniqueness” if, in fact, I believe that those unique things are not eternal and, in some cases, even are damaging and not of God. I don’t mind at all much of what we have jettisoned in my lifetime, even as I share the concern that we not jettison what I see as the wonderful aspects of our peculiarity.

That’s not an easy balance to strike, and it never will be accepted unanimously by our membership, since we all see things slightly (and even radically) differently - but I really like the fact that I see the Church leadership making an honest effort to strike that balance of both holding on and letting go.

The Restoration of the Gospel and the Restoration of the Church Are Different Things

I admire greatly the people (like anabaptists, my wife's Waldensian ancestors, etc.) who lived exemplary lives throughout history and, in my opinion, actually contributed to the Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. I don't think the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ in its entirety (as I read it in the Bible, particularly) remained openly taught throughout the centuries leading up to the restoration of the Gospel; hence, the concept of a Great Apostasy and a Restoration. However, I believe deeply that the Protestant Reformation was the major, God-directed movement that allowed a restoration to occur (to continue, to be more precise) and continue to build to this day, with necessary pruning still happening as fast as the root can take it.

I don't see the Restoration of the Gospel as happening simultaneous to the restoration of the Church - or as the same thing. I see the restoration of the Gospel as starting LONG prior to Joseph Smith's birth (in the case of some of my wife's ancestors, as early as AD 1215 when they were declared heretics by the Catholic Church and persecuted, tortured and killed for nearly 700 years until her 5th great-grandfather was baptized by Mormon missionaries in 1851and left the homeland he and his people had vowed through blood-soaked centuries never to leave, all in order to heed the call of a man they believed to be a prophet) and continuing as I type this comment. I honor that terrible sacrifice of those dedicated "Christian heretics" as part of "the restoration of the Gospel" - independent of the establishment of the church those missionaries represented at the tail-end of those indescribable centuries of faithful dedication to the Gospel they understood in their hearts.

In other words, I see the restoration of the Gospel as a long process that extends backward and forward through time longer than most people consider, while the restoration of the Church was an event - even as the subsequent organizational growth of the Church continues still. 

"Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?"

I believe this question might be the most misunderstood, misinterpreted temple recommend question of all of them when it comes to many members of the Church and how they view the temple recommend interview.

The question doesn't ask if we know the LDS Church is the same church that existed after Jesus died. It doesn't even mention the word "church" at all. It asks only about the restoration of the "gospel", and that is extremely important to me. 

Again, this question is not about the restoration of a church - or "the only true and living church". This question is about the restoration of the Gospel - nothing more.

I love the "Restored Gospel" as I understand it. To me, that is what I call "pure Mormonism". When "the Gospel" is described in the Book of Mormon, for example, it basically is focused on faith, repentance, baptism, the Holy Ghost, enduring to the end and the role of Jesus Christ. Therefore, I see the temple recommend question as asking the following questions - and my answer follows each question:

Do I have a testimony of faith - as I understand faith? Absolutely.

Do I have a testimony of repentance - as I understand repentance? Absolutely.

Do I have a testimony of baptism - as I understand baptism? Absolutely.

Do I have a testimony of the gift of the Holy Ghost - as I understand the gift of the Holy Ghost? Absolutely.

Do I have a testimony of enduring to the end - as I understand enduring to the end? Absolutely.

There are elements of the role of Jesus Christ that are unique to Mormonism and the LDS Church, so I would add:

Do I have a testimony of Jesus Christ - as I understand him and his role?  Absolutely. 

That's it for this question, in my opinion. It doesn't ask about anything else, so I don't answer it as if it did.

Religious Tolerance and Exclusive Truth Claims

I think it’s interesting that religious tolerance often is weakest in those who demand it for themselves the most vocally. They cry out for tolerance and acceptance, but they turn around and stereotype others - condemning them to Hell without really understanding their beliefs. The “tolerance of condescension” still is better than the “intolerance of competing conviction”. Given the stereotyped attitudes of the irreligious liberal and the evangelical conservative, I’ll take the irreligious liberal any day - and, ironically, twice on Sunday. 


We walk a fine line between the type of tolerance Joseph Smith preached so passionately (allow all men everywhere the same privilege, let them worship how, when or what they may) and the claims of truth he made simultaneously (the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth). Unfortunately, it is far too easy to cross that line and allow the claims to temper our tolerance.

Seek Diligently for Truth, No Matter Where It Is Found

I believe deeply in finding truth in everything.  I think that outlook is a fundamental part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (see Moroni 7: 5-19, especially) and Joseph Smith's philosophy that animated the Restoration and his role as a prophet.

I was asked once if organized religion loses potency when it admits there is truth in everything - that a religion doesn't posses or even understand all truth and that "the fulness of the Gospel" doesn't include an understanding of all truth. My response was that it does not, according to Joseph Smith - or the notion of a process called the "restoration of all things" through on-going / continuing revelation.

Part of the grandeur I see in pure Mormonism is the audacity to believe that all truth can be circumscribed into one whole - and that striving to comprehend that whole is worth the effort. Limiting that whole to what we know now, and denying that there still is truth outside our current understanding to be included in the circumscription process (including things that others know of which we are not aware), goes against the very core of the Restoration.

A good friend of mine once wrote the following when he was asked about believing there is truth in every religion, denomination, faith tradition, science, etc.

1. If something is proven to be true, or beyond reasonable doubt, it's simply part of the gospel. As we study the creation, and the processes whereby creation occurred, I come to be in awe of the creator. Scientific discovery does not diminish my regard for god, it enhances my understanding of the absolute miracle of god's inherent power: nature. That god works entirely through nature is part of what Joseph Smith said, at least, in section 88, one of his most important and thoughtful revelations.

2. If something true is in conflict with scripture, then we need to re-evaluate our literal understanding of the scripture. I have to recognize how scripture was written in the mind and heart of the revelator, and thus, it's going to include the revelator's worldview. Obviously, this is controversial to those who believe that scripture is literally and forever true. Scripture is the milk -- it is not the meat of the gospel. As we grow up in our understanding, we sometimes need to set aside childish things.

3. There are a host of things that cannot be proven, and we need to take an attitude of suspended judgment for these things. I don't know if we pre-existed. I think it's a very useful model as part of the Plan of Salvation, but I simply don't know. Is it imperative for me to say "I know we lived with god before this life"? I believe it, I trust in it, but I cannot explain it. I don't know how it works.

4. I should never be afraid of truth. If Joseph Smith and Brigham Young did some pretty whacked out things, then I think it important to understand their humanity. I'm not afraid of it. I can understand how once you know that JS did a number of questionable things, that it's hard to believe that he was also a 'prophet', but I don't have a problem with it. I'm sure some people think I'm intellectually dishonest as a result. Whatever; truth is truth. Judgment is entirely another matter. I think it's true that Joseph did some pretty human things. My judgment is not affected by it -- he's still a prophet. He still facilitated the restoration. I find truth in the restoration, and therefore I can only conclude that God uses imperfect humans to do his work. This should be obvious from scripture. 

In summary, going back to my first thoughts in this post, as I am exposed to the thoughts, beliefs, discoveries, etc. of others, I try hard to make sure my initial response is:

What truth can I learn from this - no matter the source? 

Analyzing Scripture: Joseph Smith History 1:19 - "They Were All Wrong"

[NOTE: This post is longer than normal, since I am commenting on multiple phrases and words throughout the verse in question. Please pardon the length; I couldn't shorten it any more than I did - except to delete this disclaimer.]

Perhaps the most reviled verse among non-Mormon Christians in the entire Mormon scriptural canon is Joseph Smith History 1:19 – the words of Jesus to Joseph Smith at the beginning of the First Vision regarding why he should not join any church. This single verse encapsulates the reason why many call Mormonism arrogant and offensive and blind – and the misinterpretations of this verse by Mormons themselves only add fuel to this fire. So, in this post I am breaking out my parser’s pen and dissecting what Jesus actually said and did not say: word-by-word, sentence-by-sentence, concept-by-concept. It was a fascinating endeavor when I first undertook it, and it changed my perspective on The Restoration greatly.

First, the actual question Joesph asked (in verse 18) is:

I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right . . . and which I should join.

The entire passage (in verse 19) says:

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.

Now, let’s break this down concept-by-concept and focus on the key words in each concept, focusing on what the words themselves actually mean AT THEIR MOST BASIC LEVEL – rather than secondary definitions and other interpretations that have been postulated (both within and without the LDS Church):

“I was answered that I (Joseph) must join none of them,”

Joseph prayed explicitly about the Protestant sects of his area and which one HE should join. Perhaps this appears to be a minor point, but I believe it is important to put the prayer in context. Joseph was working from the core assumption that he should join a Protestant sect, and, looking back, it is clear from a faithful Mormon perspective that Joseph had a specific mission to perform in mortality within Christianity. Other religions weren’t a part of the equation, at all – and neither was Catholicism, according to his own writings. I wonder what response a Buddhist or Hindu or Muslim would get with that exact same prayer – or if others might have specific missions to perform in mortality and receive different answers that will help them fulfill those missions, perhaps like Mother Teresa performing a wonderful work among the poor of Calcutta that would have been impossible as a Mormon. I don’t know, but parsing the text leads to interesting questions like these.

“for they were all wrong;”

At its most basic level, “wrong” simply means “not right” / “not correct” – or “out of order; awry; amiss”. Also, like with school tests, it often applies to answers that contain one or more elements that are not correct – even when most elements are correct. Thus “wrong” can mean 100% wrong or 1% wrong – or everything between those extremes. What “wrong” DOES NOT mean is “bad, evil, terrible, worthy of scorn, useless, etc.”

“and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds”

A “creed” is “an authoritative, formulated statement of the chief articles of Christian belief.” The most common creeds referenced by those discussing this verse are the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, but these creeds essentially were the Catholic Creeds of the early centuries. The Athanasian Creed had a strong impact on much of the Protestant theology that existed in Joseph Smith’s time, but there were other “Protestant creeds” (like the Westminster Confession of Faith) that rarely are considered in the context of this verse – and those Protestant creeds are every bit as relevant as the early Catholic Creeds. (I believe, more so) [The closest thing in Mormonism to "creeds" are The Articles of Faith.] What “creeds” DOES NOT mean is “general teachings, statements, beliefs, general principles, etc.” This means that much of what actually is taught in other sects is not addressed in this verse, only “their creeds”.

“were an abomination in his sight”

Abomination means “anything greatly disliked, abhorred or loathed”. It is this word that is most “abominable, abhorred or loathed” by other Christians. However, when focused on the “creeds” [particularly in statements like the Westminster Confession], it is much easier to understand. Just a few examples are: hardcore Calvinist pre-destination that eliminates agency in all practical ways, the complete elimination of the Father as a separate being from Jesus, the incorporeal nature of God that led to a real and harmful loathing of the body and all things physical, the loss of all concept of eternal progression and exaltation, etc. There are more examples of creeds that truly would be abominable when viewed by Jesus ["in his sight"]. What this DOES NOT say is that everything taught by the other sects was an abomination. It leaves the door wide open for truth and beauty and goodness to be taught.

[Just as an aside, I find it fascinating to watch mainstream Protestantism move inexorably away from many of these creeds that were so strongly taught in Joseph's day toward what is taught in Mormonism - and the natural tendency of some Mormons to want creedal certainty.]

“that THOSE professors” 

 “Professors” means “those who profess” – nothing more and nothing less. “Profess” means “claim, allege, purport, avow” – and there is a strong association with making claims as part of a “profession” from a position of authority. The critical distinction in this verse, however, is that “professors” is tied directly to the “creeds” – NOT even implicitly to other teachings that are not creedal. What this means is that “those professors” DOES NOT mean ALL “ministers, preachers, pastors, priests, members, believers, etc.” Rather, it means anyone who “professes those creeds” – who teaches the creeds from a position of authority – who teaches things that are abominations in Jesus’ sight – who teaches them as “creeds” [as unalterable, immutable, unquestionable]. It places as much weight on the intractability of the profession as it does on what is being professed – meaning it focuses on those who are closed to continuing revelation and stuck on abominable creeds of the past.

[In a very real way, but not exactly analogous due to not being "creeds", it is like those who continue to espouse views from past Mormon leaders that have been abandoned or refuted by current leaders - like the justifications for the Priesthood ban that were repudiated by Elder McConkie shortly after the 1978 revelation lifting the ban or the continued practice of polygamy in the 21st Century.]

“were all corrupt;”

At its most basic level, corrupt simply means “tainted; not pure”. If someone professes abominable creeds, those creeds inevitably will taint those who profess them. To me, this is perhaps the most logical assertion of all the statements in this verse. What this DOES NOT say is that these people are “evil, bad, insincere, conniving, manipulative, worthy of scorn, etc.” It actually says nothing about their motivation or desires; it only addresses the inherent stain of abominable creeds.

“that:” 

The following statements are the only ones that are attributed as a quote directly to Jesus – rather than Joseph’s summary in the first part of the verse.

“they draw near to me with their lips,” 

“They” refers back to the “professors of the creeds”, who speak of Jesus. There is no other implication and no insult, condemnation or criticism inherent in this phrase.

“but their hearts are far from me,” 

This is a painful statement for many, but “heart” in this case does not mean the actual physical organ – and it does not have to mean “intent or desire”. The “heart” in this context is defined as the “vital or essential part” of something – what lies at the very core. In other words, the “essential part” of the “professors of the creeds” is far from Jesus. For example, the essential parts of the creeds melds Jesus into the Father, prays to Jesus (instead of to the Father in the name of the Son), refuses to accept His oft-repeated request to show their love through their acceptance of His commandments (“by their fruits”) and rejects individual agency and will by preaching predestination, etc. In summary, they use and preach his name but don’t promulgate his teachings. What this DOES NOT say is that ALL Christians fit this description. It is pointed ONLY at those who profess the creeds, and it is pointed only at their “hearts” [what they believe deep down as bedrock doctrine], not their lips [much of what they say and teach].

“they teach for doctrines the commandments of men,”

This phrase equates those who profess the creeds with those who substitute human commands for doctrine. It DOES NOT apply to regular members of other sects, at all – OR to ministers, preachers, pastors or priests who teach doctrine from the scriptures themselves and don’t preach the creeds.

“having a form of godliness,”

“Form” means “structure, appearance, shape, etc.” Thus, those who profess the creeds teach something that is shaped like and appears to be godly.

“but they deny the power thereof.”

This is the clinching argument against the creeds – that they reject the power of godliness. That phrase alone deserves its own post, but suffice it to say here that the creed professors are not accused of denying Jesus; rather, they are accused of denying His power – what He, through his Atonement, is capable of doing. They are accused of claiming that He can’t do what He has said He will do, which is the most basic abomination of all.


In summary, JSH 1:19 is a direct attack on the creeds of Joseph’s day (more so the newer Protestant ones than the older Catholic ones), defining the primary reason why he was told not to join any of them as being their profession of those creeds. The only people who are mentioned directly in any way are those who profess those creeds, and even these people are only described in terms of their acceptance of those creeds by which they are tainted. It says absolutely nothing about anyone or anything else, and it says nothing about the salvation of even the professors whose creeds it condemns.

At the most basic level, this verse has one message and only one message:

“The Protestant CREEDS are an abomination, and they taint all those who profess them.”

That certainly is harsh to those who profess the creeds, but it also says much, much, less than too many Mormons (and others) assume.

A Different Definition of "Restoration"

I heard the following years ago, and it has stayed with me ever since:

Full "restoration" is much more about restoring harmony, beauty and peace (even harmony, beauty and peace that only has existed rarely) than it is about restoring structure, organization and dogma. Restoration, from an eternal perspective is about finding once again the unity of God’s family prior to the War in Heaven – prior to the first division that destroyed fundamental harmony, beauty and peace.   

A Central Genius of Joseph Smith that Many Don't Understand

Have you ever considered that perhaps a central genius of Joseph Smith was that he was able to transplant the great figurative mythology of history into the literalness of his own time and location - to see the symbolism of an ancient world and turn it into a moving literalism in his own day?  Have you ever considered that some of the things he preached might have been more a case of geographic transplantation of mythology than of literal, historical truth? 

Seriously, what more grand endeavor is there than the idea of entering the presence of God on a regular basis - of taking Heaven (a symbolic location, I believe - "Home can be a heaven on earth." and "The kingdom of heaven is within you.") and locate it at the end of a symbolic journey here on earth that can be traveled over and over again in our own literal time and space? 

We have temples that do that, at least symbolically.

What more grand vision is there than the idea that Zion is where we build it - and the accompanying effort to take the City of Enoch (a symbolic story, I believe) and locate it literally in our own land(s)?

We have stakes that do that, at least in theory.

What more grand concept is there than the idea that paradise is in our own backyard - and the accompanying relocation of the Garden of Eden (a symbolic story, I believe) and locate it literally where you want your people to live?

We have Independence and the surrounding area that does that, at least in theory.

What more grand hope is there than the idea that Christ will return to where his saints gather - to take Adam-Ondi-Ahman and the New Jerusalem (symbolic stories, I believe) and locate them literally at the "beginning" and "desired end" of your own community?

We have a valley and a designated location that do that, at least in theory.

Joseph was a "restorer" in his own mind - and, if you look at that role as comprehensively as possible, the "Restoration" becomes much more than just a theology or a group of ideas. It becomes the re-establishment of an entire symbolic world, moving backward AND forward in time until we literally are walking and talking with God.

"One eternal round" is a powerful concept - if it can be seen figuratively and not literally. Seen literally, it has power enough for most people; taken figuratively, it has immense power for me. I don't begrudge those who take it literally, if it works for them. It is when the literal loses significance that it has to transition to figurative or lose its power completely.

After all, the endowment ceremony itself said for a long time that the creation of Adam and Eve, as depicted, was figurative. I think that line was removed in order to benefit those who had a hard time accepting and understanding it - but that removal doesn't make it any less of a fact that Mormon leaders have spoken symbolically and figuratively a lot throughout our history, including to this very day. They just speak literally more often than figuratively, since a FAR higher percentage of people are literalists than figurativists, so to speak. Literalism is general and works fine for a community of settlers; figurativism is individualized and must be pursued and constructed outside of communal constraints by those who are explorers. Leaders can speak figuratively, but they can't lead figuratively - and that's an incredibly important distinction, imo.

The issue for subsequent leaders (those who followed and follow Joseph) is taking the "transfigured symbolic become literal" and not forgetting that it really is symbolic at its root - and that is not an easy recognition, at all, especially for those who naturally see things literally. There's no failure in continuing the literal iteration, but the real power is in recognizing the symbolic and figurative foundation for what it is - sheer visionary brilliance, imo.

I don't know if that makes any sense at all to you who will read this, since some of you surely will be literalists more naturally than I, but it's absolutely mind-blowing to me.

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: Unique Concepts of the Restoration

Last Sunday was the last lesson on Revelation and Prophets. We had a purely discussion-oriented conversation about the following concepts that I believe are some of the more central, important, unique aspects of the Restoration. I wrote them on the board and told the students we would talk about any of them they wanted to discuss or about which they had questions, without a formal lesson structure.

In order of discussion:

1) Heavenly Parents: One of the students asked why we don't have much written about Heavenly Mother. I asked them what they think, figuring they probably would repeat some of the common answers I don't accept. Two of them mentioned the idea of shielding her from blasphemy and (another idea I can't remember right now). I stressed that we don't have anything official recorded in our scriptures, so any answer is speculative in nature - the best people can do to think of something that makes sense to them. I told them that I think the biggest reason is that our scriptures were written by men - and that those men related well to Heavenly Father and didn't have any motivation to even think about a Heavenly Mother.

We then talked about what we do have that teaches explicitly about Heavenly Mother and about what our reasoning is for that belief. We read the 3rd and 4th verses of "Oh, My Father". They saw that Eliza R. Snow's wording says, essentially, that she learned to use the term "Heavenly Father" before she joined the Church but didn't know why until she gained further light and knowledge - and that it was "reason" that testifies of Heavenly Mother. We talked about our overall theology of men and women being sealed and sharing the same potential - how "marital sealing" is the foundation for this belief.

I told them that there are some really interesting beliefs about Heavenly Mother within the church membership, but the lesson wasn't the right place to get into those unorthodox beliefs. 

2) The scope of the Atonement: A student asked what I meant by that. We talked about how everyone (except a few Sons of Perdition who are the exception that proves the rule) is "saved" and everyone has the chance for exaltation - and how radically different that is than the dominant philosophies within Protestantism and many other religions.

3) Prophets and Apostles: One of the students asked if there have ever been more than one prophet on the earth at the same time. We talked about the difference between a "Prophet" (the head prophet in an organization) and a "prophet" (anyone who speaks the word of God, especially about consequences of actions). They zeroed in on the example of the New Testament and the Book of Mormon following the death of Jesus - of Peter and Nephi living simultaneously in different parts of the world as "The Prophet" of their people; we also talked about the wise men at the time of Jesus' birth and how they easily might have been "Prophets" or "prophets" - giving us at least three simultaneous locations. We talked about Lehi being a prophet but not a "Prophet" and how there were multiple prophets at various times in the Old Testament.

4) Eternal Progression: We talked about what it means to progress eternally - to become like God. We talked about how our perception of God is very different than within other Christian denominations. We talked again a little about how godhood includes pain and long-suffering and watching one's "children" hurt and kill each other. I mentioned at the end how I believe we must emphasize the importance of this life so we take it seriously and actually focus on personal growth and repentance, but I told them I believe "eternal progression" is exactly that - growth throughout all eternity until we are "perfect" (complete, whole, fully developed), which, as Joseph Smith said means we will be learning and growing and progressing long after we die. I told them that I see the judgment as occurring whenever we are done growing - that our reward will be whatever type of person we become (telestial, terrestrial or celestial) - no matter when that completion happens.

We didn't get to pre-mortal life or the nature of the Godhead vs. the Trinity.

This was the first time I have used that specific format (completely discussion-based, according to what the students wanted to discuss), and I loved it. Now that they are used to it, I hope it will affect future lessons - both the more traditional ones and more like this one.

My Sunday School Lesson Recap: Apostasy, Restoration and the Atonement

Last Sunday, we talked about the general meanings of the words "apostasy" and "restoration", then we talked about how the concepts of apostasy and restoration fit into the concept of atonement. We didn't talk about specific instances of organizational / societal apostasy, and we didn't talk about "The Restoration"; instead, we talked only about the concepts and what they mean at the big picture level.

One of the students started by defining both terms. He started by asking everyone how they define the terms. The answers were really good for that age group, including the example of restoring furniture and antiques by returning them to their original condition. The student then gave the definitions he had found, which included both "abandonment" and "digression / deviation".

I wrote the following on the board:

Apostasy ---> Restoration ---> Atonement
abandonment, digression/deviation ---> re-establishment, return ---> bringing together, fixing

I drew a crude outline of the classic Plan of Salvation picture - the one with circles for the Pre-Mortal Life, Earth and the Three Degrees of Glory and lines connecting them. I asked them when apostasy officially began relative to our lives. Earth was mentioned initially, but we focused on the War in Heaven and the fact that apostasy didn't occur when Lucifer proposed a different plan. Rather, it occurred when he insisted on that plan once Heavenly Father had said, "No, this is what we will do." I talked about a Ward Council and how there is no hint of apostasy when people in a council disagree about solutions to any problem, and not even when people don't agree with the decision of the council, but only if someone then takes a different path and tries to implement it instead of the decision of the council. Thus, apostasy happened only after Lucifer rebelled and recruited people away from Heavenly Father and to himself. (I also told them that I like the interpretation of ancient numerology that believes 1/3 means "an unspecified minority" and 2/3 means "an unspecified majority" - since, in terms of the War in Heaven, that interpretation means we can say that some spirits followed Lucifer, but most followed Heavenly Father and Jehovah.)

We then turned to mortality, and I asked when apostasy started here on earth. The consensus was The Fall, so we talked again about how apostasy started there only when Adam and Eve chose to follow Lucifer's plan instead of what God had commanded them - not when they first questioned the commands. I also told them that I personally view the story of the Garden of Eden as a figurative retelling of the War in Heaven and our need to be in mortality where Lucifer was cast, but I emphasized that I don't really know for sure.

We then talked about when apostasy first begins for us as individuals. In the sense of "digression/deviation" that is when we are born - since birth separates us from God and makes us subject to heredity and all the crap with which we deal in this life; in the sense of "abandonment" that happens when we sin, by choosing to do things we know we should do. One is not our fault, since we simply were accepting God's plan for us; the other is our fault, since it involves choices we make that are in opposition to our consciences. Thus, the effects of one (transgressions due to birth) are covered automatically by the Atonement (2nd Article of Faith), while the other (sin due to choice) is covered conditionally upon our effort to repent (change).

We then turned to the concept of Atonement and how it fits more fully into the eternal progression picture.

I asked them which plan (Lucifer's or Heavenly Father's) was the best plan IF, and only if, the ultimate purpose was simply to bring God's children back to him - to "restore" them merely to their former condition. It took a little thought, but they all saw that Lucifer's plan was perfect for that purpose. I then stressed that what I was about to say should not be how they explain this to other Christians, without substantial background and prior discussion, since it can sound much harsher than I mean it to be, but the picture of being spirits in the presence of God praising him forever with no true growth or progression is Lucifer's plan - precisely. That is exactly what he proposed - and it was pointless, since that same condition is exactly what we possessed prior to birth. That plan makes ALL of the pain and suffering and trials we experience in mortality pointless, and it makes God a sadist who allows us to suffer terribly for no reason other than to make us praise him for saving us from what he demanded we do - which is why Lucifer's plan essentially would have eliminated all of our mistakes in the first place.

In Lucifer's plan, there would have been no need for restoration, since there would have been no apostasy. Thus, no need for atonement of any kind, if atonement meant merely returning to live with God - if it meant nothing more than "restoration of condition", like the example of the furniture being restored to its former beauty. To have any meaning, restoration and atonement need to go beyond that and include some other kind of condition - which I labeled as "restoration of potential".

I mentioned that the promise we were given in the Pre-Mortal existence was the potential to become like God, not just to live with him. Apostasy (both the transgressive aspect as a result of the Fall and the sinful aspect as a result of our choices) thwarts that potential; Jesus paid for that apostasy through his life, in the Garden and on the Cross; he restored us to our former condition of purity and empowered us, as a result, to claim our promised potential. He took care of the restoration of condition completely on his own, as a gift freely given; we tackle restoration of potential through taking his yoke upon us, taking up his cross, etc. and trying to become Christ-like / godly (all aspects of full repentance). He freed us from the debilitating guilt of our human-ness to pursue our potential for godliness - and we deny the Atonement and accept Lucifer's plan, in a very real way, when we reject that godly potential - in ourselves and in others.

Communal Salvation and "Restoration" of What Never Has Been

I believe passionately in the concept of communal salvation - that they without us and we without them cannot be made perfect (whole, complete, fully developed). I really dislike the idea that our eternal end is purely a personal pursuit. It justifies WAY too much arrogance and condescension and neglect - and even blatant abuse and disregard.



I believe in organized religion, since I believe in interpersonal sociality and cooperative progression. I believe ALL organizations must be open to modification and reformation and periodic restoration - but I also believe "restoration" is just as much about forward-looking growth and building as it is about backward-looking re-institutionalization. I believe in "restoring" wholeness and harmony - even if that wholeness and harmony never really existed in acutal mortal history.


I like the use of "restored" in Alma when referring to the resurrection, since, if you think about it, that "restoration" is to a state in which we've never lived previously. It really is a paradigm shift, but I think it's an important one.

An Evolving Church and the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times

A friend of mine once said the following:

The way I approach these difficult topics is to look at the church as a evolving system and allow it the right to refine its teachings over time.

I really like this.

I believe strongly that the term "Dispensation of the Fullness of Times" refers to the condition at the end of the dispensation, not the beginning. There are way too many scriptural passages and prophetic statements teaching that principle for me to believe otherwise - and it also is the only construct that makes sense for me personally. I also believe that the term "Restoration" refers to a process, not an event. Finally, I believe one of the central purposes of both is removing the natural elements of apostasy from the Church that exist through the simple fact that it is made up of people who bring and pass on their own "incorrect traditions" within the organization.

The early history of the Church was incredibly messy on many levels, not least of which was the need to sort through all of the assumptions early leaders (including Joseph himself) would make about the impressions and visions and revelations they were receiving in such a rapid-fire way. It's like they were riding a tidal wave of spiritualism and trying to figure out where it was taking them - trying to establish a firm foundation from everything that was swirling around them.

Personally, I don't fault those that couldn't take it and left - just as I don't fault those now who yearn for rock-solid, never-changing stability and leave for the exact same reason. I don't agree with them, and I wish they could "endure to the end" - but I don't condemn or fault them.

On-going revelation means on-going change - and that change often is radical and unsettling.

Rant: Protestant Hypocrisy Regarding Prophets

It bugs me to no end to hear modern Christians ignore some of the teachings of early prophets like Peter and Paul, then turn around and bash Mormons for letting go of some of the early teachings of Joseph and Brigham. The hypocrisy is so thick it is amazing.

On the other side of the coin, there are those who claim Biblical inerrancy - who refuse to consider the possibility that earlier prophets and apostles might not have recorded the universal, literal word of God - and turn around and bash Mormons for “worshiping” Joseph (again, even though we have let go of quite a few of his earliest teachings). Again, the irony makes me gag.

The truest irony is that both of these groups claim we worship Joseph - even though, in practical terms, when these charges have any degree of legitimacy, we simply are treating him like these people treat the prophets of their own heritage - either too harshly or with too much honor.

Damned if you do; damned if you don’t - even though each extreme in Mormonism tends to be less extreme than its counterpart in Protestantism. Physician, heal thyself.

/End of rant. Back to our regularly scheduled program.

Exactly What Must Be 100% True or 100% False?

One of my biggest problems with human nature, in general, and the way that members, in particular, tend to interpret things is the tendency to read something applied to one thing or person and extrapolate it to everything or everyone else.

Let me give two examples to illustrate my point:

1) Oliver Cowdery was told how HE received a witness from the Spirit. HE felt a burning in HIS bosom, and HE experienced a stupor of thought in HIS mind. That passage says absolutely nothing whatsoever about how anyone else will or should recognize the influence of the Spirit in their own life - nothing, at all. However, members and missionaries alike tend to promise others that they will feel it in that exact same way. I rarely feel it that way, and I know others who rarely feel it that way, but thousands of people are being told that is how they can experience it. That really is a HUGE concern and pet peeve of mine.

2) Moroni 10:3-4 promises those who remember, read, ponder and pray that God will manifest the truth of the Book of Mormon unto them - but it says absolutely nothing about how that will be done - how any particular reader will experience that manifestation. It also does NOT say in those verses that everyone who reads will "know" it is true; all it says is that the truth will be manifest somehow. One person might feel it is true; another one might sense it is true; another might have a classic Cowdery burning; one might have a powerful dream; one simply might feel compelled to continue reading it and be drawn into it inescapably; one might experience it in a way that is unimaginable to you and me. Only one of these "manifestations" match Oliver Cowdery's method of manifestation, but each and every one is "real" to the person involved.

President Hinckley didn't say, "Every single thing taught in the Church either is 100% true or else the Church is a fraud," nor did he say, "The Church is never wrong or else it is not of God." What he said, in essence, included three foundational claims: 

1) Joseph spoke with God (somehow); 

2) Moroni appeared to Joseph, who "translated" the Book of Mormon (somehow); and 

3) the Priesthood authority to perform eternal ordinances was restored (somehow). 

Either those three things happened (again, somehow) or they didn't. Either heavenly personages appeared to Joseph (somehow), or he made it up. They either are "real" or "fraudulent". Joseph either believed in his visions, or he lied about them intentionally. He either was sincere, or he was a fraud. That's essentially all Pres. Hinckley said in the quote.

To me, the crux of his comment is that either Joseph was telling the truth about the biggest things (the heavenly manifestations), or he was a fraud. Either he believed it, or he faked it. I can accept that, since I couldn't remain faithful if I was convinced he lied about those foundation things. There are lots and lots and lots of things that I believe are totally open to ambiguity and mistakes; the heavenly visitations/visions aren't among them - even though I think there are multiple, legitimate ways that those visitations could have occurred without being fraudulent.

The Power of Jesus as Brother

I think perhaps the greatest abomination of the apostasy was the distortion of the duality of Jesus' nature - the denial that He was fully God but also fully human. "This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent," (John 17:3) goes way beyond knowing about Him, but it also does include knowing about Him.

My wife's favorite part of the Book of Mormon is 2 Nephi 4, specifically because it gives us a glimpse into the self-critical nature of a prophet that we rarely see. It makes Nephi more than a caricature; it makes him fully human. One of the things that makes Isaiah's description of the future Lord so compelling is that it shows His trials and pains and suffering; it makes Him more fully human. "Knowing" Jesus in this sense - allowing Him to be fully human in ALL ways except the actual commission of sin - opens up the possibility of such a deeper, more personal connection than knowing Him "only as God" ever can.

That's perhaps the biggest irony of the Restoration - that it emphasizes the way to have the deepest, most personal relationship with Jesus imaginable (ironically, outside of actual marriage) - that of "brother". Ideally, we know our siblings' faults and weaknesses but love them anyway. By removing all weaknesses and natural tendencies and temptations and spiritual growth, we literally create a chasm we can't cross - a creature we can't approximate - a Savior we can't truly know. Other religions preach the need for a personal relationship with deity, but they erase the principles that allow such a relationship actually to exist. There really is a chasm between their God and them, but it's a chasm of their own digging.

Even Joseph Smith Had to Learn Line Upon Line Over Time

I'm not convinced Joseph understood the implications of his own visions and revelations when they happened. We have a hard enough time contemplating them even almost 200 years later; I think he learned "line-upon-line" from each subsequent experience. I think he understood his First Vision better through the years as it was reinforced by other experiences, so . . .

I'm not sure if the Lord told him not to reveal all of the First Vision details or if he simply didn't understand it all, but I think it's a combination of the two. I think he was overwhelmed by it; after all, Moroni later had to repeat his visit three more times after the initial vision in order to be sure Joseph understood it all. Of the two, I'm fairly certain that the First Vision would have been more overwhelming and hard to fathom than Moroni's message.

When you boil everything else down to the most fundamental principle of the Restored Gospel, I think it can be stated as: "I am a child of God." The literal reality of that statement is mind-boggling even for us, much less for others still bound by the teachings of centuries - as Joseph undoubtedly still was even after the First Vision. It was and is the heresy that nearly got Jesus stoned; Joseph had enough trouble with his claim of translating the Book of Mormon; I think understanding the First Vision fully and broadcasting it publicly easily could have killed the Restoration before it got started.

That's speculation, of course, but it makes sense to me.

Broadening Our Understanding of the Restoration

If someone really wants to gain a better understanding of "The Restoration of the Gospel in the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times", I’d suggest a look at how the eternal perspective within Buddhism (especially) and Islam and Hinduism and Shintoism and other world religions is so much closer to Mormonism’s than is Protestantism’s. I’ve always found it fascinating that, in many ways, Mormonism is closer to the other major world religions than it is to modern-day Protestantism. That adds a much broader meaning to “Restoration”, in my opinion, as well as a much more universal understanding of the power of the Atonement.

Paul v. John - Oaks v. Uchtdorf: Why We NEED a Quorum of 12 Apostles

As I listened to General Conference, and as I read various responses around the Bloggernacle to the talks given in General Conference, something struck me that had never crossed my mind previously. I want to share it as my own personal epiphany from General Conference.

Elder Bednar gave a beautiful talk on the need to express AND show love in our homes. In at least four talks, love was emphasized as the foundation of our Christian discipleship. One of the reasons Elder Wirthlin's death was hard for me is that he spoke powerfully and regularly about accepting others and loving them no matter what they believe or do or say. (His talk "Concern for the One" is my personal all-time favorite.) As I listened to Pres. Uchtdorf this weekend, it struck me that he is my "replacement" for Elder Wirthlin - someone who speaks of tolerance and acceptance and grace and love on a regular basis. I am drawn to and inspired deeply by messages that focus on love and acceptance and grace and mercy.

Saturday afternoon, Elder Oaks spoke about the balance between love and law - and I have read multiple expressions of concern over his talk. Especially when viewed by those who were uplifted by the messages focusing on love, it was a difficult talk to understand and accept. For some, it seemed to be a step away from the "pure love of Christ" within the other talks that moved them so deeply. Personally, I believe it was a masterful discourse and another one of my favorites - and my epiphany yesterday morning as I was preparing to watch the Sunday morning session is that there is a reason (even a deep and abiding need) for BOTH Elder Oaks AND Pres. Uchtdorf - Elder McConkie AND Elder Wirthlin - the Apostle Paul AND John, the Revelator - Brigham Young AND Joseph Smith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the church that is called a restoration of ALL things.

I will try to explain by focusing on Paul and John:

1) Paul was a leader in the Jewish system at the time of his conversion. In summary, he was legally-minded - interpreting laws and customs, and enforcing them among the Jews. After his conversion, this background and intellectual inclination remained as a great influence in his writing. His epistles are FULL of legalistic justifications and explanations - I Corinthians 15:1-29 being a wonderful example of this as he explained and justified the early Christian focus on the resurrection, and Hebrews 11 doing the same things when explaining faith. He didn't "just" bear testimony of the resurrection and faith; he couched both discourses in legalistic terms - "court arguments", if you will.

2) John, the Revelator, on the other hand, is the apostle most associated with focusing on love. His own "gospel" and epistles are full of incredible messages of love and unity. "God so loved the world" - "If ye love me" - "By this shall men know ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another" - "God is love" - and SO many other statements permeate his record and his letters.

Those who compiled the New Testament hundreds of years later chose disproportionately to include Paul's writings, but they also included John's very different focus - and James' classic exploration of faith vs. works - and Mark's quite disjointed and grammatically difficult account - and Matthew's kingship treatise. If I were in a snitty mood, I might argue with what specifically they chose, but I am grateful that they chose to include writings that focused on Jesus and His teachings in different ways - that they compiled a record that can appeal to different people with different personalities and different experiences. Those with a more legalistic bent can appreciate Paul and Oaks, while those who care more for the touchy-feely "warm fuzzies" of the Gospel can gravitate to and be inspired by John and Uchtdorf. Those who like both (as I do) also can enjoy some of Bednar and Holland, who move from one approach to the other quite regularly.

In summary, I am thankful that we have the opportunity to listen to BOTH Elder Oaks (a judge, by the way) AND Pres. Uchtdorf - since this allows ALL to hear someone with whom they can connect emotionally and/or intellectually. The key, in my opinion, is to find one's own "favorites" - while accepting that other people are doing the same with the words of apostles to whom you personally cannot connect quite as well.

I thank God for a Quorum of Twelve Apostles - and I am grateful that they don't all say the same things in the same way.

Eternal Marriage from the Eyes of Married Converts

The topic of eternal marriage and our responsibilities as husbands is interesting in the context of a non-Utah High Priests Group - a bunch of old men, most of whom converted to the Church with their wives and look at it from the perspective of how the Restored Gospel changed their attitudes toward their wives and their duties as husbands. I think everyone should hear that discussion occasionally - even if only to emphasize how cool these teachings really are to those who grew up and started marriage without them.

One quick example:

A recent convert was sealed to his wife two years ago. They almost separated years ago, then renewed their marriage a few years ago. She laughingly and he sincerely talk about how not too many years ago she wouldn’t have dreamed of “marrying” him a third time; they both glow about the upcoming ceremony now. Both of them attribute that change directly to their acceptance of the restored Gospel and the perspective it gave them.