Preliminaries for Confirming or Ordaining

And [Jesus] called them by name, saying: Ye shall call on the Father in my name, in mighty prayer; and after ye have done this ye shall have power that to him upon whom ye shall lay your hands, ye shall give the Holy Ghost; and in my name shall ye give it, for thus do mine apostles. (Moroni 2:2)

2 After they had prayed unto the Father in the name of Christ, they laid their hands upon them, and said:

3 In the name of Jesus Christ I ordain you to be a priest (or if he be a teacher, I ordain you to be a teacher) to preach repentance and remission of sins through Jesus Christ, by the endurance of faith on his name to the end. Amen. (Moroni 3:2-3)

I notice these both say that priesthood holders were to prepare for exercising the priesthood of God by praying first. We see that Jesus instructed His disciples to do this, advising “mighty prayer,” promising that then they would have power.

What is the principle behind Jesus’s commandments to pray mightily first? I think it is this: A man must prepare spiritually and put himself in harmony with the Lord in order to speak for the Lord to one of God’s children. Obedience and submission through prayer is the first step, and praying as commanded does that. Secondly, putting oneself in communication with the Father is necessary before one can have confidence to speak for Him, and prayer is the way that we align our will with His.

Do priesthood holders do this today? I haven’t seen it, but then it may go on in the heart, which I can’t see. But I am sure that if those scriptural practices are followed, greater blessings will result while the priesthood is being used.

How Jesus handles a question about His authority

27 ¶ And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders,

28 And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?

29 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I will also ask of you one question, and answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things.

30 The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me.

31 And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then did ye not believe him?

32 But if we shall say, Of men; they feared the people: for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed.

33 And they answered and said unto Jesus, We cannot tell. And Jesus answering saith unto them, Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things. (Mark 11:27-33)

Many commentators like to go into great depth about the trap laid for Jesus in their question. They also usually point to Jesus’s counter-question as a brilliant defense by which He puts them all in their place.

Yet something about it struck me as odd. I began to wonder what we are supposed to learn from this incident that can help us. Are we to learn that Jesus can unequivocally win arguments and devastate the opposition? Is winning the argument His goal?  Does this help us in our conversations about the gospel? 

It seems to me that when faced with a question about His authority, Jesus’s major goal would be persuading someone to recognize His power to redeem. The question in His mind would be, If I tell you, will you acknowledge my authority and allow me to save you? He might want to know if they were asking sincerely or out of bad faith. Because He wants to save everyone, He has to assume sincerity until they prove bad faith. 

He asks a question to learn from them. I see this incident as instance in which Christ demonstrated His meekness and lowliness of heart. He didn’t ask, “Why do you want to know?” He asked whether they thought John’s baptism was from heaven or of men. His question is meant to discern their level of sincerity and belief. He knew their ability to respond positively to a prophet in their day would determine their ability to respond to the Messiah. 

It is interesting that the reasoning of the chief priests, scribes, and elders was captured in the record in verses 31-32. (As an exercise, just try reading the account without that reasoning inserted, and you’ll see how it might have looked to everyone else who wasn’t privy to the motivation coloring the answer of those leaders.)

Their reasoning indicates that they thought His question was a trap. This was pure projection on their part. They thought Jesus was doing to them what they were trying to do to Him. If they had been sincere, they might have seen His question for what it really was. And I hardly think they’d want such a blatantly self-interested politically-obsessed thought process to get about, but someone overheard, and now it is memorialized for all time. 

Since they claimed they couldn’t tell whether John’s baptism was from heaven or men, Jesus knew then that they’d be similarly obtuse in public about Jesus’s authority. He probably said to Himself, I can’t do anything with people who ‘can’t tell,’ when it’s so obvious, so I guess I can’t tell them anything about my authority either because they won’t get it. And He wouldn’t push His authority on them; He wouldn’t want to condemn them so quickly. He’d want to give them more time in hopes that He could save them later.

One thing I learn from this incident is that Jesus chooses whether to answer a question based upon the receptiveness of the hearer. Even though those leaders thought they were saving face by refusing to commit, they actually disqualified themselves from receiving a real answer. Seeming wishy-washy or obtuse marked them as having spiritual problems, even if they concealed for a time that their problem was outright hostility. It is particularly sad that these were chief priests, scribes, and elders, men who should have been most spiritually mature and receptive.

Jesus’s test question is still a good one for today. How we respond to a modern prophet determines how receptive we’d be to Jesus Himself. If we ‘can’t tell’ if a modern prophet is from God, when his goodness has been demonstrated over years, then our ability to receive revelation is diminished. On the positive side, if we respond to the modern prophet and apostles, we will be receptive to revelation and receptive to Jesus Himself.

I also think that Jesus’s willingness to take time and ask questions of the questioner to gauge where they were at is a good pattern to follow in gospel conversations. If people ask us questions about the church or the gospel, maybe it would be wise to first take time to ask them questions about what experiences have brought them to us or what they believe so that we can better meet them where they are spiritually.

A Woman’s Part in the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood

33 For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies.

34 They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God.

35 And also all they who receive this priesthood receive me, saith the Lord;

36 For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me;

37 And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father;

38 And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him.

39 And this is according to the oath and covenant which belongeth to the priesthood. (D&C 84:33-39)

When I have read these verses, I have usually only read it with reference to men. However, recently I saw this block of verses in a different context that showed me where I and other faithful women fit in it. (Hint: It's not terribly controversial..)

The context was in a flyer our stake leaders handed out at ward conference to highlight the stake theme for the year about ordinances. All the ordinances were listed with a scripture about them. For the Melchizedek priesthood ordinances, v35-38 were given from the block above.  Read just those verses and see how it changes your perspective.

I particularly noticed verse 35 & 36. They who receive the priesthood, receive Jesus. And they that receive Jesus’s servants, receive Jesus. As a woman, I read that and I thought, I can’t receive the priesthood. Ah! But I can receive Jesus’s servants who have the priesthood, and that is still receiving Jesus.  I don’t care if the verse says “he” there; I can apply that to myself.

So, I think faithful women have part in the oath and covenant of the priesthood by receiving God’s servants, receiving the ordinances and blessings they can give, and by supporting and sustaining them in that work. Thereby, women can receive Jesus, receive the Father, receive the Father’s kingdom, and be given all the Father hath.  I also see no reason why women can’t then also magnify their callings and claim the blessing of being sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies. 

If I were to apply the above verses to women, I would probably read it this way:

33 For whoso is faithful unto the receiving of those who hold these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies.

34 They become the daughters of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God.

35 And also all they who receive these priesthood holders receive me, saith the Lord;

36 For she that receiveth my servants receiveth me;

37 And she that receiveth me receiveth my Father;

38 And she that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto her.

39 And this is according to the oath and covenant which belongeth to the priesthood.

Officiating under the direction of the Presidency

High priests after the order of the Melchizedek Priesthood have a right to officiate in their own standing, under the direction of the presidency, in administering spiritual things, and also in the office of an elder, priest (of the Levitical order), teacher, deacon, and member. (D&C 107: 10) 

I ran across an illuminating quote concerning this verse. The quote was from John Taylor:

“ALL PRIESTHOOD FUNCTIONS UNDER DIRECTION IN CHURCH CAPACITY.—There is another question associated with this matter. Because a man is a high priest, is he an apostle? No. Because a man is a high priest, is he the president of a stake, or the counselor to the president of a stake? No. Because he is a high priest, is he a bishop? No, not by any means. And so on, in all the various offices. The high priesthood holds the authority to administer in these ordinances, and at no other time; and while they are sustained also by the people…It is not because a man holds a certain class of priesthood that he is to administer in all the offices of that priesthood. He administers in them only as he is called and set apart for that purpose.”  (The Gospel Kingdom: Selections from the Writings and Discourses of John Taylor, selected, arranged, and edited, with an introduction by G. Homer Durham [Salt Lake City: Improvement Era, 1941]. 202)

What this implies is yet another way we know there was an apostasy in the former-day church. Once the apostles died and no more were chosen, there was no one with authority to set apart or change or release individuals to or from priesthood offices. There would be none to set new bishops or elders. And once those died, there would be none with authority to set apart or ordain new ones.

How grateful I am that we have the priesthood restored in this dispensation!

History of early Genesis priesthood ordinations

-->

D&C 107 is a great section about priesthood. I once tried to summarize it down, and it was virtually impossible. Recently I was reading v40-52 and noticed some interesting things I hadn’t seen before.

40 The order of this priesthood was confirmed to be handed down from father to son, and rightly belongs to the literal descendants of the chosen seed, to whom the promises were made.

41 This order was instituted in the days of Adam, and came down by lineage in the following manner:

42 From Adam to Seth, who was ordained by Adam at the age of sixty-nine years, and was blessed by him three years previous to his (Adam’s) death, and received the promise of God by his father, that his posterity should be the chosen of the Lord, and that they should be preserved unto the end of the earth;

43 Because he (Seth) was a perfect man, and his likeness was the express likeness of his father, insomuch that he seemed to be like unto his father in all things, and could be distinguished from him only by his age.

44 Enos was ordained at the age of one hundred and thirty-four years and four months, by the hand of Adam.

45 God called upon Cainan in the wilderness in the fortieth year of his age; and he met Adam in journeying to the place Shedolamak. He was eighty-seven years old when he received his ordination.

46 Mahalaleel was four hundred and ninety-six years and seven days old when he was ordained by the hand of Adam, who also blessed him.

47 Jared was two hundred years old when he was ordained under the hand of Adam, who also blessed him.

48 Enoch was twenty-five years old when he was ordained under the hand of Adam; and he was sixty-five and Adam blessed him.

49 And he saw the Lord, and he walked with him, and was before his face continually; and he walked with God three hundred and sixty-five years, making him four hundred and thirty years old when he was translated.

50 Methuselah was one hundred years old when he was ordained under the hand of Adam.

51 Lamech was thirty-two years old when he was ordained under the hand of Seth.

52 Noah was ten years old when he was ordained under the hand of Methuselah. (D&C 107:42-52)

These verses tell us how the priesthood was handed down from father to son, which tells us that ideally it is part of righteous families.

I noticed that the men were ordained at many different ages: 69, 134, 87, 496, 200, 25, 100, 32, 10…. It shows that ordination is not something that comes at a certain age, but with maturity and faithfulness. Today, our church seems to tie it to ages-- 12, 14, 16, 18, but ultimately faithfulness is the deciding factor, as judged by the bishop. (Ordination to elder probably requires an interview with the stake president, but I’m not sure about that. Someone correct me?)

Another thing I notice is that many of those who were ordained in these verses received it from Adam. Adam ordained Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and Methuselah. It is possible Adam did it because he was the presiding authority at that time and the fathers deferred to him.  (Anyone with additional insight on this may chime in too.)

I also notice little stories about the spirituality of these men. For instance, Seth tried very hard to be just like his father Adam, and he succeeded such that people could only distinguish them by age. Think what that would be like to have a child so carefully copying you. Some things you might not recognize were wrong unless you saw him doing it too, so you’d have to repent pretty quick, lest you lead theme deeper into error.

There’s also a story in v45 about God calling Cainan in the wilderness when he was 40, and he met Adam while journeying to Shedolamak, then was ordained when 87. That story is interesting because it shows us Cainan felt spiritual impressions and obeyed them and evidently felt that meeting Adam was what the Lord wanted him to do. I suppose he progressed over 42 more years to the point that Adam felt he was ready for ordination.  Sometimes divinely orchestrated meetings with a priesthood holder can change the course of our lives, and perhaps this meeting with Adam was one of those.  It also shows it can take time for people to become worthy and ready for the priesthood. But once they are, surely their power is no less valid than any other priesthood holders.  Looked at it that way, Cainan’s story could be an inspiration to men in the church who might be ashamed of not progressing. 

The way these stories are so spare, it makes me wonder what formative spiritual experiences of ours could be distilled down into a verse.

Michael (Adam) as a prince

15 That you may come up unto the crown prepared for you, and be made rulers over many kingdoms, saith the Lord God, the Holy One of Zion, who hath established the foundations of Adam-ondi-Ahman;

16 Who hath appointed Michael your prince, and established his feet, and set him upon high, and given unto him the keys of salvation under the counsel and direction of the Holy One, who is without beginning of days or end of life. (D&C 78:15-16)

When I read this, I wondered why it was important to include that information about Michael, or Adam.

But coming as it does so early in church history, it actually implies a lot of neat things. To Saints who previously only knew of the fall of Adam and his exit from the Garden of Eden, it tells us that though outside Eden, eventually Adam became righteous, that he attained the priesthood, and that he is given authority over his posterity.   When it is says Christ established his feet, that tells me Christ taught Adam his foundational knowledge of the gospel and set him on the path of faithfulness.  Even though Adam fell, he was eventually raised up and exalted, which I think is what “set up on high” is meant to communicate.

With that in mind, the promise that we may come up to the crown prepared for us and be made rulers over many kingdoms tells us that we, like Adam, can overcome the fall through Christ.  If the Lord established Adam’s feet, He will do the same for us.  If Adam was given keys, so can we be. If Adam was appointed a prince, so can we be. 

That is so thrilling. The crown is there waiting; it has already been prepared and we just need to keep stepping up!

Some interesting ancillary material gathered while preparing my talk on the First Vision

When preparing my talk on the First Vision of Joseph Smith, I went searching all over the place. I looked on LDS.org for conference talks. I also used the Citation Index app to look at what had been said in the Journal of Discourses about the First Vision as well.  I gathered a lot of interesting quotes that in some way touched on Joseph Smith's experience, and I used hardly any of them in my talk, but they are so interesting that I felt they were worth sharing here.  So I will put them here and discuss.

-->

Conditions of camp meeting revivals

Elder Daniel H. Wells JD 12:71  (an apostle)

“The days of my youth were days of religious excitement—the days of revivals…—and I can well apprehend the effect these things must have had on the mind of Joseph; he was a young man, I was but a boy, and I know how those revivals affected young minds…. Some of those preachers would hold their protracted meetings for days and weeks, and sometimes for a month, one meeting after another, every day and every evening, getting around the young with their influences, and concentrating their prayers, perhaps, on a single individual, and praying for no other, until he would say he had got religion and was converted. Suffice it to say, that I was disgusted with it, and did not believe in any of it, and rested my chance, so far as religion was concerned, on trying to do that which was right as near as I could, and running the risk.”

 No wonder it was such religious excitement. Elder Wells eventually joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Nauvoo, so he found what he was looking for, and it didn't involve emotional manipulation or social pressure tactics.

-->  --> -->

Sterling W. Sill:  (1956)

[Christendom] is divided into some 250 contending sects, all claiming to accept the Bible as the inspired word of God and the only authoritative rule of faith and doctrine. Their confusion on even the most simple points of doctrine is indicated by the report that some seventy-eight of these baptize by immersion, many sprinkle, sixty-eight have optional forms, sixty-seven practice infant baptism, many have no baptism. Thirty-nine require no adherent to creed or doctrine of any kind.

Almost every Protestant church came into existence because of “a protest” or an “argument.” The division of opinion caused by the Civil War was responsible for the formation of many new churches. The Church of England was organized because the Pope refused to give Henry VIII a divorce. There are many “state churches.” It was Emperor Constantine, not the servants of the Lord, that made Christianity the church of the Roman Empire.(Conference Report, April 1956, First Day—Morning Meeting 16)

The Bible says there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. 

-->

Brigham Young (JD 14:109)

“I read the Bible, diligently and faithfully, and if I could have found a church and people organized according to the pattern contained in its pages I should have been satisfied that that was God’s Church and people, and that would have been witness enough for me. But I will give you a little of my experience in my early days with regard to the religious sects. From my youth up their cry was, “Lo, here is Christ; lo, there is Christ;” no, “Yonder is Christ,” “Christ is not there, he is here,” and so on, each claiming that it had the Savior, and that others were wrong. I used to think to myself, “Some one of you may be right, but hold on, wait awhile! When I reach the years of judgment and discretion I can judge for myself; and in the meanwhile take no course either with one party or the other.” When I would make known my views and feelings with regard to their confused state they would call me an infidel. I would say to them, “All right, I am an infidel in a great many things.” I read the Bible, and especially the New Testament, which was given as a pattern for the life of Christians, whether as a church or individuals, and this was my inward inquiry, "Is there a church on the earth organized according to the pattern Jesus left?” No. Is there an Apostle left on the earth? Not one. Is there a prophet, which the Scriptures inform us were placed in the Church for its edification? Not one. Is there an evangelist? No. Is there the gift of healing? We cannot find any such thing, with all their cries of “Lo here, lo there, and lo yonder.” “Are there any who speak with tongues?” No. Any that prophesy? No, we do not believe in prophecy. Any one who has received the Holy Ghost, and speaks and preaches by its influence? “Why the Holy Ghost is not given in these days,” say all those who say, “Lo, here is Christ,” and “Lo, there is Christ!” Well, I used to say, “I am an infidel, for I do not believe anything of this; when you bring me a people built up and believing according to the New Testament I will believe that they are right. When you find such a people you will find the people and the Church of God, with all the gifts and graces of the Gospel in their midst; and you will find the kingdom of God on the earth.” They labored with me, but finally declared that I was an infidel, for I could not believe in their doctrines and principles. Yet I have been at many of their meetings and seen their modes of conversion.”

 Brigham Young and others, by reading the Bible could compare its teachings and practices with that practiced by churches in their day and see plainly that the true church was not on the earth at that time.  And yet, they had to wait for the truth to appear.  Joseph, did not read hardly any of the Bible, and he was confused by the things people said.  So he took the extraordinary step of asking God to tell him which church was true.   

I also note that Brigham Young didn't let the label "infidel" intimidate him; he would not bow to social pressure to join a church he didn't believe in. He had the courage of his convictions.

This also gives me a sense of how socially alienating it might have been to join no church in those days. 

-->

Men would try to excite the public mind against Joseph Smith

Mrs. Palmer:

"I remember the excitement stirred up among some of the people over Joseph's First Vision, and of hearing my father contend that it was only the sweet dream of a pure minded boy. One of our church leaders came to my father to remonstrate against his allowing such close friendship between his family and the "Smith Boy," as he called him. My father defended his own position by saying that Joseph was the best help he had ever found. He told the churchman that he always fixed the time of hoeing his large field to that when he could secure the services of Joseph Smith, because of the influence that boy had over the wild boys of the neighborhood, and explained that when these boys, or young men, worked by themselves much time would be spent in arguing and quarreling, which often ended in a ring fight. But when Joseph Smith worked with them, the work went steadily forward, and he got the full worth of the wages he paid.

I remember the churchman saying, in a very solemn and impressive tone, that the very influence the boy carried was the danger they feared for the coming generation, that not only the young men, but all who came in contact with him, would follow him, and he must be put down." (Hyrum L. Andrus and Helen Mae Andrus, comps., They Knew the Prophet [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1974], 2)

-->

-->

Priesthood authority needed

John Taylor:

“Supposing a man was to come here as Governor or Secretary, or holding any other office under the government of the United States; he comes in the name of the United States, or by the power or authority of the United States, does he not? Yes. But supposing some of you were to set up here as Governor, they would want to see your credentials and know by what authority you came here and whether you were appointed by the legitimate authorities of the United States or not. If not, they would pay no attention to you; they would look upon you as a very commonplace, foolish individual, and moreover, they would also look upon you as a fraud. Well, then, if God does not send men, of course they cannot act under the authority of God; if they do, they act fraudulently. Now, how can men go in the name of God when they tell you that God has never spoken for the last eighteen hundred years, and that he does not now reveal himself? That being the case, how then can they go forth in the name of God? I do not know; it is a mystery to me.” (JD 21:155)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has priesthood authority. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were ordained by John the Baptist, and by the ancient apostles Peter, James, and John, who appeared to him as resurrected beings. 

Fear of revelation and priesthood?

George Q. Cannon:

“…if a man comes forward claiming that he has this authority he is met with the accusations: “You are deluded, you are an imposter, you preach false doctrine, we will have none of your teaching. Men who believe in prophecy and revelation are liable to be deceived, and we are afraid of you, we do not know but you will deceive us. Jesus said there should be false prophets, we believe you are one of them.”

And thus they fortify and encase themselves in their unbelief and reject the word of God, and if Paul or Peter were to rise from the dead, and go amongst them and proclaim the principles they taught anciently, they would close their churches and chapels, and would say, “We will have none of you, you will deceive us, you are one of the false prophets spoken of,” forgetting that, if there are false prophets, there will, in all probability, also be true ones;” (JD 14:163)

I have also noticed this even today. When I share the story of the First Vision with people of other faiths or talk to them about how we can receive personal revelation, they invariably ask me questions like, "How do you know you won't be deceived?"  Easy answer from the Bible: "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself." The question then becomes whether someone is willing to try the experiment to do God's will or not. 

-->

Prejudice of the people

George A. Smith:

“Elder Parley P. Pratt, before receiving the Gospel, was a minister of the Reformed Baptist, or Campbelite, Church in Ohio. This sect had a brick meetinghouse in Mentor, Geauga, now Lake Co. The people who owned this house had prided themselves on their great liberality, they would give everybody a chance to preach. Bro. Pratt, wishing to preach to them went there but found the door shut against him, and the congregation assembled outside. He preached on the door step. Quite a number of his former Christian brethren had gone to a neighboring grocery and qualified the inner man with something stimulating, and having supplied themselves with eggs, and procured a drum and fife they marched backwards and forwards in front of the speaker, throwing their eggs at him until their supply—five dozen—was exhausted. Elder Pratt kept on preaching and bearing testimony of the truth of the Gospel. Among those present who seemed to enjoy the scene was a Campbellite, a grave looking deacon, to whom a young man, a stranger, who happened to be present said, “Is this the way you worship God in this country?” “Oh, no Sir!” answered the deacon, “that man is a ‘Mormon.’”  The stranger then remarked, “his talk is very reasonable.” “Yes,” said the old gentleman, “but he is a ‘Mormon,’ and we do not intend that he shall preach here.” “He appears very cool,” remarked the stranger. “Yes,” said the deacon, “he is used to it, he has been in such scrapes before.”

This circumstance illustrates the manner in which the Elders were received when they went forth to preach the Gospel, and it required the testimony of the Holy Spirit, a strong sense of duty, and revelation from the Almighty to stir them up to go forth under such circumstances. Not only did this persecution extend to those who preached the Gospel, but to all believers, for, although the Saints were industrious, peaceable, and virtuous, every kind of falsehood was told against them, their houses were torn down, their property destroyed and every species of injustice and cruelty was heaped upon them.” (JD 12:332)

Daniel H. Wells:    (back in 1882)

“When a person embraces the everlasting Gospel—which, by the way, seems to be very unpopular now, as in other ages; whether it will continue to be so I do not know—it requires a good deal of moral courage to sacrifice his associations in life, his property, social standing and good name, and everything that pertains to this life that is considered worth having. Still there are those spirits in the flesh that have the courage to do it; those that have the honesty of heart to receive this testimony and to stand up and bear it in the face of every opposing obstacle and every opposing foe.” (JD 23:303)

-->

BY had to overcome fear to preach

Brigham Young:

“About the time I was preparing myself to embrace the gospel, there were great reformation meetings, and many professed to be converted. Those were very stirring times. The cause of religion was the great topic and theme of conversation, and preachers were full of zeal to bring souls to Christ through repentance and faith in his name. I recollect very distinctly that if I permitted myself to speak in any of their meetings, the spirit forbade me mentioning or referring to the testimony of Jesus, only in a superficial way. A few who believed in the everlasting gospel which had been revealed through Joseph, the prophet, testified in their meetings that they knew by the spirit of revelation that God had done thus and so, and they were hooted at immediately by those reformers. If I spoke at all in their meetings, I had to guard every word I uttered, lest I should offend those who professed to understand the gospel of life and salvation, but who did not. Gradually we broke through this fear, and ventured to utter the sentiments of our hearts, in faith before God, delivering that to the people which the Lord had revealed to us….Unless we are willing to be guided by the revelations of the spirit of the Almighty, by obeying and living up to the principles of His gospel, we are as apt to believe one thing as another, and to be influenced by, and follow the dictations of a bad spirit as a good one.” (JD 12:99)

Need for personal revelation

Elder L. Aldin Porter :

“Some years ago I enjoyed a stake conference assignment as a junior companion to Elder LeGrand Richards, who had, under the influence of this directing Spirit, reorganized a stake presidency. We were driving home; he was very pensive. After a rather long period of silence, I asked him if there was something he would like to teach me. Quietly he said, “We have too many in the Church who deny the spirit of prophecy and of revelation.” That was it—he said no more about it. As I reminisced about the calling of the new stake president that day, it occurred to me then that this Church could not function for even one day without the spirit of prophecy and revelation.

But ours is a day of dwindling faith and increasing skepticism about sacred things. Our time reminds me of the period just prior to the coming of the resurrected Savior to this continent. They were very dark days.

Mormon recorded the roots of the problems that beset the Nephite society when he said, “And it was because of the pride of their hearts, because of their exceeding riches, yea, it was because of their oppression to the poor, withholding their food from the hungry, withholding their clothing from the naked, and smiting their humble brethren upon the cheek, making a mock of that which was sacred, denying the spirit of prophecy and of revelation.”

Later Mormon continues: “And because of their iniquity the church had begun to dwindle; and they began to disbelieve in the spirit of prophecy and in the spirit of revelation; and the judgments of God did stare them in the face.”….

When the appointed servants of this Church speak under the influence of the Holy Ghost as ambassadors of the Lord Jesus Christ, their words are carried by the power of the spirit to those whose hearts are open to revelation.

When, with heavenly power, that witness comes to a person, he or she will soon understand that personal sacrifice is its constant companion. The spiritual witness of these sacred things and the demands of sacrifice inevitably walk the road together. In time, one comes to understand the necessity of this and is filled with gratitude that it is so.” (1996 October conference)

The Lord making bare His arm

10 And I would, my brethren, that ye should know that all the kindreds of the earth cannot be blessed unless he shall make bare his arm in the eyes of the nations.

11 Wherefore, the Lord God will proceed to make bare his arm in the eyes of all the nations, in bringing about his covenants and his gospel unto those who are of the house of Israel. (1 Nephi 22:10-11)

When it speaks of the Lord making bare His arm in the eyes of all the nations, it means that the Lord will make His power obvious.

Making bare an arm is a great image to describe how someone shows their power. We visualize a strong man rolling up their sleeves and flexing their muscles and maybe doing some heavy lifting to emphasize the strength they have.

When the Lord makes His arm bare, or shows His power, it will be done through the power of the Holy Ghost that will work upon the hearts of men when they hear the truth of the gospel. It will attract those of the house of Israel to the covenants of the Lord. When they enter covenants, they will also experience the power of the Lord through the priesthood and receive blessings promised to Abraham and his seed.

What “heavy lifting” does the Lord do that we can see? He changes people’s lives. The older we get, the more we understand how difficult change can be without God. People are stubborn. Habit is a deep rut to get out of. But God has the power to change lives, and He shows that to everyone, one by one. He shows people through the Spirit a hint of how they could be blessed, and then they get to choose to respond or not.

Also, everyone will see the power of God at the resurrection.

Spiritual dangers in pretending to priesthood authority

13 ¶Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.

14 And there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so.

15 And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?

16 And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. (Acts 19:13-16)

Note that these seven were sons of a Jew, who was a chief priest, and therefore would have inherited priestly offices from their father.

They seem to have heard that Paul had success casting out evil spirits using the name of Jesus, so they thought they should be able to do the same. The problem was they didn’t have the authority as they thought, and the evil spirit told them so.

One of the things we learn from this story is that spirits on the other side of the veil are compelled to recognize and obey the authoritative acts of a legitimate priesthood holder, but not those of a pretender or usurper. In fact, a usurper actually puts themselves in the power of evil spirits because the deceit they attempt to practice puts them on the side of the great deceiver, Satan.  Satan has power over his own. 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has priesthood power today, restored by angels, for which I am grateful.

Let’s make good choices and stay firmly on the Lord’s side so that Satan has no power over us.

Ordinations to help us look to Christ

In these verses Alma the younger explains the priesthood or the need for the priesthood to the people of Ammonihah, who have denied he (as high priest) has authority over them, on the grounds they are not of his faith.

1 And again, my brethren, I would cite your minds forward to the time when the Lord God gave these commandments unto his children; and I would that ye should remember that the Lord God ordained priests, after his holy order, which was after the order of his Son, to teach these things unto the people.

2 And those priests were ordained after the order of his Son, in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption. (Alma 13:1-2)

That bit about ordination as way for the people to know how to look forward to the Son for redemption has always made me wonder.  How is ordination to the priesthood supposed to help build my faith in Christ?  It must be that there is a type of Christ in it that we haven’t recognized, but Alma did.

The only think I can think of is this—ordination takes one of the men among us in the church and gives him a holy office by which he is to serve the people, teach them, and bestow ordinances.  That process must be similar to how Christ was to be raised up among Israel.  The grace of God that attends the ordinances done by the priests we know is to help people believe that Christ could save them, once He was raised up.

What do you think?  Do you think that’s it, or do you have additional ideas?

New perspective on the prodigal son Luke 15:11-18

-->

I was reading the Sunday school manual on the story of the prodigal son in Luke 15 and some of the questions asked in it set me on a whole different train of thought that I’d never considered before.

“In the parable of the prodigal son, what did the younger son do with his inheritance?”

Obviously he wasted it, but this got me thinking about how this parable was supposed to be analogous to our brothers and sisters who are lost from the kingdom of God.  I started to wonder, “What does the inheritance really represent?”  In what way do our lost brothers and sisters take their inheritance and run off?

Let’s look at v11-12:

11 ¶And he said, A certain man had two sons:

12 And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.

An interesting thing we can see here is that the father doesn’t just give the younger son his portion; he seems to give a portion to the older son as well.  We’re used to thinking the younger son was wrong to demand his inheritance, but what if he wasn’t?  (Odd thought, I know, but hear me out.)

On earth, inheritance is distributed upon the death of the father, so a request for inheritance before death is like a request that the father just lay down and die.   But in terms of our Heavenly Father, we can’t receive our inheritance upon His death because He is immortal. So there has to be a distribution of inheritance upon some other basis besides death, so in that respect, the parable is quite analogous to spiritual realities.

The fact that the father divided the living between the two sons makes me think that the younger son’s request might have been a good one and the younger son’s fault lay in not staying. 

It is also interesting to me where the italics are in that verse. The italicized portions represent words that were added by translators to make the translation flow better according to English grammar.  But occasionally it is interesting to try to read the verses without those italicized words and see if the meaning changes ways that have significance.  Without the italics we get “give me the portion of goods that falleth. And he divided unto them living.”  It suggests that the younger son was interested in the less important part of the inheritance.  It also suggests that part of the inheritance was living, or life, which makes me think of eternal life.  (Is eternal life part of our inheritance as members?  Yes..)

13 And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.

Wasting can happen when one spends profligately, but it can also happen if property is neglected and allowed to fall into disrepair until it is in no condition to be used.  I think this coincides with how our lost brothers and sisters neglect their testimonies and neglect to obey the commandments such that their faith slowly decreases until their knowledge is only a ghost of what it was before.

I’m also intrigued by the repetition of that word “living” in that verse and the contrast between the father’s living and riotous living.  It suggests we compare what we know of the quality of a faithful life with a life completely devoted to the pleasure of the flesh. Which one renews and which one wastes the substance of eternal things?

The next few verses are very interesting because of how the focus is so much on hunger and food and the quality of food.

14 And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want.

15 And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.

16 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.

17 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!

18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, (Luke 15:11-18)

What does this hunger represent?  Could this be a famine of hearing the word of the Lord?  Did the famine just conveniently arise once all his substance had been wasted or was it actually there all the time and he never knew until all his own resources were exhausted?

I suspect that the job of feeding the swine was meant to represent something like teaching the commandments of men mingled with scripture, since they aren’t very wholesome or filling.  The swine may represent the unclean gentiles who are content with empty platitudes and what we might call doctrinal twinkies, but notice that the younger son can’t fill his belly with those things.  The pigs might be perfectly happy with that stuff, but having tasted the real nourishment, the younger son can’t stomach it.

Thus, we see what really brings the prodigal son to himself. He realizes he is starving, starving for the truth that he can’t get anywhere else but from his father.  We learn from this parable that some of our lost brothers and sisters leave because they think there are other ways to be saved, other gospels with efficacy besides that of Christ’s, other ways to live fully.  Sooner or later, they are brought to realize the spiritual poverty of all other ways in comparison and then they have a reason to make their way back.  But they have to have tasted the goodness before they left.

Now, the prodigal is not the only one who has trouble.  Remember the elder son?  He got his inheritance too, but even though he stayed, it hasn’t done him much good either. His complaint to his father upon the return of the younger son is “these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends” (v29).

Who prevented the elder son from using his inheritance?  Would his father have gotten irked at him if he had asked for a goat or a fatted calf every so often?  The eldest son’s trouble is that he thinks his father is too stingy to let him use his inheritance. The eldest son has wasted his inheritance in a different way by never using it.  From a spiritual perspective, how many feasts on the word and celebrations could he have enjoyed but didn’t?

For those of us who stay faithful, the eldest son is a warning to us to beware of ingratitude. In the midst of our service we must not forget the privileges we have inherited by becoming sons and daughters in God’s kingdom.  It is worth it to ask the question “When do we inherit and how early can we begin enjoying our inheritance?  Are we only limited to enjoying it after our resurrection or can we begin enjoying it and rejoicing over it earlier than that?”

Also consider the things we learn about our inheritance from what the father does in the parable to reinstate the younger son – he tells his servants to bring the best robe and put it on, to put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet.   The robe might symbolize being clothed in temple robes. The ring may have been a signet ring that gave him authority to transact business for his father and therefore might symbolize the priesthood. What might the shoes represent?  All this the elder son would have a right to enjoy too, if he would.

We have the privilege of feasting on the word, of making use of the inheritance our Heavenly Father has divided to each of us, even a piece of eternal life we can feel through the ministrations of the Holy Ghost.  We all have spiritual gifts, we all have a portion of the Spirit, we all are given access to priesthood blessings, and more.  These are all reasons to rejoice and celebrate with our friends in the gospel.  And too, there is the rejoicing we can feel as we repent and feel the forgiveness that comes from God.  Also, consider the father tells the eldest son “you are ever with me.”  To be with the Father is no small blessing. Again, to have the constant companionship of the Spirit is a big part of our inheritance.  So how much do we appreciate that?