This button is a resource to link those desiring baptism with those having authority to baptize. More information can be found here.



Just a short word of explanation:

I write all the posts and the reply comments which go onto the blog.  However, I do not have time to maintain the site itself.  My wife does all the posting, editing, maintaining, etc.  She takes the comments I write and puts them into the blog itself.  Therefore, when you are reading anything on this site from me, you are reading what she has mechanically put into the site using the forms, etc. required to make it work.  I appreciate very much the time she devotes to doing this, because I simply cannot take that time at present to do it myself.

So, when you send comments they go to her at the blog site, as well as a designated email address, then, when appropriate, she forwards them to me.  I will respond to her and she will put them up onto the blog.

Concourses of angels

The object of this mortal existence is to develop faith.  We need adversity and a sense of isolation from God in order to develop the character necessary to be like God.  There is a test underway.  But it is conducted by a benign and friendly heavenly host, whose primary purpose is to develop in us a godly character and charity toward one another.
Men and women may see Christ in vision or in an appearance as a solitary personage.  But no person has ever seen God the Father without also seeing a host of others.  They are referred to in scriptures as a “heavenly host,” or “numerous angels,” or “concourses of angels.”  There is a reason that a company is always shown at the appearance of the Father.  You should look into the matter. Within the answer lies a great truth about God the Father.

True and living

The Lord’s reference to the Church in a revelation received on November 1, 1831 as “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth” (D&C 1: 30) was true for the following reasons:
First, the Church was established by revelation, visitations from angels, and delegation of authority.
Second, it was “living” because the authority and gifts were present and unfolding; and new scripture and revelations were being received.
Third, it would continue to grow in knowledge, light and truth as further ordinances and rites were restored.
Finally, it was “true” because it taught the doctrines which gave converts the tools with which they could grow in light and knowledge until the perfect day. (D&C 50: 24.)
The Lord’s description in 1831 is what we should aspire to have said about us still, today.  But, of course, that would require us to also be “true” and “living” in the same way as the Church in 1831. 

Different traditions, different interpretations

In Stephen’s testimony just prior to his martyrdom in Acts, he gives an account of Moses which does not appear in our version of the Old Testament.  In Stephen’s explanation, he attributes to Moses the knowledge that he was going to be a deliverer of Israel even before he killed the Egyptian.  (See Acts 7: 24-25.)  According to Stephen, Moses was frustrated that the Israelites failed to recognize him as their deliverer.
Our account instead tells us that Moses was called by God, to his surprise.  When called, Moses responded: “Who am I, that I should go unto Pharaoh, and that I should bring forth the children of Israel out of Egypt?”  (Exo. 3: 11.)

This goes to show that there were different traditions reflected in the biblical accounts.  Just as there are references to scriptural books which we no longer possess.
The relevance of personal revelation, and the need for continuing revelation, remain apparent even if you want to understand the very scriptures we believe in.  Hence the almost immediate reaction of Joseph and Oliver to receiving the Holy Ghost and how scriptures took on new, even previously hidden meanings.  (See JS-H 1: 74.)
I was taught from the New Testament all my childhood by a mother who was a Baptist.  When hands were laid upon my head after baptism, I re-read the New Testament and thought it was a new book. 


I teach the Young Men tomorrow and will be discussing Sampson’s life and example.  He conforms to one of the great patterns of men sent by the Lord to deliver His people.  That often repeated pattern includes:

– A couple or woman who cannot bear a child because of some infirmity,  age, infertility, barrenness, or lack of marriage.

– A promise made that a son will be sent.

– The woman/couple receive a son despite the infertility problem before.

– The son then comes and plays a role which alters the course of the Lord’s people.

This was the case with Abraham and Sarah, to whom Isaac came.  Manoah, to whom Sampson came.  Elkanah and Hannah, to whom Samuel came.  Zechariah and Elizabeth, to whom John was sent.  Mary and Joseph, to whom Jesus came.

There have been many others, but their stories are not always recorded or known.

Sampson was a Nazarite, the covenant terms of his dedication to the Lord is set out in Numbers 6.  Among other things, a Nazarite was not to cut his hair during the time of the covenant.  This was the reason Sampson’s hair cutting was so significant.  It represented the final break of the covenant.

Sampson was a Messianic figure.  He foreshadowed the Lord.

There is a statement in Matthew that Christ was to be called a “Nazarene.”  (Matt. 2: 23.)  That conflicts, however, with the later inquiry of Nathanael recorded in John 1: 46: “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?”  The more likely statement Matthew was referring to was that the Lord was to be “called a Nazarite” meaning he was under the covenant in Numbers 6.

I’ve written a parable about the way in which Sampson’s life mirrored the Lord’s in Ten Parables.  

I believe that if we had a full account of the Lord’s life we would realize just how much Sampson’s life foreshadowed the Lord’s.  A hint of that is contained in that parable in Ten Parables.

The Lord is in charge

I was asked if there was a day coming when men/women will be required to condemn those in the church whose conduct does not measure up.  I responded:
There is certainly a day of separation coming.  Angels are already begging to begin that process.  The Lord has told them “not yet” but promised them it will happen “by and by” as His preparations continue.

The Lord is in charge.  We needn’t worry about how His purposes will all be fulfilled.  Patience with the larger picture is easier when we realize that for each of us the smaller, individual picture is what is important.  We have plenty to do individually to receive our invitation into the Church of the Firstborn.  As we do what is necessary to receive that invitation, then we will become more effective ministers of salvation for others.  Worrying about the salvation of all others before being saved ourselves is a needless thought.

The evil of this day is sufficient (Matt. 6: 34) because it really is enough to live well one day at a time.  Eternity will be composed of living well one day.  For God all is as one day.  (Alma 40: 8.) When we have done that, we are ready to receive eternity.  Until then, worrying about the larger and more chaotic picture of what is going on keeps us from changing the only environment over which we have any influence or control.  That is the environment of our hearts.

Accuser of our brethren

There is really no reason to complain about the church.  That is a role I would never want to assume.  Satan’s title is “the accuser of our brethren” (Rev. 12: 10).  Of what does he accuse them?  The answer is of all their natural failings, mistakes, shortcomings and errors.  We are all ample examples of such shortcomings.  No matter how good a life we may lead, we all fall short.  The answer to this problem is not to accuse others but to forgive them.  We cloak others in a robe of charity, and we in turn merit charity.
This is why Christ requires us to forgive all others.  We get forgiveness as we give forgiveness to others.  There is an extensive discussion of this in Come, Let Us Adore Him.  It is true doctrine.
I think avoiding the role of “accuser” and filling the role of patient forbearance with others’ shortcomings is the only wise course in life.

Posted by the moderator (she thinks it important)

I think this is interesting history.  I should like to know more of this kind of thing.

Joseph Smith, by revelation, established two presiding offices: The President of the High Priesthood and the Patriarch of the Church.  The President (Joseph Smith) presided.  But the Patriarch stood by with keys to ordain the next President and provide for orderly transition from one President to the next.

The Patriarchal office is by lineage or descent.  That way it cannot be stolen by an interloper; thereby creating a separation of power inside the one Church (or kingdom).

Joseph became President through divine ordination by the Lord and messengers sent by the Lord.

Brigham Young was sustained as President, relying upon his ordination as an Apostle.

John Taylor was also sustained, relying also upon his ordination as an Apostle.

These precedents were relied upon through Joseph F. Smith, who had an ordinance/ordination accompany his assumption of the office of President of the Church.  That ordination was performed by his half-brother, John Smith, the Patriarch of the Church.

Heber J. Grant was conflicted about the Patriarch because he considered himself a descendant of Joseph Smith by sealing and the Patriarch was competition to that; and therefore he did not want the Patriarch to ordain him president.  He had the Twelve ordain him.  He also initiated the name change from “Presiding Patriarch” to “Patriarch to the Church.”

Heber J. Grant’s practice continued thereafter.

Interestingly the term “Prophet” was not applied to a living man holding the office of “President of the Church” until 1955, during the administration of David O. McKay.  The term “Prophet” until that time always meant exclusively Joseph Smith, and not the office holder of President.  Before then it was “President Young” and “President Taylor” and “President Woodruff” and so on.  However, in 1955 the Church News began a new practice of referring to the living President McKay as a “Prophet.”  It was felt that changing the reference to the living President would result in quicker acceptance of direction from him, and less criticism of the President.  (President Grant was the most unpopular Church President in the Church’s history, and that was something they hoped to avoid happening again.)  It worked.  No-one wants to reject counsel from a living prophet of God.  

So since that time the practice has been for living Presidents to continue to be referred to by the title “Prophet” by all General Authorities and other leaders.  However, I have noticed that the President never refers to himself as “Prophet” in any declaration I have been able to find.  He accepts that term as used by others, but does not apply it to himself.

The recorded times when a Church President was asked if he was “a Prophet” include testimony by Joseph F. Smith when asked by the Senate Committee in the hearings to seat Senator Smoot.  His response was “my people sustain me as such.”  President McKay was asked by a reporter and his response was “look me in the eye and tell me I’m not a prophet.”  President Lee essentially repeated the same response to a reporter as President McKay.  And when he was interviewed by the Press President Hinckley essentially repeated Joseph F. Smith’s response, saying in effect: “I’m sustained by the Church as such.”  There may be others, but those are the ones I recall at the moment.

All of which is, I suppose, interesting history.  I of course, sustain as “prophets, seers and revelators” the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve every Ward Conference, Stake Conference, General Conference and temple recommend interview.

It’s YOUR eternal salvation

When it comes to the subject of one’s eternal salvation, I can’t understand why someone would simply trust others and leave it to them to tell them what is necessary. I should think everyone would study this matter night and day, and reach their own conclusion about what is important, what is not, what will save, and what is simply foolishness.

Joseph said he advised all to go on and search deeper and deeper into the mysteries of God. Alma said about the same thing in Alma 12: 9-11.

When it comes to sacred knowledge, the absence of curiosity and relentless inquiry is evidence of apathy and indifference. Joseph posed the question in the Lectures on Faith of how we can hope to inherit the same reward as the ancients without following the same path as they did. Great question, that. Brings to mind Abraham’s description of his own relentless search to find God in Abraham 1: 2. I think that is the formula. As is also D&C 93: 1.