1 Nephi 13: 33 – 34

1 Nephi 13: 33-34:

“Wherefore saith the Lamb of God: I will be merciful unto the Gentiles, unto the visiting of the remnant of the house of Israel in great judgment. And it came to pass that the angel of the Lord spake unto me, saying: Behold, saith the Lamb of God, after I have visited the remnant of the house of Israel—and this remnant of whom I speak is the seed of thy father—wherefore, after I have visited them in judgment, and smitten them by the hand of the Gentiles, and after the Gentiles do stumble exceedingly, because of the most plain and precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb which have been kept back by that abominable church, which is the mother of harlots, saith the Lamb—I will be merciful unto the Gentiles in that day, insomuch that I will bring forth unto them, in mine own power, much of my gospel, which shall be plain and precious, saith the Lamb.” 
Here is meat indeed! What amazing truths unfold in this announcement!

Notice the definition of the “remnant” to whom the prophecies apply has now been given.  The distinction between the “gentiles” and the “remnant” are apparent here. Notice that although the gentiles will receive “much of my gospel” they will still remain identified as “Gentiles.” We may refer to the restored church as “latter-day Israel” or similar terms, but the Book of Mormon vocabulary applies the term “Gentiles” to us. This is akin to the “Samaritans” many of whose blood was as Jewish as those who were exiled to Babylon and returned. Even Christ didn’t acknowledge they were Jewish.

Why is it that the gentiles receive “much of my gospel” rather than the “fullness of my Gospel?”  As you consider that, remember Joseph used to lament about the Saints’ unwillingness to be taught new truths. Here are two of his comments:
“There has been a great difficulty in getting anything into the heads of this generation.  It has been like splitting hemlock knots with a corn-dodger for a wedge, and a pumpkin for a beetle. Even the Saints are slow to understand.” (DHC vol 6, p.184).

“Paul ascended into the third heavens and he could understand the three principle rounds of Jacob’s ladder – the telestial, the terrestrial, and the celestial glories or kingdoms, when Paul saw and heard things which were not lawful to utter. I could explain a hundredfold more than I ever have of the glories of the kingdoms manifested to me in the vision were I permitted and were the people ready to receive them.” (DHC vol 5, p. 402.)

Joseph administered a form of endowment ceremony in Nauvoo, but told Brigham Young that he would have to finish it. Joseph initiated a few in the manner he received, but was not content with the form of the endowment. Brigham Young reported that Joseph told him, “Brother Brigham, this is not arranged right. But we have done the best we could under the circumstances in which we are placed, and I wish you to take this matter in hand and organize and systematize all these ceremonies.” (See Journal of L. John Nuttal, Vol. 1, pp. 18-19, quoted in Truman G. Madsen, Joseph Smith the Prophet, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1999, p. 97.)

Joseph also initiated a practice of sealing others to him, as the Patriarchal head of a dispensation. The nature of Patriarchal authority Joseph administered is different from what we currently understand or teach. Today we “seal” families together in genealogical lines based upon birth or legal adoption. Our families are tied together in what we understand was the intended purpose of Elijah’s prophecy about “turning hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers” so that the earth would not be smitten with a curse at the Lord’s return. But Joseph’s practice was somewhat different.

Joseph, who received the revelations on this matter, attempted to set out the manner in which the “family” will be constituted in eternity. He used Christ’s comment in Matthew 19: 29 to support the idea that those who are worthy will be placed in a family organization that would be completely restructured in the resurrection.  Orson Hyde later constructed a diagram of this teaching and published it in the Millennial Star Vol. 9 [15 January 1847] at pages 23-24.  If you search for that on-line you can find it. You need both the diagram and the explanation to understand the teaching. It is also in The Words of Joseph Smith at page 297. Please find and read it. You need to understand that teaching, which came to Orson Hyde from Joseph Smith.

As a result of this teaching, beginning with Joseph Smith and continuing until Wilford Woodruff discontinued it, sealing for eternity was not done in family lines. It was done instead to bind those who had received the Gospel to Joseph Smith, as the Patriarchal head of this dispensation. Joseph’s teaching was followed by Brigham Young, who sealed himself to Joseph as his (Joseph’s) son. John D. Lee, who was executed for the Mountain Meadows Massacre, was another sealed to Brigham Young as his son. Heber Grant’s mother was sealed to Joseph Smith, although his father was Jedediah Grant. As a result he (President Grant) considered himself Joseph’s son. That’s a side issue.

Returning to the gentile inheritance of “much of my gospel” referred to above, does it suggest that the gentiles are not/never were given generally or as a group possession of “the fullness?” Is “much of my gospel” something worth considering? Can you be certain Joseph delivered all he could or would, were the Saints willing to receive it? If it was “much” rather than “the fullness” then how does that change things?

Assuming “much of my gospel” includes (as it tells us) those things which “shall be plain and precious” then do the gentiles have enough to allow them to receive an audience with Christ as the promised Second Comforter from John’s Gospel? (John 14: 18, 23.) If so, then will not Christ, along with the Holy Ghost, teach you all things needed, even if the gentiles are not in possession of the “fullness” of it all? (John 14: 26.)

This is important to understand. Nephi makes it clear how the gentiles can become adopted into the promised line and inherit a place among the chosen people who will be preserved, inherit this land, and be numbered among the house of Israel. While that jumps us ahead a bit, it is directly connected here. The first two verses of the next chapter state the following:

And it shall come to pass, that if the Gentiles shall hearken unto the Lamb of God in that day that he shall manifest himself unto them in word, and also in power, in very deed, unto the taking away of their stumbling blocks— And harden not their hearts against the Lamb of God, they shall be numbered among the seed of thy father; yea, they shall be numbered among the house of Israel; and they shall be a blessed people upon the promised land forever; they shall be no more brought down into captivity; and the house of Israel shall no more be confounded.”

If the gentiles will hearken to the Lamb, He will manifest Himself to them. What does that mean?

What does it mean to manifest Himself to us “in word?” What does it mean to manifest Himself to us “in power?” What does it mean to manifest Himself to us “in very deed?”

How would Christ manifesting Himself to you in word, in power, and in deed “take away your stumbling block?”

These are the means promised by the Book of Mormon to deliver gentiles so that they may become “a blessed people upon the promised land forever” so as to never be brought down into captivity. But to know this would require you to come into possession of the fullness.  Gentile possession of the fullness does not come from group-think, or group possession of some institutional magic. It comes by the same means as salvation has come to mankind from the beginning. The Catholics don’t have it and can’t give it to you.  No institutional church has the means to deliver the gentiles. It will come, if it comes at all, from Christ and on the same conditions as saved Joseph Smith, Paul, Alma, Moroni, Peter, Moses, Enoch, Abraham and others.

Now there is a great deal to understand about how to move from having “much of the Gospel” to having a fullness of it. But it was always planned for that final step to be taken by you with the Lord.  After all, He is the gatekeeper who employs no servant between you and Him.  (2 Ne. 9: 41.) This is why true servants will always point you to Him. False ones will claim they can save you, they have power to bring you to Him, they have been entrusted to open the door for you. The “gatekeeper” however does not need a doorman. Nor can He be fooled by men making pretensions to have authority while lacking any of His power. You must confront Him; or, to use His description, you must be comforted by Him.

If Joseph taught the organization of the Celestial Kingdom would involve reconstructed “family units” based upon the capacity of the individuals’ involved, did he understand doctrine differently than we now do? Why were the original sealings performed to bind people to Joseph as the Patriarch? Why was that continued through Wilford Woodruff?  Why was it discontinued? Although it was replaced with a method that provides us with sentimental associations, is there something about our understanding that is less complete, less accurate and less of how Christ intends to organize the eternal family?

It is clear from these verses in 1 Nephi Chapter 13 that the Lord intends to make redemption available to the gentiles, if they will receive it. But the primary means was never intended to be an institution. It was intended to be the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon speaks right over the heads of those who are trying to distract you from returning to Christ. You must either seek and find Him while here, or remain in this Telestial state worlds without end. His invitation is extended.  He will open the gate.

Where will we find true doctrine taught? From what source does it come? Will He not, as He has promised, send true messengers to warn before He cuts off and divides asunder? If you do not understand this it is because you will not ask Him.

So, let us press on. I find this is more interesting a Gospel than I had at first imagined.  Truly, such things do not enter into the heart of man. They must be revealed, or they stand unknown. Fortunately for us, the Lord has provided the Book of Mormon and sent Joseph Smith to establish a foundation from which we gentiles may derive hope.

35 thoughts on “1 Nephi 13: 33 – 34

  1. Denver,

    How do you reconcile “much of my Gospel” with the following from D&C 35?

    12 And there are none that doeth good except those who are ready to receive the fulness of my gospel, which I have sent forth unto this generation.

    13 Wherefore, I call upon the weak things of the world, those who are unlearned and despised, to thrash the nations by the power of my Spirit;

    14 And their arm shall be my arm, and I will be their shield and their buckler; and I will gird up their loins, and they shall fight manfully for me; and their enemies shall be under their feet; and I will let fall the sword in their behalf, and by the fire of mine indignation will I preserve them.

    15 And the poor and the meek shall have the gospel preached unto them, and they shall be looking forth for the time of my coming, for it is nigh at hand–

    16 And they shall learn the parable of the fig-tree, for even now already summer is nigh.

    17 And I have sent forth the fulness of my gospel by the hand of my servant Joseph; and in weakness have I blessed him;

  2. According to the teachings that the Prophet gave in private (but which he only hinted at in this discourse [13 August 1843]), to be heir to Abraham’s promise that he would head an innumerable posterity, each individual and his children must be sealed for time and eternity. If this sealing was performed, he taught, the covenant relationship would then continue throughout eternity. The Prophet taught, moreover, that such a patriarchal priesthood of kings and priests would have to be established by sealing children and parents back through Abraham to Adam in order to fulfill the mission of Elijah (Malachi 4:5-6). When this was accomplished, the order within the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom would then be eternally set. Probably no clearer statement of Joseph’s theology regarding this concept can be found than what is given in an editorial by Orson Hyde.

  3. Since Wilford Woodruff was such a master missionary, it is possible when he announced the change in sealing to parents policy that the question he posed “Wouldn’t you like to be sealed to your biological fathers, etc.” was him reflecting the sentiments that caused the cessation of the better practice. To his generation of Gentiles, the answer to that question was obvious. What use would it have been to argue with them? They had already made up their minds, and hence the cessation of the practice. They weren’t interested in his opinion about that question. My vote would be Wilford Woodruff loved Joseph more than his own family. Many people at that time reported that they did. Does that alarm our Gentile sensibilities? Do we consider them weak or less charitable for supposedly not loving their own families enough? And that the policy change was an advance in the right direction, a step closer to God? Maybe it wasn’t, and Wilford knew it. That is just food for thought. If you think that is dangerous and want to police your families away from such horrid open-mindedness, than feel free. Again, I may chime in something like this from time to time, but will mainly be on the sidelines. I’m not intending to defend any of this here if people have issues with it. I hope you find peace.

    Stone, I appreciate your response on the other post. You make a good clarification that explains my view better: We can’t say we align ourselves perfectly with each others thoughts while in an unfinished state. We have to continue to make judgments for ourselves, although I didn’t like leaving the impression that I never would agree with your posts. Hope that clears it up. You answered my other questions satisfactorily.

  4. I think there’s a good argument to be made that sealing to biological parents is an appropriate program. I’m a 5th generation LDS in at least one line, I am born in the covenant, so my sealing exists to my biological parents. Whether or not my 2nd great grandfather was sealed as a son to a prominent leader, I don’t know, but does it really matter?

    We make a mess of the sealing chain as mortals in any case. We’ve got divorces with children sealed to parents who no longer are sealed together. We have ancestors with multiple spouses that we have no insight how to sort out, so we seal them to each spouse.

    I think the family chain, whether it be via biological lines back to Adam, or via reconstructed family lines to dispensation heads, is going to take heavenly guidance to sort out. I don’t really expect us to get it right in our current condition, it’ll probably be the great work of the Millennium.

    I’ll throw this out there, what if the tradition of sealing to prominent men of the church was a false tradition based on a misunderstanding? We don’t believe Joseph was perfect any more than we believe our current leaders are infallible. Is it possible, just possible, the Lord inspired his servant Wilford Woodruff to correct the practice which unleashed the great genealogy work and the spirit of elijah throughout the church. Isn’t that possibly more than mere sentiment?

  5. Hi Ben, you’re absolutely right. Your possibility has been widely accepted and elaborated on for years, though. I hold that the opposite possibility has to be weighed before the correct answer can be learned from heaven. I am not bent on assuming the least attractive possibility. This is a forum where it seems imperative to discard preconceived notions, and if the Lord fills us right back with the same notions, then we know it is from Him. I am not excluding that possibility. I am challenging the merits of why we have accepted our current notions. Is it because they are widely accepted that we buy into them? Is it because a leader has supported it? I am merely trying to suggest that leaders wisely support things that are unwise at times, and we must allow for that in our calculations, and decide upon opinions based on the merits of the doctrine, and the Holy Ghost (not some other Ghost), and that alone. If the Holy Ghost details a doctrine that is popular, it is true, but not because it is popular. If He explains a doctrine in a different way than popular opinion, do we have the courage to believe? These are rhetorical questions, don’t assume I settle one way or the other even if I say I like something at the moment. Please don’t recoil because I don’t believe that my loyalty to the Saints as a people has to include sticking to a chilvarous code of honor where no traditionally dangerous thoughts are safe to explore. There are assumptions such thoughts lead to dangerous behavior (which is usually pretty well defined), but that leap is not true. What if that type of code of honor is the dangerous thought? We are no band of musketeers who would say: “You are no musketeer if you dare to even think we should stop being drunken lust-lords! Those are the marks of our brotherhood! How dare you utter such nonsense, even in jest! We shall slay you with our sword, traitor!”

  6. I tease, but I can’t help myself! These ideas and the potential for friendship out of otherwise impossible odds are too attractive to resist! Let the truth triumph, whatever it may be! What do all of these differences in opinion matter? I am still so different than the Savior, yet He is friendly to me.

    I wish I had words to describe the problems of chilvary and codes of honor between men as false virtue, but every movie for years has supported these odd romantical notions. If forsaken, no one would balk anymore at what their fellows would say, as all would be honoring covenant instead of protecting their own or their people’s honor relentlessly. As Jesus said, swear no oaths of fealty, not even to the Mormons! Swear not at all! Swear not by the temple, nor by the Church! Instead, covenant and circumscribe your behavior, quit you like men.

  7. My quest will be successful if I win friends, not opinions. Opinions change so much, and when we get to heaven, our eyes may be opened even more, so what good is such a short lived victory? A friend can be eternal, though. I want to be free to explore my own changes in opinion, though, with friends, not enemies. I want to express them, no matter how odd they may seem at the time, and still have friends. Is that too much to ask?

  8. The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles hold such wide and varied opinions, yet they hold hands. It’s possible if we were to go to one of their meetings, before the infamous unanimity is achieved, we would think they were all traitors to the cause. That is from Elder Ballard’s book on Counseling With Our Councils. It is not likely that such a majority chooses what is wrong, and even more so with unanimity, but sometimes it is possible, and they know that. Sometimes its done deliberately wrong for particular reasons.

  9. Ben said…

    I think there’s a good argument to be made that sealing to biological parents is an appropriate program. I’m a 5th generation LDS in at least one line, I am born in the covenant, so my sealing exists to my biological parents. Whether or not my 2nd great grandfather was sealed as a son to a prominent leader, I don’t know, but does it really matter? (Emphasis added).

    Answer: It depends. Yes it can matter … you can be sealed 1, 2, 3, 4 or more generations back … but the important part is whether that last one has been grafted to a living branch … otherwise all you have done is been sealed to a dead branch.

    Additionally, there is the issue of the first being last and the last being first. You know the being born sequence and how it ties into “resurrecting”.

    Tell me, all of you, who do you think resurrects the dead: (a) the dead; (b) the living?

    ( … scratch, scratch … could be some interesting ramifications relating to the resurrection of Jesus here)

    If you life until the morning of the resurrection, do not suppose you will resurrection your parents (sealed as a child to you)?

    And then they in turn, resurrect their parents (having been sealed as child to them)?

    Children are subject to their fathers, so if the living resurrect the dead, who is the father and who is the child?

    A sealing for one church–another sealing for another church–I am bid to stop now and let the spirit guide you.

  10. It’s been said that “practice makes perfect” needs to be modified to “perfect practice makes perfect”. Could it be said that “Follow the Prophet” should be modified to “Follow the prophet prophetically?”

  11. Hey Zang, Yea though I walk through the valley of scorn, I will fear no mocking …. In other words, I have a thick skin. Couple that with the assurance I have about myself, people can scoff, scorn, judge, do what they want—yet will I walk the upright path.

    All of you “Be Ok in my book” because each and everyone is seeking farther light and knowledge in their own way. I would wont to be the one to blow out a light.

  12. Michael,

    Thank you for the link. Larson in his blog on the Orson Hyde diagram, makes several fascinating conjectures.. among them:

    So, in each lower “kingdom,” there is a god-like ruler and each of these has a secondary high priestly figure under him. In other words, perhaps we could say that each level has a god and a christ!

  13. To all–sorry about my editing — I check it and it looks good, but when posted, it’s horrible. I’ll have to beg your eyes fix my errors.

    Maybe I should run my Unix-like system–it never faileth.

  14. Or, Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled prophets? lol, sorry I couldn’t resist! That wasn’t meant distastefully, just about fun with words.

    So much for my being on the sidelines for this post! Glad to find another friend, Stone.

    And let’s say, follow the ones with the “office” prophetically, and follow prophetic prophets wherever you find them, and pray and sustain the office holding ones to prophetically fill their difficult roles. God bless them.

  15. Stone said…
    “Answer: It depends. Yes it can matter … you can be sealed 1, 2, 3, 4 or more generations back … but the important part is whether that last one has been grafted to a living branch … otherwise all you have done is been sealed to a dead branch.”

    I think that’s an important point. In my opinion it is a great reason why I think this whole family sealing mess will have to be sorted out in the Millennium, we do proxy work for generations past and we aren’t privy to really whether or not they’ve accepted and to what degree.

    You could say that the final family tree is a kind of judgment, as the diagram indicates, each person will be placed in the tree “according to his merit.”

    Assembling that tree will be the work of angels, mortals and gods. I see the covenant, and being faithful to have that sealed by the spirit of promise more important to me than my precise location in the tree (besides the goal of being one crowned with the celestial crown).

    I remember a class at BYU by Susan Black where she talked about being tasked with the duty of unraveling some of the relationships of the early saints as we were talking about the practice of women having themselves sealed to prominent men in the church who were not their husbands or fathers. She prepared their names for them to be sealed to their family members instead and joked that she wasn’t sure she wanted to face them in the hereafter.

  16. Perhaps the “who” we are sealed to isn’t as important as the ordinance itself? For example: I have always wondered why the Lord would trust a 21 year old, returned missionary, who has remained virtuous for two years, to then rationally choose a wife who he will be sealed to for Eternity. LOL (Is it that obvious, I serve with Young Single Adults?) (I know … the argument is made that learning to become “one” is the actual important process of marriage anyway, but you get my gist.) I have often thought that the choice might be less hormonal and more logically done if the parties involved were much older and wiser. (This makes a great argument in favor of arranged marriages, don’t you think?)

    Another example of why the “who” might not be the important issue can be found in our early church history. It was a common practice to have deceased women sealed to living men. It was also common for a woman to have her sisters sealed to her husband too. There were so many interesting scenarios that were happening during the early period, including married women being sealed to other men etc., that the “who” seems to take a backseat to the importance of the ordinance itself.

    That being said, I believe that the Sealing ordinance (once understood?) is one that re-establishes the Patriarchal Priesthood. I believe that Priesthood, which allows both male and female to progress with power in their home, must be restored. (Perhaps this is the actual priesthood that is missing the “power” that BK Packer was referring to, reread his talk with this in mind.) I believe that Joseph Smith was in fact trying to restore the Patriarchal order, but it was not completely understood.

    I believe that Joseph did receive many things that the Saints were not ready to receive as a group. The line of questioning Brother Snuffer poses leads me to ponder about what Joseph received and makes me contemplate if that information,or ordination, must be individually received by the Lord, himself. For me, this opens up areas of interest that have been taboo, as far as discussion goes, for decades in our Church history. It is refreshing to be able to even dialog about this without being scared. (Perhaps, I should become an anonymous poster. LOL) For me, being led in this manner to see things for the first time in the Book of Mormon is exhilarating. It adds another witness to the truths that are tucked away in the Doctrine and Covenants and the teachings of our early Prophets.

  17. Stone,
    Your insights are not falling on deaf ears… I have been pondering your post of 12:49PM and comparing it with your other post regarding “The Church of the Father” and “The Church of the Son”. I have always understood resurrection to be an ordinance, have I understood correctly? I also believe an ordinance requires a body, or laying on of hands? Your insights follow that realm of reasoning very nicely, wouldn’t you agree?

    “( … scratch, scratch … could be some interesting ramifications relating to the resurrection of Jesus here)” Would you care to expound more on this vein of thought?

  18. I’m having a couple of questions I’d like to throw out there to see if someone can help me.

    I have seen this diagram before, and I think I understand the concepts explaining the branches that are drawn directly underneath the crown going to the left and right and their varying legnths…Hyde explains this clear enough for me. But I am not sure I understand what is going on with the other lines that are drawn under the first branch off to the left. Some lines are going one direction…others just come straight off. Is there a reason for the different directions? Why doesn’t EVERY branch coming underneath the crown have similar lines drawn under them? Is it just because this is a “shorthand” version of the diagram and he just didn’t draw such lines under every branch because it would’ve been too cluttered looking…or is that LITERALLY the ONLY branch that is supposed to be depicted with those lines? Are the little lines under it just representing additional Kings/Priests that would eventually come under that specific King and Priest over time? Or is that first line representing Christ specifically? If that first line is Christ…is it the only one with additional little lines underneath it because this is telling us something more significant about the need to fill the office of the Messiah in order to start another tree? Am I missing something really deep or am I looking for more than is there?

    Also, I’m not SURE if Denver was trying to suggest we rethink how we understand the Elijah prophecy…but I think he was. I have a nephew that taught me many years ago that he did not think that the saints were using the Elijah scripture with the real or most accurate understanding. He didn’t have all the answers, but said at that point, he thought the “turning the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers” had more to do with the the great patriarchs and seekng the blessings of entering into the rest of the Lord that they enjoyed. It’s been a long time since we talked about it, but he believes the fathers referred to by Elijah are not our biological fathers, grandpas, etc., just as Denver seems to be confirming…but that the fathers referred to are the patriarchal fathers like Adam, Enoch, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, etc. And that just as Abraham sought the blessings of the fathers. We too must and will come to the point of seeking after those same blessings.I’m taking it that Joseph Smith must also be one of these patriarchal fathers and this blog is finally putting some puzzle pieces together that hint that my nephew was onto something in his ideas. Am I headed down the wrong thoughts?

  19. Part I of II

    From the doghouse

    “( … scratch, scratch … could be some interesting ramifications relating to the resurrection of Jesus here)” Would you care to expound more on this vein of thought?

    Well, let’s see how many I can get to reject a simple Occam’s principle based prospective because of the “traditions” of our fathers using 4096 characters or less.

    Have you ever “laid” some work down and later come back to continue it? For instance, starting a puzzle, leaving it for some indeterminate time, then coming back to finish it?

    If a woman has a working career outside the home then after having a child(ren), decides to put that career on hold, could it be said she has lain her career down (aside) for the child(ren)?

    What happens then, after the child(ren) becomes some predetermined age, and she returns to her out-of-the-home career, could it be said she has taken it up again?

    In all the history of the earth I have read about, never has there been an instance where a sentient life-form ever died and “resurrected” (resurrect means to bring forth again, or “re”surrect) itself—that is, except the claims about Jesus Christ.

    Let’s look at the claim, “I do nothing, what I have seen the father do” and, namely, “lay my life down and take it up again”

    [Here is where Saint and Sinner–Fundamentalist and Mainstream, will take umbrage with me]

    What “life” did the Father lay down that the Son witnessed that the Father took up again?

    Here are 3 answers:

    (1) In short, the fundamentalists would say “when Adam [God the Father] became mortal, He laid down his life and it took it up again when he returned to heaven. Brigham Young says he did not die, but returned to heaven.

    (2) In short, mainstream LDS do not really know, but offer various scenarios.

    (3) None.

    In refutation of (1), Michael did not die when he became “mortal”. He merely changed his “mode” of living (from immortal, whatever that is, to mortal. No lose of life here. Brigham says he left this earth and returned to his “immortal glory” (whatever that is).

    In refutation of (2). Mainstream LDS, I guess, say that he had the power to do so because he was a God (Maybe someone on the blog and delineate how mainstream LDS view “resurrection” as to whether it is an ordinance or not). There are many contingency arguments proffered on how Jesus saw His Father die so He could know how to resurrect Himself. You’ll have to explore them yourself.

    In response to (3) in short:

    I agree, Michael, a God, became Adam. By this, Michael laid his life down by setting his then current life [his doings and status] aside. When he returned to “heaven” from whence He came, he took it [his prior life [doings and status] up again.

    In like fashion, Jesus laid His life [doings and status] down, and when resurrected, took His life up again. He did not resurrect himself, His Father resurrected Him, or in otherwords, His Father was the administrator of the ordinance of “re” bring forth of His son, just as I suggested it is in a prior blog.

    [I hit the 4096 limit, therefore this must be continued — don’t go away, same bat-time, same bat-channel]

  20. Part II of II

    Because of the nature of the blog, I have left much of the reasoning proof out; but given what I have said, now look at the following scriptures and apply:

    Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. (John 10:17-18)

    That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. (Romans 10:9)

    We see (1) The Father loved the son, (2) the son lay down, or set aside his life [his doings] by death (3) he was commanded to do so (4) and that when resurrected, he had power to take his life [his doings] again (5) the living resurrected the dead, it was God, not Jesus, who performed the resurrection.

    IN sum total, we see, in the case of Adam, the continuation of life [his doings] after a disruption [mortality] that was terminated [return to immortality].

    IN sum total, we see, in the case of Jesus, the continuation of life [his doings] after a disruption [dead] that was terminated [resurrection].

    No metaphysics, no magic wand, just a simple rendering of the scriptures.

    Everyone smile — no frowns here.

  21. I thought about how Joseph sealed a bunch of ppl to himself when we covered this verse in Samuel in Gospel Doctrine class last week:

    “Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul”.

    I must say w/all that Denver shares w us, for which I’m grateful for and actually have an occasional brain cramp over, that one would have to conclude that Denver probably has no need for caffeine in this Estate anymore.

    You can feel the joy in his writings..

  22. Stone: So, let’s keep with your line of reasoning. When it says, “and then he died” your saying died as to his one life. Or are you saying Adam died and was resurrected by his Father? When was he resurrected? Is he not counted in the statements about the first-fruits because he’s a god?

  23. Zang, I’m not understanding the question…please specify who is whom for the pronouns he, him, his .. and perhaps a little more framing of the situation(s) you are exploring.

    I can say, yes, Adam—when he died on his earth at the end of his “mortal probation”—was resurrected by his father, who was living. Remember, the living resurrect the dead.

    There are two major principles (and doctrines) here.

    1. A Father is the head, not the son; and at this level (being King+Priest) is the legal administrator for ordinances to/for members of his “family” (were the father of a family in need of an ordinances, being a part of his Father’s family, he would go to his Father).

    2. When you are dead, you can not perform ordinances (that’s why we have work for the dead), especially not on, for, or in behalf–of yourself.

    I query, did Jesus perform the ordinance upon himself while he was dead?

    Or was the resurrection ordinance performed by, or under the directed authority of his father?

    Luke 24:4 and Mark 16:5 dissuade me the former is the case, as either the men were assisting in the ordinance, or were witnesses thereof (or both).

    [Luke 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:]

    [Mark 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.]

    PS: DO you think I was successful at “putting off a lot of people” with my simple explanation?

    O the joys of blogging!

  24. “From what source does it come? Will He not, as He has promised, send true messengers to warn before He cuts off and divides asunder? If you do not understand this it is because you will not ask Him.”

    Denver, is this “Him/He” the Father or the Son?

    Who are you inviting me to ask?

    Please pardon my simple question.

  25. Karen,
    Regarding the Elijah prophecy, when the angel Moroni quoted Malachi 4:6, he changed it from:
    “And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.”

    to read:
    “And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.”

    Turning the hearts of the children to the promises made to the fathers certainly implies the promises made to the great patriarchs as your nephew suggested.

  26. Zang sent? Don’t know what that means…

    Well I hope not too many people were put off by your ideas. I doubt you or I are in a position to warrant the scenario that Jesus was in when He had to talk about Himself being the bread and the water to dispel misdirected fans of His. Personally, I’ve got nothing of much value to offer that would make people even want to misdirect their attention towards me. I’m still trying to figure out Denver’s questions about how to shine your light so that people glorify the Father (after trying to get some light to share).

  27. Stone,
    Having always believed that resurrection is an ordinance and would require a “laying on of hands” per se, it is no great leap for me to contemplate who performed that ordinance for Jesus Christ (In fact, I have contemplated it at length before. );-). The logical answer for me would be the Father.

    In short, what you wrote makes a lot of sense to me. I believe that Christ received all ordinances at the hands of those who were authorized key holders (“What I the Lord have spoken I have spoken, and EXCUSE NOT myself”), so this makes total sense to me.

    Your line of reasoning when it comes to “laying aside” your life, and “taking it up again” fits very nicely with the talk Brother Snuffer shared regarding the discourses of Joseph Smith during the Nauvoo period, and his explanation of Abraham 3.

    Thanks for taking the time to explain your thoughts on this.

Comments are closed.