Tag: prophets

Lehi’s Commission

When the first chapter of Nephi opens, Lehi is among those who listened to “many prophets prophesying” about the coming judgments against Jerusalem. (1 Ne. 1: 4.) Their message was not Lehi’s. Their message was apparently upsetting to him because he responded by praying on behalf of Jerusalem. (1 Ne. 1: 5.) His prayer is interesting. He offers it on behalf of what he regarded as “his people.” (Id.)

The result of his compassionate prayer for others was a calling by God the Father, delivered by His Son, Jehovah. (1 Ne. 1: 8-13.) God takes note of those who have compassion for others and whose charity seeks the best interests of their fellow-man. Such people possess love, and it is “unfeigned.” (D&C 121: 41.) It is precisely because of their love of their fellow man that they are called to render priestly service. (Id.)

Lehi was a man like Christ. Just like Christ, Lehi would intercede on behalf  of “his people” and did so “with all his heart.” (1 Ne. 1: 5.)

In response to this, Lehi’s vision endowed him with knowledge about the Lord’s great plan of mercy. He knew that the Lord would overrule everything for the good. Even the suffering that would be inflicted on the inhabitants of Jerusalem would be merciful, and would be predicated on the “goodness” of God. (1 Ne. 1: 14.) Lehi understood. Because he had this knowledge, he was able to see how God’s plans were always done for the benefit and ultimate salvation of man.

Before this encounter with God, Lehi was in the audience listening to the prophets cry repentance. After this encounter with God, he joined the prophets and also “began to prophesy and to declare” a message to Jerusalem. (1 Ne. 1: 18.) He could not “begin” to prophesy if he had been among the prophets previously. If that were the case, he would have “resumed” or “continued” to prophesy. He “began” only after encountering God. Therefore, we can know Lehi’s ministry to call others to repent did not start before encountering God and receiving his commission from the Lord.

This is what true prophets do. They do not advance their own agenda. They do not volunteer. They do not deliver a message of their own. They don’t look for witty quotes, or clever stories to retell. They receive a commission from God, and the result of their work is to offer those who will listen a chance to repent and return to God.

These individuals do not take the Lord’s name in vain. They cannot. They have been authorized to speak in the Lord’s name, and therefore their words are His. (D&C 1: 38.) He will vindicate the words of His servants because they do not speak an idle thing in their own behalf. They speak with His authority, and deliver His message.

So with the first chapter of the Book of Mormon we also get an example of how prophets are called: alone, in God’s presence, with an endowment of knowledge of God’s ways sufficient to enable them to deliver a message of repentance.

And this is only the first chapter! Imagine if we took the entire book to heart what we might find!

Mosiah 3: 11-13

The angel informed King Benjamin that Christ’s blood is intended to atone for the sins of those who sinned ignorantly, or those who died without knowing God’s will. (Mosiah 3: 11) However, there is a two-fold wo pronounced on those who know they rebel against God. They are cast down, and for them there will be no hope, no salvation, “except it be through repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Mosiah 3: 12.) That of course, must happen before they die.

The angel explained the Lord has sent “his holy prophets among all the children of men.” (Mosiah 2: 13.) When the Lord sends someone with a message, they are by definition “holy” because they bear the message of God. Having been entrusted with His word, they are derivatively holy. (See Acts 9: 15) It does not mean they are better than other men because everyone sins. The content of what God has given them makes them “holy” before God. Since King Benjamin has just been entrusted with God’s message for his people, King Benjamin has become “holy” also. 

The messages have been sent, at one time or another, “among all the children of men.” All nations have had some portion of the word of God given to them. This does not mean they have been given a fullness, for that is rarely given. It does mean the Lord has concern over all of us and will call and send prophets to everyone.

How people react to what they are offered determines how much a prophet is able to teach them. If they will not give heed, then the audience receives only a portion of what they might have received. (Alma 12: 9.) Sometimes people can be offered a “fullness” and reject it, and then have it taken from them. (D&C 124: 28.)

The purpose of the message is for all to have “exceedingly great joy.” (Mosiah 3: 13.)

This joy comes from knowing the Lord. Knowing Him comes from obeying the words given to them through the “holy prophets.”

One of the greatest laments of the Lord arises from how the world reacts to His holy prophets. He makes the same offer every time, whenever He calls someone as His spokesman. The offer is by His word, to gather His people into one and be their shelter. (D&C 43: 24; see also 3 Ne. 10: 4-6.) Despite the many times when this might have happened, there have been fewer than four occasions we have a record of the Lord actually gathering His people.

The purpose of giving His word to His people is to lead them to Him. If they will actually come to Him, He will come and dwell with them. We were once given that opportunity. (D&C 104: 59.)

We are promised the Lord will return again (10th Article of Faith), and there will be people prepared to meet Him. It will happen, and will be on this land. (Ether 13: 5-6.) Any gentiles who are going to survive the coming calamities will need to flee there. (D&C 133: 12; 42: 9.)

Jacob 5: 74-75

When the final work in the vineyard begins, and the natural fruit reappears, the process of casting the bad branches producing bitter fruit accelerates. The bad is cleared away to make room for the good. (5: 74.) The remaining gentiles will be swept away and their cities will be inhabited again. This time they will be swept away by the natural fruit, to whom the land belongs. (3 Ne. 22: 3.)

Though there are two gatherings in the last days, when the natural fruit returns it will be to both. Servants will  minister to both. They will all be gathered in, and Israel will gather together in Zion and the long dispersed of Judah will also be given their land in peace. (Isa. 11: 12.) The Lord will hasten His work when the natural fruit reappears. (D&C 88: 73.) Some will say it is like before and everything continues from day to day uninterrupted and the Lord delays His coming. (Luke 12: 45.) Some will think the Lord will allow everything to be destroyed and still not return. (D&C 45: 26.)

Then will be the time when “they became like unto one body” though gathered in both Zion and Jerusalem. (5: 74.) Zion will have her kings (D&C 133: 32) and Judah will have her prophets. (See Rev. 11: 3; D&C 77: 15; Isa. 51: 19-20; Zech. 4: 11-14.)

It begins with the regrafting. Joseph Smith began that process. The purpose was to establish a relationship where it is possible for natural fruit to return. It would take generations before the natural fruit would reappear.

In the work to reestablish the natural fruit, the Lord of the vineyard would send both servants, like Joseph Smith, and He would work alongside them. In other words He would appear to them. (See JS-H 1: 17-19; D&C 84: 35; D&C 93: 1.) The Lord will be present for the work of producing natural fruit in the last days. He will appear to them, and both He and the Father will take up their abode with them. (John 14: 23.) These will be those who are the natural branches, capable of producing the fruit for the final harvest. (John 15: 4-5.) This is the culmination of the final chapter in the vineyard. His work and glory is to bring this about. He knows the end from the beginning. His work has always pointed to this great, final labor.

Those who will be gathered will not need to tell one another to “know ye the Lord” for those who remain will all know Him, from the least to the greatest. (Jer. 31: 34; D&C 84: 98.) These are those who have been redeemed from the fall, for they have been back into His presence. (Ether 3: 13.) These are those who receive a testimony from Christ that they are saved. (D&C 76: 51.) Those who claim to follow prophets, but have not received the testimony of Christ that they have part with Him will be burned at His coming and appointed their place in sorrow and suffering. (D&C 76: 98-106.)

There will be no lukewarm saints allowed to stand in that day. If they have received and followed the truth, they will be saved. If they have not, they will be gathered in bundles and burned. The result will be an era of peace in which the entire vineyard, as if one body, produces again natural fruit. (5: 75.) There will be joy at that day. The Lord and His servants will rejoice, and the Lord will give praise to those servants who labored with Him. (Id.) When He could take credit, instead He shares it. And He promises to those servants: “behold ye shall have joy with me because of the fruit of my vineyard.”

More Ado About Church History And Race

We have yet another pronouncement concerning the church’s past ban on priesthood for blacks. This is the most recent church statement:

“The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church. In 2006, then Church president Gordon B. Hinckley declared that ‘no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church. Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.’ Recently, the Church has also made the following statement on this subject: ‘The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.'”

If this is altogether accepted as a carefully considered, inspired and accurate statement of the truth, it raises some interesting questions about the church today and in the past:

President Hinckley’s statement, reiterated again today, is that “no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ.” If this is correct, how are we to now regard Brigham Young?
[“In the preisthood I will tell you what it will do. Where the children of God to mingle there seed with the seed of Cain it would not only bring the curse of being deprived of the power of the preisthood upon themselves but they entail it upon their children after them, and they cannot get rid of it. If a man in an ungaurded moment should commit such a transgression, if he would walk up and say cut off my head, and kill man woman and child it would do a great deal towards atoneing for the sin. .. It is a great blessing to the seed of Adam to have the seed of Cain for servants. …Let this Church which is called the kingdom of God on the earth; we will sommons the first presidency, the twelve, the high counsel, the Bishoprick, and all the elders of Isreal, suppose we summons them to apear here, and here declare that it is right to mingle our seed, with the black race of Cain, that they shall come in with with us and be pertakers with us of all the blessings God has given to us. On that very day, and hour we should do so, the priesthood is taken from this Church and kingdom and God leaves us to our fate. The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain the Church must go to desstruction…” (Address to the Legislature by LDS Church President and Territorial Governor Brigham Young, Feb. 5, 1852, spellings not corrected.)]

John Taylor?
[“Why is it, in fact, that we should have a devil? Why did not the Lord kill him long ago? . . . He needed the devil and great many of those who do his bidding just to keep . . . our dependence upon God, . . . When he destroyed the inhabitants of the antediluvian world, he suffered a descendant of Cain to come through the flood in order that he [the devil] might be properly represented upon the earth (Journal of Discourses, vol. 23, Oct. 29. 1882, p. 336)].

Many others, even President J. Reuben Clark who objected to pictures in the Deseret News showing black and white children mingling together, made disparaging remarks. What of them? Are we now to regard them as not true disciples of Christ? If so, then what does that do for the church’s status? Did the church pass through a lengthy era of being led by those who were not true disciples of Christ and yet retain all of our blessings, entitlements, power and priesthood? How did that operate? Can a non-true disciple of Christ pass along priesthood authority? Or is President Hinckley’s declaration an overstatement because it proves too much? Does any of this raise the possibility that church leaders can in fact “lead us astray?” Or instead is it that we are never led astray, but they can make mistakes? If so, how are we to distinguish between mistakes, and errors so serious they cannot be regarded as “true disciples of Christ” and yet preclude leading us astray? Doesn’t something have to give? Were the church members who opposed the ban “true disciples” even though they were out of harmony with their leaders? If that is the case, how can we know where “true disciples” are to be found, if there is a possibility for the lesser, dissident members who are out of harmony with those leaders to be “true disciples of Christ?” Does it mean we can have “true disciples” led by those who err in teaching for doctrine the commandments of men? Isn’t this the problem the Lord intended to solve in His opening statement to Joseph Smith? Are there some leaders now serving who are “not true disciples of Christ?” How do we distinguish between those who will be regarded as “not true disciples of Christ” at some future point but who are now serving in leadership? When do we know we are being taught for doctrine the commandments of men?

These are very interesting questions. What a great opportunity this presents for more study and careful contemplation by us all. Should I agree with President Hinckley and think the worse of earlier leaders? It seems harsh to think them “no true disciple of Christ” on the one hand, but on the other their remarks are quite disparaging of those of another race. Actually, disparaging of one specific race, not other races generally. Should culture bend a “prophet’s voice” or does a “prophet’s voice” require culture to bend? Were they originally just reflecting social values when speaking disparagingly about the race, and are they doing the same now there is widespread antipathy for racism? If that is the case, then do we really need anything more than popular opinion to guide us then and now?

If these church leaders spoke “in the absence of revelation” how were they “revelators?” Or weren’t they? If they were sustained as “revelators” but spoke in the absence of revelation and were wrong, how often has that happened? How often does it happen? How do we tell the difference between truth and teaching for doctrine the commandments of men? Aren’t we told essentially everything coming out of the hierarchy is entitled to respect as if it were the Lord speaking? Does that apply when they speak “in the absence of revelation?” What a fascinating assortment of issues the church has now given us to ponder.

Does our eternal salvation require us to resolve these things correctly?

There are so many more questions I can think of now that the church has given this new announcement. I wonder why they weren’t addressed in the latest announcement.

“Some of Christ”

I was asked in an email what the words “some of Christ” means in Section 76, verse 100. The verse reads:  “These are they who say they are some of one and some of another—some of Christ and some of John, and some of Moses, and some of Elias, and some of Esaias, and some of Isaiah, and some of Enoch[.]” This verse occurs in a larger explanation of those who are damned because of their false religious beliefs (or more correctly, their unbelief). The larger explanation begins in verse 97 and goes through verse 107.

The context of these verses about false religion makes it clear those who practice it accept messengers who have been actually sent by the Lord with a warning from Him. The names of John, Moses, Elias, Isaiah and Enoch, for example, are names of those who were known to the Lord and entrusted by Him with a message of repentance from Him. However, despite the truthfulness of the messenger and the authentic origin of their message, the recipients have gone astray. They imagine their claim to follow the man is a substitute for receiving the message of repentance. They take pride in their status as followers of true messengers while neglecting the message to repent.

In the case of Christ, it is no different. They claim to be “of Christ” by associating His name with their brand of unbelief. They use His name in vain, however, because their practices and hearts are not inclined to follow His teachings, to endure His cross, to suffer the rejection which comes from this world and the worldly, and to give up honor, friends and family to follow Him. (See, e.g., Luke 12: 51-53; Mark 10: 29-30.)

The crux of their defect is set out in verse 101: “But received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets, neither the everlasting covenant.” These are four things:

1. The Gospel. You need to know that that term really means. If you do not, then you have not received it. You have claimed, like these others, to be “of Christ” without ever comprehending what His Gospel includes and does not include.

2. The “testimony of Jesus.” Do you know what that term means? Do you imagine it is something you state or something you declare? Have you considered Jesus may have His own testimony which He will give to you? Have you imagined you can receive His testimony without ever entering His presence? What would Jesus’ testimony necessarily include?

3. The failure to receive “the prophets.” This is something different than merely following the prophet, because we saw in the earlier verses the hosts who claim to follow the prophets John, Moses, Isaiah, Enoch, etc. were damned. To receive is different than to follow. But implicit in the phrase, also, is the ability to actually discern when a prophet is sent.

4. The failure to receive “the everlasting covenant.” This, also, may not be what you imagine. Joseph Smith spoke often about the everlasting covenant. It is worth a good deal of study if you have interest in knowing about those things.

To claim to be “of Christ” without having received His Gospel, heard from Him His own testimony, recognized and received the message to repent from a prophet, not just to say but to do, and to thereby receive the everlasting covenant from heaven, these are the meaningless claims which will damn. Those who fail to do so but still claim to be “of Christ” will be like the liars and thieves who are left suffering until the final resurrection. They will suffer the wrath of God. Their pride will be burned away by the things they suffer. Then will they lament, “O that we had repented in the day that the word of the Lord came unto us.” (See Helaman 13: 36.) Such people are religious, in fact very much so. They are eager to claim the status of a follower of the prophets. They boast they follow them. They think themselves better than others precisely because they claim to worship true prophets who will save them.

But without the Gospel, they are damned. Without the testimony from Jesus they are damned. Without receiving the prophetic message to repent, awake and arise, they are damned. And without these first three they are unable to receive the everlasting covenant. Therefore, they depart this world proudly, filled with unbelief and foolish pride from their false religion, and enter into their suffering.

Remnant, part IX

The interplay between the latter-day gentiles and the remnant has been illustrated repeatedly in the Book of Mormon prophecies. We have seen Nephi’s prophecies of the event, and Christ’s affirmation and expansion on the event.

Gentiles would be offered the fullness and would reject it. Then the gentiles would take the gospel to the remnant who would receive it.  The remnant would then blossom with the gospel, ultimately establishing the New Jerusalem. When the New Jerusalem is built by the remnant, a few gentiles who had received the fullness would be able to “assist” in bringing again Zion. (3 Nephi 21: 23-24.)

We have at least a reasonable basis for fearing the gentiles rejected the fullness by not building the Temple in the “appointed time.” Inside this Temple, the fullness was to be revealed. (D&C 124: 28, 32.) Joseph Smith, who possessed the fullness, was taken 3 1/2 years after the revelation warning to act with speed in building the required Temple. When he died, the walls had not yet been completed to the second floor.
If we assume the worst, and the fullness was taken by the failure to complete the Temple in the permitted time, what then? Do the gentiles have no further use? Are the gentiles without a role in the latter-day events? That is hardly the case. The gentiles continue to occupy a central role in the latter-days, despite their failures.
The gentiles will bring the Gospel to the remnant. (1 Nephi 15: 13-14.)  The gentiles will be commissioned to preach, teach, baptize, lay on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, carry the Book of Mormon forward throughout the world, and preserve truths which will enable others to be saved. The gentiles will shoulder a prophetic burden they alone will be able to bear off in the last days.
When Moses was taken, along with the higher priesthood he possessed,  the Lord did not cease to recognize ancient Israel as His people. They were indeed His people, and the ones with whom He worked. He cared for, and watched over them, although we know in hindsight they were a hard hearted and foolish people who rejected something far greater than what they kept. If we rejected a fullness by our own failures, that does not mean we are cut off. We are the Lord’s people. We have a form of priesthood, and the right to organize and preach the Gospel throughout the world. We are being watched over. We are the means through which the Lord will bring to pass all of His latter-day plans.
You should also not worry that our collective limitations apply to individuals. That has never been the case. There have always been those who have risen up, shed their sins, repented and come to the Lord individually and been redeemed. That pattern appears throughout scriptures. The Book of Mormon is a product of one family, led by one man who repented in a generation scheduled for destruction. He led his family, preached the Gospel, had sons who accepted the invitation to receive from the fruit of the tree of life, and established a righteous branch of Israel. The Book of Mormon at its foundation is a testimony that the Lord is ever willing to receive any who will come to Him.
The gentiles are integral to the Lord’s work. We should never fear that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is meaningless, irrelevant or without God’s watchful care. It is the means by which people are invited to come to Christ today.
In Eighteen Verses I describe the phenomena of building a new religion inside the original one established by revelation through Joseph Smith.  This new, false religion is designed to interfere with the Gospel, enshrine worship or adoration of a priestly class instead of the worship of Christ.  The Correlation Department’s effort to correlate teaching has created a new ambition to correlate power and control over everything. Part of that involves the adoration of a person, or as I explained it in Catholic terms – the cult of personality. This is a tried and true pattern for compromising the Gospel and rendering it a means for controlling and dominating socially, politically, religiously, and ultimately dictatorially.
The way the adversary works is always the same. It is not to destroy the work of God by annihilation, but to co-opt it and make it his. Satan wants to supplant God as the god of this earth. Therefore, anytime God has a work underway, Satan is eager to rush in and become the one the Lord’s work follows. The “arm of flesh” as opposed to the “Holy Ghost” is the difference between following in the single, strait, narrow path which alone will bring people back to God, and the altered and compromised path that will take you elsewhere.
I thought President Uchtdorf’s analogy about the airplane being only one degree off would become 500 miles separated from its target at the equator was particularly apt. (A Matter of a Few Degrees, May, 2008 Ensign.) This is how men and institutions fail. How can mortal man be vulnerable to err, and committees of mortal men are not? It is an almost universal truth that committees multiply errors, not decrease them. And who of you have ever sustained the Correlation Department?  
We are fools to believe that the same pattern of compromising the truth that resulted in the apostasy of the church established by Christ will not relentlessly press against the restoration of our day. I know there are quotes saying otherwise–that the church cannot be led astray– but I cannot believe them, try as I might. Joseph, Brigham, John Taylor, President George Cannon all said the exact opposite. Even when Wilford Woodruff was claiming he would “not lead the church astray” he did not mean what we have attributed to his words. He was saying, in effect: “Don’t worry, the Manifesto is a lie. We’re not really abandoning plural marriage.” The Manifesto did NOT stop plural marriage and it was not a revelation. He referred to it as “beating the Devil at his own game.” Meaning it was intended to mislead the public. It was a press release designed to stop the persecution of the church and the threatened legislation to dis-incorporate and confiscate the Temples. Criticism by the eastern press resulted in it becoming part of the Doctrine & Covenants. Plural marriages continued from then until after President Joseph F. Smith testified before the Senate in the seating of Senator Smoot in 1905. When the excommunications of the Apostles Taylor and Cowley in 1911 happened, it was not based on the Manifesto, but on the letter of President Joseph F. Smith actually ending the practice. The fundamentalist groups know this history and use it to persuade others that their current practices are justified. Their practices today are wrong, as I’ve discussed in Beloved Enos. But their use of history to trouble the unaware has been effective in many cases. [Now this is entirely a side issue and I’m not interested in pursuing it at this moment. I’m only mentioning it in the context of another thought.]
So ask yourself which is better: 
1.   Presume that no man can err who becomes a President of the LDS Church in direct contradiction to what Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor and George Q. Cannon taught?
2.  Presume that without the ratification of the Holy Ghost bearing testimony to you that a matter is true, no man can be trusted and your salvation is based on what God alone tells you to be true?

If you believe the first, your religion is new, post-Correlation and will damn you. I do not intend to disassociate with you, and will gladly let you practice your faith if you will permit me to practice mine. If you believe the second, you are a Latter-day Saint who accepts accountability for what you believe and will work out your salvation with fear and trembling before God. You believe as I do, that Joseph was the means through which the Lord initiated a work for the salvation of mankind, and that work continues today. You believe in revelation and in God’s continuing hand with us still today. You accept such good things as come through The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, rejoice in them, pay tithing to them, and are blessed by what things the church continues to preserve and practice. However, you are not deluded into worship of men.

The gentiles include both. The gentiles will be instrumental to the Lord’s work in the last days, whether they are Saints or Brethrenites. The remnant will come to the faith, receive the Gospel and become acquainted with their fathers through the Book of Mormon delivered by gentile hands. (2 Nephi 30: 3-5.) Without faithful gentile Saints, the work of the Father will not happen. Therefore, no matter the condition we find ourselves, we have an obligation to the Lord and to the prophets who went before, to so live as to bring these things to pass.

3 Nephi 20: 24

“Verily I say unto you, yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have testified of me.”
The Lord chose and established Israel. He would remain committed to them, although they went whoring after other gods.
Moses held the fullness of the priesthood. He conferred blessings upon others. Although Moses was taken from Israel, the blessings of the priesthood remained. Moses blessed Joshua, and Joshua held the blessings of the priesthood for so long as he lived. But the fullness of the priesthood, that portion which permitted a man to see God face to face, was taken with Moses. (D&C 84: 20-25.)
When Joshua died, both the priesthood that left with Moses, and the blessings from that priesthood were lost. What remained thereafter was a lesser form of priesthood called the Levitical or Aaronic Priesthood.  This continued to be ministered from Moses until Jesus Christ.
The prophets, however, were something different.  They came through diverse families and from unexpected places. They were not part of the leading Levitical families and not even from that tribe on occasion. Their priesthood was not reckoned by what was then on the earth, but was given to them directly from heaven itself. Joseph Smith taught: “All priesthood is Melchizedek, but there are different portions or degrees of it. That portion which brought Moses to speak with God face to face was taken away; but that which brought the ministry of angels remained. All the prophets had the Melchizedek Priesthood and were ordained by God himself” (TPJS, pp. 180-81).
The men who held the higher form of priesthood, the fullness that made it possible for them to behold God face to face, were “all the prophets from Samuel and those that followed after.” Having this form of priesthood they could behold God face to face and live. (D&C 84: 22-23.)
The power to see God face to face is not real if the man does not actually behold God face to face. It is powerless. It is theory. It is a notion and not a reality. This priesthood the revelation speaks about is not a theoretical idea, but an actual, real power which allows the person holding it to behold God and live. Therefore, when Christ states that “all the prophets from Samuel and those that followed after” had “testified of [Christ]” this is more than rhetoric. They became prophets by reason of the Lord having appeared and spoken to them; having testified of Himself to them. Therefore their status as prophets and their witness of Him were coequal. They sprang from the very same thing – the same event. This, then, formed the basis for their service as the Lord’s prophets. They knew Him. They could testify of what they knew, heard and saw, rather than what they believed to be true from what others had said. God had made Himself known to them.
Christ was confirming that these prophets had testified of Him because He was the one who had called them. He was the one who qualified them. He was the one whose witness and message they bore to others. The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy! (Rev. 19: 10.) Here He confirms again that those prophets sent by Him have testified they know Him. They do not testify of themselves, but of Him. They do not point to themselves, but they point to Him. They do not promise salvation through themselves, but invite others to come to Christ and be saved. They will understate rather than overstate their calling and standing before God.

3 Nephi 20: 23

“Behold, I am he of whom Moses spake, saying: A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass that every soul who will not hear that prophet shall be cut off from among the people.”
If there were any doubt about who was meant in Deuteronomy 18: 15-19, Christ clarifies it here. He, Christ, was always meant to be the ultimate Law-Giver. He is the one who must be followed. He may send prophets, but it is Christ alone who is to be followed. Those who draw attention away from Him and turn attention to themselves will always lead astray. For the Lord alone can save. No man can.
We’ve been trying to make the matter clear for some time. Not merely in this blog, but by my writing and your reading the six books I’ve written before beginning this effort. The Lord alone is the one to whom each of us must look for hope and salvation. He is the one with whom you can covenant to receive salvation.

In the middle of this prophecy of remnant return and gentile holocaust, comes the reminder again of the Lord’s primacy. Look to Him. Him alone. He is the one raised up to save mankind. He is the gentile hope.

The judgments the gentiles have merited by their refusal to accept the fullness of Christ’s Gospel is not an impediment to you, if you will come to Him. It was always meant to be a singular event anyway. There is no collective salvation. Each person comes to Him one at a time. Even when He redeems a group, He  visits with them individually. (3 Nephi 11: 13-17.)
Those who will not “hear Him” will be “cut off from among the people.” What does it mean to “hear Him?” How do you go about accomplishing that?
What does it mean to be “cut off from among the people?” What “people?” Why is being cut off from those people a curse? Where are you sent if you are not among the Lord’s people? How do you go about rectifying that – joining in to be among those who “hear Him” and are part of His people?
Can you do it now? Do you have to wait till some distant future time or place? Why aren’t you doing more about it now, then?