Death cannot conquer the hero again

June 27, 1844

A few selected quotes from the Journal of Discourses regarding the mission and martyrdom of the prophet Joseph Smith

Jedediah M. Grant

The Gospel preached by Joseph Smith is the same that is contained in the New Testament, and which was preached by Jesus Christ and his Apostles, and it is the power of God to every one that believes it; it will heal the sick, open the heavens, and revolutionize the earth; and this Gospel must be preached to all nations for a witness to them. I bear testimony to all men that Joseph Smith preached it in its purity and fulness, as the Apostles of old preached it; and that it is now being preached in the United States, in Europe, in the Islands of the sea, and will be preached in every nation, kindred, tongue, and people under the whole heavens; and the same fruits, the same blessings, the same light and glory will be manifested as anciently (JD 2:225-226).

Brigham Young

You may say Joseph was a devil, if you like, but he is at home, and still holds the keys of the kingdom, which were committed to him by heavenly messengers, and always will… Who else ever said that Joseph Smith was anything but an unlearned son of a backwoodsman; who had all his lifetime, ever since he could handle an ax, helped his father to support his little family by cutting wood? Thus the Lord found him, and called him to be a Prophet, and made him a successful instrument in laying the foundation of His kingdom for the last time. This people never professed that Joseph Smith was anything more than a Prophet given to them of the Lord; and to whom the Lord gave the keys of this last dispensation, which were not to be taken from him in time, neither will they be in eternity (JD 2:126-127).

Heber C. Kimball:

The ungodly killed Joseph and Hyrum, but in so doing they furthered the work of God more than tenfold. Joseph laid the foundation, and left us to build the building, and when we are gone we will leave others, for it must be done. (JD 2:357)

Brigham Young:

Do you think we shall all die in Utah? If so, why have we not died ere this, when we dwelt in the midst of a people that cherished hostile feelings against the Latter-day Saints? Who delivered Joseph Smith from the hands of his enemies to the day of his death? It was God; though he was brought to the brink of death time and time again, and, to all human appearance; could not be delivered, and there was no probability of his being saved. When he was in jail in Missouri, and no person expected that he would ever escape from their hands, I had the faith of Abraham, and told the brethren, "As the Lord God liveth, he shall come out of their hands." Though he had prophesied that he would not live to be forty years of age, yet we all cherished hopes that that would be a false prophecy, and we should keep him for ever with us; we thought our faith would outreach it, but we here mistaken-he at last fell a martyr to his religion. I said, "It is alright; now the testimony is in full force; he has sealed it with his blood, and that makes it valid" (JD 1:364).

Wilford Woodruff:

Those who have been acquainted with the Prophet Joseph, who laid the foundation of this Church and kingdom, who was an instrument in the hand of God in bringing to light the Gospel in this last dispensation, know well that every feeling of his soul, every sentiment of his mind, and every act of his life, proved that he was determined to maintain the principle of truth, even to the sacrificing of his life. His soul swelled wide as eternity for the welfare of the human family. He began entirely alone, as far as the influences of the children of men were concerned upon the earth, to endeavor to establish a religion and order of things diverse from anything then existing among men, a religion that was unpopular and contrary to the feelings, and views, and traditions of the whole human family (JD 2:192).

Brigham Young:

To Saint and sinner, believer and unbeliever, I wish here to offer one word of advice and counsel, by revealing the mystery that abides with this people called Latter-day Saints; it is the Spirit of the living God that leads them; it is the Spirit of the Almighty that binds them together; It is the influence of the Holy Ghost that makes them love each other like little children; it is the spirit of Jesus Christ that makes them willing to lay down their lives for the cause of Truth; and it was that same Spirit that caused Joseph our martyred Prophet to lay down his life for the testimony of what the Lord revealed to him. This mystery, the great mystery of "Mormonism," is, that the Spirit of the Lord binds the hearts of the people together (JD 1:145).

An Interview with Brother Brigham

Brigham Young October 6, 1855 This is one of Brigham Young's finest discourses I've read thus far. I offer the highlights in the form of an imagined personal interview between myself and Brigham. Brother Brigham, why do some people leave the Church, and why do some then become bitter?

"When any of this people, who believe the Gospel, forsake the duty which they owe to God and His cause, they are at once surrounded by an influence which causes them to imbibe a dislike to Saints and to the conduct of Saints; they receive a false spirit, and then the Saints cannot do right in their eyes, the ministers of God cannot preach right nor act right, and soon they wish to leave the society of the Saints, and that too, as they suppose, with a sanctified heart and life. They wish to withdraw from this, as they believe, wicked people, fancying all to be wicked but themselves, and wish to separate themselves until the people are as holy as they flatter themselves that they are, when they calculate to return again...the self-righteous will go away and wait until we as a people are sanctified and able to endure their presence, and think that then they will, perhaps, gather among us again."

How can I prevent my being led astray?

"People are liable in many ways to be led astray by the power of the adversary, for they do not fully understand that it is a hard matter for them to always distinguish the things of God from the things of the devil. There is but one way by which they can know the difference, and that is by the light of the spirit of revelation, even the spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ. Without this we are all liable to be led astray and forsake our brethren, forsake our covenants and the Church and kingdom of God on earth."

I feel like indifference can be a problem, as well, Brigham. When I'm doing the basics, like reading the scriptures, praying, serving others, I tend to feel closer to God. Can you elaborate on the importance of doing our duty in the gospel and having the Holy Ghost?

"Should the whole people neglect their duty and come short in performing the things required at their hands, lose the light of the Spirit of the Lord, the light of the spirit of revelation, they would not know the voice of the Good Shepherd from the voice of a stranger, they would not know the difference between a false teacher and a true one, for there are many spirits gone out into the world, and the false spirits are giving revelations as well as the Spirit of the Lord. This we are acquainted with; we know that there are many delusive spirits, and unless the Latter-day Saints live to their privileges, and enjoy the spirit of the holy Gospel, they cannot discern between those who serve God and those who serve Him not.

Consequently, it becomes us, as Saints, to cleave to the Lord with all our hearts, and seek unto Him until we do enjoy the light of His Spirit, that we may discern between the righteous and the wicked, and understand the difference between false spirits and true. Then, when we see a presentation, we shall know whence it is, and understand whether it be of the Lord, or whether it is not of Him; but if the people are not endowed with the Holy Ghost they cannot tell, therefore it becomes us to have the Spirit of the Lord, not only in preaching and praying, but to enable us to reflect and judge, for the Saints are to judge in these matters."

Believing that the Spirit is essential, do you also believe the Latter-day Saints possess that Spirit?

"Yes, many of them do.

Do you believe they do in as great a degree as it is their privilege?

A few of them do, still I think that the people in general might enjoy more of the Holy Spirit, more of the nature and essence of the Deity, than they do. I know that they have their trials, I know they have the world to grapple with, and are tempted, and I know what they have to war against."

God knows, as well, and I believe he extends His mercy in accordance with that knowledge. In general, though, are you saying the Saints are a good people?

"Yes, I can say that this people are a good people, and they wish to be Saints, and many of them strive to be Saints, and many of them are Saints. I realize the weaknesses of men; I am not ignorant of my own weaknesses, and this is where I learn every body else, their dispositions and the operations of the spirit upon the inhabitants of the earth; to learn mankind is learn myself."

I would like to add, in addition to the Spirit, you have taught that God has sent prophets and apostles, parents and teachers, all of whom can teach us about life and the gospel. Some have accuse the Saints of blindly following these leaders. Some members in the past have been known to believe the prophets are perfect, or that their doctrine is perfect. Do you feel like the Saints should obey you no matter what?

"Some may say, 'Brethren, you who lead the Church, we have all confidence in you, we are not in the least afraid but what everything will go right under your superintendence; all the business matters will be transacted right; and if brother Brigham is satisfied with it, I am.'

I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied. I wish them to know for themselves and understand for themselves, for this would strengthen the faith that is within them.

Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, 'If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,' this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord.

Every man and woman in this kingdom ought to be satisfied with what we do, but they never should be satisfied without asking the Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, whether what we do is right. When you are inspired by the Holy Ghost you can understandingly say, that you are satisfied; and that is the only power that should cause you to exclaim that you are satisfied, for without that you do not know whether you should be satisfied or not. You may say that you are satisfied and believe that all is right, and your confidence may be almost unbounded in the authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ, but if you asked God, in the name of Jesus, and received knowledge for yourself, through the Holy Spirit, would it not strengthen your faith?"

It would. So we've come back to the subject of the Holy Ghost. I suppose leaders can provide checks and balances on our inspiration. The most important thing is our relationship with God, a point which I like.[1] Still, our leaders- bishops, parents, the prophet, etc.- can help correct us. Sometimes we need someone to tell us what's up, rather than accommodate bad behavior. Or should leaders allow one to continue sinning without saying anything?

"Suppose that a man lies, and you dare not tell of it; 'Very well,' says the man, 'I am secure, I can lie as much as I please.'

He is inclined to lie, and if we dare not chastise him about it he takes shelter under that pavilion, cloaks himself with the charity of his brethren, and continues to lie. By and bye he will steal a little, and perhaps one or two of his brethren know about it, but they say, 'We must cover up this fault with the cloak of charity.'

He continues to lie and to steal, and we continue to hide his faults; where will it lead that person to? Where will he end his career?"

Um... hell?

"Nowhere but in hell."

That doesn't sound very pleasant, in fact, that's a hard saying, indeed. Won't that just make people feel alienated or even angry?

"I know it is hard to receive chastisement, for no chastisement is joyous, but grievous at the time it is given; but if a person will receive chastisement and pray for the Holy Spirit to rest upon him, that he may have the Spirit of truth in his heart, and cleave to that which is pleasing to the Lord, the Lord will give him grace to bear the chastisement, and he will submit to and receive it, knowing that it is for his good. He will endure it patiently, and, by and bye, he will get over it, and see that he has been chastised for his faults, and will banish the evil, and the chastisement will yield to him the peaceable fruits of righteousness, because he exercises himself profitably therein."

So depending on the state of one's heart, even if the chastisement is delivered harshly or improperly, the true message can still lead one to repent?[2] I suppose a call to repentance, or a reminder to righteousness, is best delivered by one having stewardship of another; that we ought not go around looking at everyone else and pointing out their flaws. Still, having to deal with our shortcomings is uncomfortable; is there an easier way?

"If your faults are not made known to you, how can you refrain from them and overcome them? You cannot. But if your faults are made manifest, you have the privilege of forsaking them and cleaving unto that which is good. The design of the Gospel is to reveal the secrets of the hearts of the children of men."

People generally don't like to be told they are doing something wrong. Shouldn't you, as a prophet, be careful about pointing out those faults?

"I have been preached to, pleaded with, and written to, to be careful how I speak about men's faults, more so than ever Joseph Smith was in his life time; every week or two I receive a letter of instruction, warning me to be careful of this or that man's character. Did you ever have the Spirit of the Lord, so that you have felt full of joy, and like jumping up and shouting hallelujah? I feel in that way when such epistles come to me; I feel like saying, 'I ask no odds of you, nor of all your clan this side of hell.'"

Well, some people are uncomfortable talking to bishops, or other people about more grievous sins. What if they are worried about their reputation?

"If you do wrong, and it is made manifest before the High Council, don't grunt about it, nor whine about your loving, precious character, but consider that you have none; that is the best way to get along with it. "

What about you; you've been severely scandalized by critics. Brother Brigham, are you going to bear this? Do you not know that such and such persons are scandalizing your character?

"I do not know that I have any character, I have never stopped to inquire whether I have one or not. It is for me to pursue a course that will build up the kingdom of God on the earth, and you may take my character to be what you please, I care not what you do with it, so you but keep your hands off from me."

Brigham, you've talked of Saints not paying their tithing, Saints who steal poles from their neighbors garden fences, Saints who steal "beef creatures," fire wood, hay, corn, and other things. Some Saints, you say, are guilty of not returning lost items such as axes, gold watches, rings, farm tools and other things. Why, I did not think saints were guilty of such deeds!

"Nor I either. Such crimes are committed by people who gather with the Saints, to try them, to afflict and annoy them, and drive them to their duty. Do you not suppose that it is necessary to have devils mixed up with us, to make Saints of us? We are as yet obliged to have devils in our community, we could not build up the kingdom without them. Many of you know that you cannot get your endowment without the devil's being present; indeed we cannot make rapid progress without the devils. I know that it frightens the righteous sectarian world to think that we have so many devils with us, so many poor, miserable curses. Bless your souls, we could not prosper in the kingdom of God without them...It is essentially necessary to have such characters here."

But I've heard you say that perhaps the Church ought to Lay judgment to the line and righteousness to the plummet, cut off the wicked. Some imply you mean to actually kill the wicked. Critics say "How wicked those Mormons are; they are killing the evil doers who are among them; why I hear that they kill the wicked away up yonder in Utah."[3]

"They do not kill anybody down there, do they?"

Good point. Perhaps the homicide rate was a little higher back east in your time. Still, people become full of wrath in regards to some of the things you say from the pulpit. What do you care for the wrath of man?

"No more than I do for the chickens that run in my dooryard. I am here to teach the ways of the Lord, and lead men to life everlasting, but if they have not a mind to go there, I wish them to keep out of my path.

I want the Elders of Israel to understand that if they are exposed in their stealing, lying, deceiving, wickedness, and covetousness, which is idolatry, they must not fly in a passion about it, for we calculate to expose you, from time to time, as we please, when we can get time to notice you."

Well, that's better than "severing their heads" or something, I suppose. We've covered a lot of topics here; is there anything you'd like to say in closing about the past troubles of the Saints or anything?

"I do not want to think where the 'Mormons' have been, and how they have been treated, but I want to think of matters that will make my heart light, like the roe on the mountains-to reflect that the Lord Almighty has given me my birth on the land where He raised up a Prophet, and revealed the everlasting Gospel through him, and that I had the privilege of hearing it-of knowing and understanding it-of embracing and enjoying it.

I feel like shouting hallejujah, all the time, when I think that I ever knew Joseph Smith, the Prophet whom the Lord raised up and ordained, and to whom He gave keys and power to build up the kingdom of God on earth and sustain it. These keys are committed to this people, and we have power to continue the work that Joseph commenced, until everything is prepared for the coming of the Son of Man.

This is the business of the Latter-day Saints, and it is all the business we have on hand. When we come to worldly affairs, as they are called, they can be done in stormy weather, if we attend to the kingdom of God in fair weather."

Thanks, Brother Brigham, I appreciate the remarks.

"May God bless you. Amen."[4]

Footnotes: [1] More on "obeying our leaders," and other subjects from this post to come. For a post dealing with following the prophets, see "He That Receiveth You Receiveth me." [2] For more on this, see "Giving and Receiving Criticism." [3] Rumors and accusations regarding the so-called Danites, whom some believed to be a vigilante force bent on murdering apostates, continued after the Saints arrived in Utah in 1847. See "Rumors of Danites practicing blood atonement or vigilante justice in Utah," in the Danites article on wikipedia, for example.

[4] Every word in the interview is taken verbatim from Brigham Young's discourse, JD 3:43-51 Orig. posted 9/28/07

Brigham's Testimony: Receive and Retain

Brigham Young August 31, 1856

I appear before you to bear my testimony to the truth of “Mormonism,” that Joseph Smith, Jun., was a Prophet called of God, and that he did translate the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of the Holy Ghost. This same testimony all can bear, who have received and continue to retain the Spirit of the Gospel (JD 4:33).

"They forget they are in Zion's ship": Circumstances and Character

Brigham Young  
August 31, 1856

After two returning missionaries addressed the Saints in the Bowery at Temple Square, Brigham explained how happy he was to hear their testimonies and see their joy in returning from the field. Coming home and beholding the saints was like a "feast to overflowing" to Brigham.

The first elder, a brother Clinton, rejoiced exceedingly, Brigham said, "because the lightning and thunder are in him." Brother Robbins, on the other hand, had a different mission "of such a nature that the lightning and thunder in him have lain dormant, to a certain degree, and he has not enjoyed himself so well as he would, had he been sent solely to preach and build up churches." As of yet I have not found conclusive evidence as to what the exact nature of "brother Robbins'" mission was, but it seems to have been political in nature.¹ Perhaps his mission was more mundane than that of his counterpart who returned with "thunder and lightning in him."

Both men had different missions and reacted differently to their situations. Still, Brigham assured them both, and the congregation, he was "perfectly satisfied with the labors of the brethren who have returned from their missions this season, and have come on the stand today, and at other times; I am highly gratified with the doings and labors of those Elders." Brigham was something of a frontier sociologist, he enjoyed talking about the various reactions, temperaments, and faith of Mormon immigrants. He felt it could be difficult to sustain a fervent faith in a community completely dominated by Latter-day Saints; the tendency may be to "glide along" and slowly lose interest.

Right here, in our midst, many who gather from foreign lands, who have undergone all the toil, labor, and hardship that it is possible for their nature to sustain on their journey, after they arrive in these valleys begin to sink in their spirits, neglect their duties, and in a little time do not know whether “Mormonism” is true or not. Take the same persons and keep them among the wicked, and they will preserve their armor bright, but it has become dull and rusty here; this is the cause of so many leaving these valleys. The seas are so calm and the vessel is wafted over them so smoothly, and in a manner so congenial to the feelings of the people, that they forget that they are in Zion's ship.²

This is the main reason of so many leaving for the States, California, and other places. Send those persons among their enemies, among those who will oppose “Mormonism,” among those who will oppose the truth, and let them be continually persecuted, and they will know very quickly whether they are “Mormons” or not, for they must go to the one side or the other. But the condition of society here, and the feelings of the people, are so different from those of the wicked, that many glide smoothly along, forget their religion and their God, and finally think that this is not the place for them and go away (JD 4:33-34).

Clearly there were Latter-day Saints who didn't fall away in such a manner. In addition to the point that opposition can lead to stronger convictions, Brigham taught the principle that circumstances in general help shape us, but are not the sole determinant of who we become. Agency plays a part.

This idea was expressed by the Book of Mormon prophet Lehi in the patriarchal blessing he bestowed upon his son Jacob in 2 Nephi 2. Jacob was born in the wilderness after Lehi and the others left Jerusalem, and thus had no knowledge of the family's circumstances before their exodus.³ Just before his teaching the principle of opposition in all things, Lehi told Jacob that though he had "suffered afflictions and much sorrow" the Lord would "consecrate [his] afflictions for [his] gain" (2 Nephi 2:1-2⁴. Lehi indicated the inevitability of the bitterness in opposition to the sweet, but used Jacob as an example that bitterness wouldn't make someone bitter.

Whether it be trials of hardship, loss, and sorrow, or trials of complacency, the mundane, or narrow experience, both Brigham and Lehi emphasized how people are shaped by experiences, but that ultimately, agency makes the difference.  

FOOTNOTES

[1]Later in the sermon Brigham refers to specific things Robbins mentioned in his talk, including criticizing the US government regarding opposition to plural marriage (Brigham: "Brother Robbins, in his remarks, said that the Constitution of the United States forbids making an ex post facto law.") He also mentioned the "slave question," which will be discussed in a forthcoming post. 

[2]
"Zion's ship," or "the Old Ship Zion" was a metaphor commonly employed by Brigham Young. For example, on May 15, 1865 he stated "We are in the midst of the ocean. A storm comes on, and, as sailors say, she labors very hard. "I am not going to stay here," says one; "I don't believe this is the Ship Zion." "But we are in the midst of the ocean." "I don't care, I am not going to stay here." Off goes the coat, and he jumps overboard. Will he not be drowned? Yes. So with those who leave this Church. It is the old Ship Zion, let us stay in it." (JD 11:107). For more examples, see Davis Bitton, "Down to the Sea in Ships," Meridian Magazine, no date. 

Other general authorities also applied the metaphor, as Brigham did, usually in reference to apostasy. George Albert Smith:  

"Some men in their hours of darkness may feel—I have heard of men feeling so—that the work is about done, that the enemies of the Saints have become so powerful, and bring such vast wealth and energy to bear against them that we are all going to be crushed out pretty soon. I will say to such brethren, it is very bad policy for you, because you think the old ship Zion is going to sink, to jump overboard, for if you jump overboard you are gone anyhow, and the old ship Zion will ride triumphantly through all the storms, and everybody who proves unworthy to remain on board of her and jumps overboard will repent of it when it is too late, as many have done already" (October 16, 1874, JD 17:199-200, ).  

[3] Was Lehi wealthy? Apparently the family had enough goods to offer to Laban in exchange for the brass plates as well as a "land of inheritance"(1 Ne. 3:22-25). Hugh Nibley posited that Lehi was a caravaneer, or traveling merchant (see Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, The World of the Jaredites, There Were Jaredites, 34–42). John A. Tvedtnes, in "Was Lehi a Caravaneer?" argued that Lehi was involved in metallurgy (see (Tvedtnes, The Most Correct Book: Insights From a Book of Mormon Scholar, 76-98).  

[4]
cf. D&C 121:7-8 

[5]
Photograph by Charles Savage, "Middle-aged Brigham Young bust portrait," ca. 1847-1860, MSS P 24 Item 550, L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, cropped.

A few impressions on the Priesthood Commemoration

On June 8, 1978 the LDS Church released a statement declaring that the priesthood would be extended to all worthy males, which mostly indicated that blacks would finally receive the priesthood of God. I wanted to take a minute to diverge from my usual posts on the Journal of Discourses to give my impressions of the special commemoration held last night at the Tabernacle on Temple Square in Salt Lake City, Utah. I remain pretty unclear on why the ban on giving blacks the priesthood began, and I'm not sure when or how. I do know there were some early instances (at least one: Elijah Abel) of blacks receiving the priesthood. Elder Abel received the priesthood in 1836, and some sources show he received it directly from Joseph Smith.[1] Still, at some point between then and the 1850s a ban was enacted limiting the priesthood from blacks. I wasn't born when the ban was lifted, but I have spoken to many members who remember their reactions. The vast majority of the stories involve elation, tears, a feeling of "finally!" I read Eugene England's difficult essay "The Mormon Cross," written in response to a groundbreaking study by Lester Bush published in Dialogue in 1973 regarding England's struggle over the issue.[2] I've tried to imagine what it must have been like then for black members of the Church, I've thought long and hard about what I might have believed had I been alive to experience the Church before the revelation. I remain completely unconvinced that a true understanding is possible for me, a latecomer, but I have thought about some of my own post-revelation reflections. Growing up in Utah I didn't know many black people. I still recall elementary school lessons on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day when we would listen to excerpts of the I Have a Dream speech, and color pictures of the inspired leader. My little brother had a friend whose father was black and mother was white. One weekend my parents were away and my great-grandmother was watching my brothers, sisters and I. It was a Friday night and we were watching TGIF. When Hangin' With Mr. Cooper began after Family Matters my great grandmother remarked "what is this, the colored channel?" None of us said anything but I remember her words seemed very foreign to me, and stung. This was probably the first time I had seen in person the disconnect between her generations views on blacks and my own experiences. I had been raised to respect all colors, creeds, and people, but didn't have much opportunity to do so, given the minority's extra-minority status in my middle-class predominately white city. In High School I had one black acquaintance and knew other blacks (largely because my High School boundaries included Hill Air Force Base, I imagine), but still, it was far from being a diverse experience. I was aware of racism, but much more from classroom instruction than face-to-face experience. So that was it. I was mildly aware of racial tension in the US. I believed racism was outdated, declining, ignorant, and wrongheaded. I received my mission call to the Milwaukee, Wisconsin mission. My first area was Milwaukee. Downtown, inner city, we callously called it the ghetto area. The tables had been turned on the white boy from the west, I was the minority now. Explaining all my experiences isn't the purpose of this post, but suffice it to say I learned what it was like to climb onto a bus or walk into a church where I was one of two white people. I learned how it felt to be called cracker (rarely, mind you) or to be called a racist. I learned the unique way many blacks worshiped God, the love for Jesus they had, the emphasis on the "Word," the exciting and soulful music, and the style of many black preachers which contrasted sharply with the sermons I had encountered growing up. And I loved it. I loved it to the point where strange thoughts crossed my mind: What will they think of me? What is this "they" and "us" dichotomy, and why isn't it easier to forget about? Will my love or enthusiasm seem inauthentic in my interactions? Does my worrying about how it seems already make my interactions inauthentic or calculated, anyway? Will I make a dumb comment, embarrass myself or the Church, offend anyone? At any rate, I somehow came to grips with some of these thoughts and learned a little about how difficult life was in the inner city. That is a short explanation of my experience with a small part of black culture. But still, I believe it changed me. One way it changed me was I could no longer easily shuffle the questions on the Priesthood ban to the past, moving on without looking back. I still need faith in the gospel and in my leaders as inspired despite not knowing the how, where, why, etc. And that is one reason I went to the meeting last night. It was more than well worth it; it was absolutely inspiring. Even still, I have to suppress that familiar wondering: whether I belong there, why I feel drawn there, whether I seem like I am "trying" to be interested rather than actually being interested in points of view from black members of the Church. Or should the wondering be put to rest, content that change is occurring, more blacks are joining the Church, and many blacks have thought long and hard about the ban and have reconciled it with their faith. I don't know whether I need to explain, or whether I need to apologize, but I am so inspired by these faithful brothers and sisters, and so proud of their heritage, though I am so far from it. So that brings us back to last night. Seeing these powerful, faithful, hopeful black members of the Church of Jesus Christ standing at the pulpit of the historic Tabernacle bearing testimonies of faith and love was completely beautiful to me. President Fred Antioni Parker of the Atlanta Georgia Stake gave a stirring testimony of his faith in Jesus Christ and the restored Church. He approached the question he had been asked countless times: "why?" His blunt response was that he simply doesn't know, but was quick to emphasize that he refused to allow something he didn't understand to interfere with the other things he knew in his heart:

"I don't feel it's necessary for me to understand all the Lord's dealings to believe that he is God and that he loves all his children ... I know that he can make us happy. We can't understand all his thoughts, and my faith isn't limited by things I don't understand.

Sister Catherine Stokes, former Assistant Deputy Director of the Illinois Office of Health Care Regulation, related the personal perspectives of several Latter-day Saints regarding the effect of the 1978 revelation on their lives, noting that it was difficult to track the statistical impact of the revelation. She emphasized the continuing need to reach out, to debunk any false notions regarding the origins of the ban, and quoted Bruce R. McConkie's stirring August 1978 address at BYU following the revelation.[3]

President Ahmad Corbitt of the Cherry Hill New Jersey Stake, explained how his patriarchal blessing, which promised he would teach the gospel to "his people," was fulfilled in unexpected ways, especially when he was called as a missionary to serve in Latin America. He felt the time to preach to "his people" His voice slightly shook as he explained that he realized that Latin Americans were his people. Later experiences led him to realize that people of many ethnicities are his people. He encouraged a growing oneness, one that, as Christ's prayer in John 17, transcends any race, color, or people, to encompass all of God's children. Elder Sheldon F. Child of the Seventy concluded the meeting relating some experiences he had living in West Africa for four years and also serving in New York in a diverse branch. This video was shown: The multicultural choir sang a few numbers (though I regretted that no old spirituals were included,) but the highlight for me was Alex Boye, a tenor from the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, who sang solo renditions of "How Great Thou Art" and "I Know That My Redeemer Lives." All I can say is that his renditions were overflowing with soul, energy, feeling and emotion, and I felt the Spirit of God in the music. Footnotes: [1] For more on Elijah Abel see the article on BlackLDS.org. [2] See Eugene England, "The Mormon Cross," Dialogues With Myself, pp. 121-134, a response to Lester Bush's study, "Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview," Dialogue, Spring 1973. [3] "Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more."

See Bruce R. McConkie, "All Are Alike Unto God," address given at the CES Religious Educators Symposium, 18 August 1978. Another write-up on the even can be read at Juvenile Instructor. Here's a cool timeline from the Salt Lake Tribune:

A Brief, Incomplete View of Mormon Studies in the 20th Century

I recently received an e-mail from a parent saddened by her daughter and son-in-law's loss of faith in the gospel, and possibly even in the existence of God. She wondered about this "New Mormon History" she had heard about. A few personal reflections on the subject may help people understand my own interest in blogging about the Church, and may spark an interest in those unfamiliar with developments in Mormon studies in general. Much of the following was sent to the concerned mother, who herself has a pretty broad background in reading on all things Mormon.[1] The so-called "New Mormon History" probably started back in 1945 when Fawn Brodie, niece of President David O. McKay, published her psychobiography of Joseph Smith. Mormon studies on history to that point had been relatively benign. (The best work to date had been done by B.H. Roberts, who wrote the Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, finishing the six-volume work shorty after the 1930 centennial celebration of the Church. Roberts at the time was Assistant Church Historian.) Fawn Brodie disbelieved in JS and the BoM, and wrote an excellent work-- from a literary standpoint. It is captivating reading! From a historical standpoint, not so good. She took a lot of liberties, as psychobiographers borrowed much from Freud, and exercised a little too much mind-reading for my taste. Still, she was probably the first writer to publish a book that took Joseph Smith seriously (other than more "hagiographic" works by members of the church.) The good news about Brodie is that she got a lot of national attention, and that got the attention of LDS scholars who wanted to investigate the origins of the Church more fully. In the end I honestly believe she helped the Church more than hurt it, though she depicted Joseph as a "pious" fraud. Her critique caught the eye of one Hugh Nibley, who published a response to her book, and then of course went on to publish much more (though he would have likely done so anyway.) Still, it wasn't until 2005 that a great biography was written by Richard Bushman. If you haven't read it I suggest you do: Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling. Cut to the 50s now, a woman named Juanita Brooks. She wrote a landmark book on the Mountain Meadows Massacre, called, appropriately, The Mountain Meadows Massacre. Up to this point the church had largely ignored the massacre, and popular lore blamed the Indians, or blamed the victims of the massacre themselves. Juanita looked further into the story and discovered that while Church leaders in Salt Lake may not have ordered the massacre, they did help lead to what happened. Brooks wrote that Brigham Young and other leaders indirectly shared some responsibility in the attack, having used some fiery rhetoric in their sermons during the period in order to stir the Saints to repentance. A lot of hellfire damnation type stuff during a period now called the "Mormon Reformation."[2] Brooks' book stirred up a lot of people, including some Church leaders, but President David O. McKay stood up for Brooks. Now she has been largely vindicated, though there are still some mistakes in her work. An upcoming book by current Church historian Richard Turley is highly anticipated by myself and others interested in the history of the Church. He wrote a recent Ensign article which gave some excellent historical analysis. After Brooks, enter a man named Leonard Arrington. He was an excellent up-and-comer academic who spent a lot of student hours in the Church archives and published Great Basin Kingdom: An Economic History of the Latter-day Saints, 1830-1900 in 1952-ish. This was a more academic approach to Church history and caught the eye of many in and out of the Church. Arrington was more an expert on economics than anything else. Around this time a publication called BYU Studies began, an excellent journal that still publishes today.[3] Arrington helped start the Mormon History Association in 1965, which began an academic study in depth, and has contributed very important work to our understanding of Church history. In 1972 Arrington became the first non-Church leader to be called as Church Historian. He began in earnest to publish and research. Though he was slightly scattered he was a faithful person who did his best to present the story of the Church as best he could. He and Davis Bitton[4] wrote an excellent book called The Mormon Experience: A History of the Latter-day Saints. I believe this was the first book written by faithful members of the Church that was published for a Mormon and non-Mormon audience in an academic fashion by an academic press. Arrington and Bitton presented the Church in more rational terms than normal, hence the "New Mormon History" was well under way. Some of the publications approved or overseen by Arrington were seen as controversial, (for example, Allen and Leonard's Story of the Latter-day Saints) and a few years later Arrington was reassigned to BYU. This was, in part, because the method of New Mormon History (which is still a rather nebulous term) advocates expressing the history in a manner that is "as functionally objective as possible" as the wikipedia article says. Some writers believe it is difficult in this setting to express God's hand in all things, and thus the Spirit is seen (by some) to be shifted out of the picture. Arrington himself defended the view saying "writers of religious history are obliged to inform readers of both naturalistic explanations and divine influences." Interestingly, Louis Midgley argues that Arrington himself never used the New Mormon Historian title, and seemed to believe it didn't apply to him, though many advocates of a "more open" Church history approach have held Arrington as a patron saint. During the 70s a few more important journals were started, Sunstone and Dialogue. They began as independent journals with an eye on tracking the culture, history, etc. of Mormonism. Over time the views of both publications have fluctuated. In the 80s the Church made a few cautionary statements regarding the publications and their symposia, and over time they have both come to be seen as more liberal, and much less orthodox than perhaps most Church members prefer.[5] Sometimes they still have articles that I really enjoy, but separating the wheat from the chaff is a little too much for me, as I don't have a lot of money to subscribe to them anyway. Back in the day (70s) both put out some great stuff. Elder Oaks and Richard Bushman served on the editorial board for Dialogue, for example. The two publications are still available, though representing less orthodox points of view. Then in 1979 a young man named Jack Welch started the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS). On his mission Welch had discovered chaismus in the Book of Mormon, something he believed helped vindicate an ancient origin for the book. After returning from his mission, going to some school, doing some firesides and writing some papers, he founded FARMS, which moved to BYU and has since been brought into BYU officially as the Neal A. Maxwell Institute For Religious Scholarship. They have published some landmark books and papers on many things Mormon. Shortly after that Signature Books was established. Signature books essentially has a secular outlook, and has done some work with various atheistic, naturalistic, positivist organizations. They have made efforts to strip Mormon studies of God, essentially (though I have enjoyed several of their books, actually. The spoonful of sugar, perhaps, that is meant to make the medicine go down.) During the early 80s, then, the Church experienced the Mark Hoffman "salamander letter" debacle, where Hoffman forged several documents calling into question the divine origins of the Church. This led several LDS individuals, such as D. Michael Quinn and the more recent Grant Palmer, to author books on the "magic" that led to Mormonism. (Reviews of their works can be found easily on the FARMS website.) In the early nineties Signature had some tangles with FARMS over book reviews, etc. which you can read about in Louis Midgley's article "The Signature Books Saga." Various Internet e-mail groups and message boards began springing up as use of the Internet rapidly grew through the nineties. One such group, tired of the Anti-Mormon rhetoric spread on the web, started FAIR as a non-profit organization to answer the claims of anti-Mormons and other critics of the Church. For an example of how anti-Mormons misuse historical sources, see "Historical or Hysterical," by Matthew Brown or see my blog entry "Quote Mining." In the late nineties the "Bloggernacle" was born; an assortment of websites devoted to different aspects of Mormonism. Aside from the many anti-Mormon websites out there, these Blogs are written by devoted members from many different walks of life. Personally I think the big 2 are Times & Seasons and By Common Consent. FAIR started a wiki page, an encyclopedia-type page, which a ton of information. A myriad of other blogs have sprung up, especially considering Elder Ballard's recent advice to members: take advantage of the Internet, share your testimonies online, he essentially said (see his talk "Using New Media to Support the Work of the Church.") There is also a message board called Mormon Apologetics and Discussion. The board is more of a debate-style, so you need a thick skin, but it has a lot of faithful members who contribute. Mixed up in all this is the concept of "apologetics." An apologist, to be brief, is one who defends a position. Apologists for the Church "give an answer" for anyone who asks for the reason for the hope that is in them as Peter encouraged (1 Peter 3:15). Elder Maxwell encouraged members of the Church to learn what they can so that anti-Mormons and critics do not get any "uncontested slam dunks." Professor Daniel C. Peterson from BYU (who works with FARMS) recently wrote an article describing the concept of "inoculation." In it he quotes Richard Bushman who described something of what my concerned e-mailer's daughter may have experienced when she talked about the "what I was taught in Primary" issue. Bushman said:

"I keep hearing of young people who are shocked to discover the ideal Joseph Smith they learned about in Church is not the Joseph Smith most scholars perceive. Taken aback, the young Mormons not only wonder about the Prophet but about their teachers. Everything comes tumbling down."[6]

Certainly this is a very brief overview of the New Mormon History, where it came from and what it is, so take it for what it's worth. I don't speak officially for the Church or for FAIR, I'm just another member of the Church who loves this stuff. No doubt I have left out countless other important aspects of Mormon Studies. The Association for Mormon Letters, the John Whitmer Historical Association, and various other examples of LDS scholarship. I hope this brief introduction gives a little background to nudge any newcomers along in their research. Footnotes: [1] She explained her daughter's situation:

She just says that one thing has piled up on another to make too many questions for her to ignore. She won't discuss specifics as I think she doesn't want to influence anyone else. She has told me that these are things that she didn't learn in Primary and feels that she should have. I would like to know what she has been told so that I can understand her a bit better, not to argue point by point with her but so I can try to talk to her when the time is right...Any information or reading you have for me to study so I can understand her thought process would be greatly appreciated.

[2] For an example of this rhetoric, see my posts "Preaching Pitchforks From the Pulpit," and "Contrasting Attitudes: Keeping Things In Context." [3] Subscriptions are 25 bucks a year, and I strongly urge you to subscribe if you can because it is an awesome and informative journal. Their website is http://byustudies.byu.edu/. [4] For an interesting view on church historians, see his 2004 FAIR conference address "I Don't Have a Testimony of the History of the Church." For a diverging LDS viewpoint, see a review by Matt Evans on Times & Seasons. [5] For example, see Dallin H. Oaks, “Alternate Voices,” Ensign, May 1989, 27. Kevin Christenson, an independent scholar on Mormon studies, has published with Sunstone and presented at their symposia. He called Sunstone "an unofficial forum for discussing things LDS" offering a "range of perspectives, some of which I appreciate, and some of which I dispute." He continues:

To use an analogy that Quinn offered, it's more a marketplace of ideas than a household of faith. But some of those ideas I have imported to my own household of faith, and some I do not accept. One issue might have an excellent response to a controversial book like Blood of the Prophets or Leaving the Faith, and in the same issue, an essay or review that smugly dismisses fundamental LDS claims. They like to see themselves as uniquely positioned to offer balanced, carefully reasoned, and reliably objective views on other LDS, unapologetically insinuating that other sources are tainted by institutional or apologetic agendas, and therefore, inherently unreliable due to not being Sunstone. They have a lively and interesting letters column. They like giving voice to persons at odds with the institution in some way. That can be both a plus and a minus, depending on the particular voice...At its best, it performs an important service for the LDS intellectual community. At it's worst, it gives voice to the views of those who openly strive to undermine LDS foundations, or the occasional crackpot...Personally, I hope Sunstone thrives, and does more and more of what it does best (See his MormonApologetics.org comments, June 13, 2008).

While Sunstone is seen by some as excessively liberal, others disagree and see Sunstone as a breath of fresh air. I have only personally read about 4 issues of Sunstone, and they were from 1998-1999. I saw the issues as being more cynical than I prefer in general. A discussion regarding the state of Sunstone can be read on the Mormon Matters blog here. [6] Daniel C. Peterson, "Editor's Introduction: Reflections on the Reactions to Rough Stone Rolling and Related Matters," FARMS Review 19:1, p. xi–liv. See especially the second section dealing with the concept of inoculation. See also President Henry B. Eyring's "Helping a Student in a Moment of Doubt."

Omnipresence? of God

Brigham Young
August 14, 1856

It remains to be seen exactly when Joseph Smith first taught that God the Father has a body of flesh and bone; it remains to be shown that Joseph understood this fact as a result of the First Vision. In the Lectures on Faith[1] which were given as instruction to the School of Prophets at Kirtland, Ohio during the winter of 1834-1835, the Father is described as "a personage of glory and of power" (Lectures 5:2). This description lacks a specific reference to flesh and bones, but by 1836 a Presbyterian minister named Truman Coe, who had lived in Kirtland, Ohio, reported that the Mormons "believe that the true God is a material being, composed of body and parts; and that when the Creator formed Adam in his own image, he made him about the size and shape of God himself."[2]

On 5 January 1841, Joseph Smith publicly declared "That which is without body or parts is nothing. There is no other God in heaven but that God who has flesh and bones."[3] The canonized statement on this doctrine (D&C 130:22) was included in "items of instruction given by Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Ramus, Illinois, April 2, 1843":

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

This belief in an embodied God is largely unique to Latter-day Saints, and seems to fly in the face of an "omnipresent" God.[4] How can an embodied God be everywhere present? Thomas Aquinas reasoned:

God is in all things by his power, inasmuch as all things are subject to his power; he is by his presence in all things, inasmuch as all things are bare and open to his eyes; he is in all things by his essence, inasmuch as he is present to all as the cause of their being.[5]

But what about the notion of Hell? Can an omnipresent God be absent from there? Brigham makes an interesting statement on the omnipresence of God that, at face value, may seem to conflict with the LDS notion of an embodied God. Apparently a conversation with Orson Pratt[6] had him thinking:

I never studied philosophy to any great extent, but on one occasion I had a kind of a confab with Professor Orson Pratt, who endeavored to prove that there was empty space, I supposed there was no such thing. He thought he had proved it; but I thought he had not proved a word of it, and told him the idea was folly. 

After hearing a good many arguments from him, and other men, his colleagues in learning, I wished them to tell me where empty space was situated, that I might tell the wicked, who wish to hide themselves from the face of him that sitteth upon the throne, where to go, for they will then be where God is not, if they can find empty space. To argue such a question as that, would be, to confute my own arguments in favor of other truths I have advocated, and oppose my own system of faith.  

We believe that God is round about all things, above all things, in all things, and through all things. To tell about empty space is to tell of a space where God is not, and where the wicked might safely hide from His presence. There is no such thing as empty space (JD 1:275).

My approach deals with Brigham's comment that God is "round about all things, above all things, in all things, and through all things." Left alone, it seems Brigham is arguing for a disembodied God. But keeping in mind the LDS doctrine of an embodied God, Brigham's comments can be interpreted differently. A few months earlier (June 22, 1856), using a similar quip about the wicked, Brigham had described somewhat of an "omnipresent" God, though also leaving God embodied:

How far would you have to go in order to go to God, if your spirits were unclothed? Would you have to go out of this bowery to find God, if you were in the spirit? If God is not here, we had better reserve this place to gather the wicked into, for they will desire to be where God is not.

The Lord Almighty is here by His Spirit, by His influence, by His presence. I am not in the north end of this bowery, my body is in the south end of it, but my influence and my voice extend to all parts of it; in like manner is the Lord here. It reads that the spirit goes to God who gave it (JD 3:368).[7]

Rather than a nebulous, mysterious, omnipresence of God in and through all things in some physical way, like air filling a balloon, Brigham advocated an omnipresence in the form of influence and awareness, in this case comparing the universe to the Bowery and God to himself.
This would have resonated well with B.H. Roberts, an avid reader who kept notes in the margins of his books. He underlined a statement in Herbert Spencer’s First Principles (1862): “The non-existence of space cannot… by any mental effort be imagined”, writing in the margin: “There is no Kingdom where there is no space-there is no space where there is no Kingdom Jos. Smith.” In thinking of Hying to Kolob, one may consider whether there really "is no end to space."[8]




Footnotes:

[1]
The Lectures on Faith is a set of seven lectures included in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. (The title "Lectures on Faith" was not given until 1876 by Orson Pratt.) While Joseph Smith was most likely involved in their preparation and/or publication (see History of the Church 2:169-170 and 2:180) the actual authorship is in question. It has been argued, for example, the lectures were written mainly by Sidney Rigdon (see Noel B. Reynolds, "The Case for Sidney Rigdon as Author of the Lecture on Faith," Journal of Mormon History, vol. 31 Fall 2005). As the wikipedia entry explains, the Lectures "were removed from the Doctrine and Covenants in the 1921 edition, apparently without a vote by the church body, with an explanation that the Lectures 'were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons'. (See Introduction , 1921 edition.)" An interesting discussion on Lectures was started by "Jacob J" on the New Cool Thang blog. For an excellent overview on the doctrine of an embodied God, see David L. Paulsen, "The Doctrine of Divine Embodiment: Restoration, Judeo-Christian, and Philosophical Perspectives," BYU Studies 35:4 (1995-96) 7-94. The picture is Sam Brown's "do you remember," from Exploding Dog, 4/15/2008.

[2]
Coe, Ohio Observer, 11 August 1836, 1-2 [Hudson, Ohio]; reprinted in Cincinnati Journal and Western Luminary, 25 August 1836, 4 [Cincinnati, Ohio]. See also Milton V. Backman, Jr., "Truman Coe's 1836 Description of Mormonism," Brigham Young University Studies 17:3 (1977): 347–350, 354.

[3]
See “God the Eternal Father,” Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, (2007), 36–44; Quoted by William Clayton, reporting an undated discourse given by Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, Illinois; in L. John Nuttall, “Extracts from William Clayton’s Private Book,” p. 7, Journals of L. John Nuttall, 1857–1904, L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah; copy in Church Archives; also found in Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of Joseph Smith, 2nd Edition, 60.


[4]
Philosophical concerns about an LDS view of embodied deity are longstanding. Over one hundred years ago B.H. Roberts debated the topic with a Reverend Vander Donckt, as published in Mormon Doctrine of Deity (Salt Lake City: The Deseret News, 1903). More recently, Francis J. Beckwith and Stephen E. Parrish take issue with the concept in their book The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis. See Blake Ostler's review of their work in "Review of The Mormon Concept of God: A Philosophical Analysis," FARMS Review of Books 8:2, Pp. 99–146.

[5]
Aquinas, Summa Theologica I, 8, 3. The philosophical threads reach further than I care to go right now, but I should note that perhaps "omnipresence" and "ubiquitousness" may be conflated here. While omnipresence is said to be the ability to be present in every place at any, and/or every, time, or an unbounded or universal presence, ubiquity is the ability to be everywhere at a certain point in time. Even these definitions, however, may be nitpicked.

[6]
Orson Pratt and Brigham Young had several points of disagreement regarding doctrine. One such point is examined in Eugene England, “Perfection and Progression: Two Complimentary Ways to Talk about God,” Brigham Young University Studies 29 (Summer 1989): 31-47 (pdf). See also Gary Bergera "The Orson Pratt-Brigham Young Controversies: Conflicts Within the Quorums, 1853-1868," Dialogue 13 (Summer 1980): 7-49.

[7]
This quote is expounded upon in "When our spirits leave our bodies". See also "Omnipotence? of God". Joseph Smith taught this same principle. For example, James Burgess recorded a sermon on 9 July, 1843 in which Joseph declared:

What part of God is omnipresent? It is the Spirit of God which proceeds from him; consequently, God is in the four winds of heaven, and when a man receives intelligence is it not by the Spirit of God? (Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, eds., The Words of Joseph Smith, 230-31, spelling and puncuation corrected).

As a corollary, Heber C. Kimball once mentioned the possibility that messengers and others provide "extra eyes" so to speak for God:

Does not the Almighty know all these things? Some may think that the Almighty does not see their doings, but if He does not, the angels and ministering spirits do. They see you and your works, and I have no doubt but they occasionally communicate your conduct to the Father, or to the Son, or to Joseph, or to Peter, or to some one who holds the keys in connection with them (JD 3:227).

LDS Scripture also suggests seeing all things is possible by use of Urim and Thummim. See D&C 130:6-9. 


[8]
See Stan Thayne, "Marginal Dialogues: B. H. Roberts Memorial Library, Part 2," Juvenile Instructor, accessed June 2, 2008. Thayne, a BYU graduate student, has been investigating various instances of marginalia. See also "If You Could Hie to Kolob," Hymns, no. 284.