Hi Gramps,

I was recently reading in the Gospel Topics section, and I came across “Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo.” I read something that didn’t sit well with me. In the article, it said, “But Emma likely did not know about all of Joseph’s sealings.” To me, this suggests that Joseph kept some of his marriages a secret, and therefore, was lying by omission to Emma. How do I reconcile this when lying is a sin? Why was it okay for Joseph Smith to lie? Why would God allow him to lie to his wife?

Hailey

Answer

Hailey,

When Joseph Smith first introduced the practice of plural marriage, he did so with great secrecy. Several late accounts strongly suggest that Joseph himself was deeply reluctant to begin the practice, feeling a “repugnance” toward the doctrine not just in himself, but as a reaction of the whole Christian world. Mary Elizabeth Lightner, one of Joseph’s plural wives, recalled that Joseph told her he was initially “afraid” when commanded by an angel to practice plural marriage, and only relented when threatened by the angel “with a drawn sword” if he did not fulfill the commandment.

This sense of dread was not Joseph’s alone. When he introduced the doctrine to close associates, it was met with devastation. Brigham Young later admitted that, upon first hearing it, he “desired the grave” and “could hardly get over it for a long time.” Heber C. Kimball reportedly begged Joseph to relieve him of the requirement, or he would leave the Church, and John Taylor wrote that he and others “seemed to put off as far as we could, what might be termed the evil day” when they would take plural wives. Far from being a popular or eagerly adopted new commandment, plural marriage was a heavy burden, met with resistance even among those closest to Joseph.

Emma Smith’s introduction to plural marriage was both indirect and deeply painful. As Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery explain in their acclaimed biography, Emma did not receive a clear revelation or theological explanation for the practice—nor did Joseph attempt to offer one at first. Instead, Emma’s awareness came “piecemeal over a number of years through circumstances that hurt and shocked her.” Her suspicions were finally confirmed only after confrontation. Close friends discovered Joseph’s new teachings before Emma did, while she learned of his actions “over the years and in ways that hurt and shocked her.” Only under pressure did Joseph attempt to explain or justify plural marriage to Emma.

As the new and confusing order of marriage was implemented, Joseph and Emma’s home life became increasingly fraught. Historians note that Emma often “kept close watch” on young women in the Smith household, searching the house and neighborhood if they went missing—an illustration of her distress and vigilance. Sometimes, Emma was brought—reluctantly—into the arrangements, even consenting to certain plural marriages by Joseph, including to the Partridge and Lawrence sisters and Malissa Lott, only to “immediately regret that they had been performed.”

It is telling that Joseph himself seemed aware of the extraordinary pain his wife was experiencing. When the time came, at his brother Hyrum’s request, to record the revelation on celestial marriage, Joseph predicted that Hyrum’s attempt to convince Emma would fail. After Hyrum returned from sharing the revelation, he admitted, “I have never received a more severe talking to in my life. Emma is very bitter and full of resentment and anger.” Joseph quietly remarked, “I told you you did not know Emma as well as I did.”

Testimony from both primary participants and later observers indicates that Emma Smith did, in certain cases, give her formal consent. Emily Dow Partridge Young, one of Joseph’s plural wives, testified under oath that she was “resealed” to Joseph in Emma’s presence after an earlier marriage had been performed in secret. Lucy Walker, another plural wife, said Emma gave her consent for “at least four other girls to her husband, and that she was well aware that he associated with them as wives within the meaning of all that word implies,” emphasizing, however, that Emma herself “never knew about [Walker’s] own marriage.”

Yet Emma’s consent was not constant, nor was it always freely given. Accounts describe her actions as wavering between resigned cooperation, outright opposition, and bitter regret. Emma herself would arrange for and even “guard the door” during plural marriage ceremonies, but according to multiple testimonies, she very quickly turned “bitter and unpleasant” about the whole arrangement.

Emma’s personal pain was compounded by the secretive nature of plural marriage in Nauvoo. Joseph married several women without Emma’s knowledge, including some of the Partridge and Lawrence sisters. Only later were some of these marriages repeated with Emma’s participation or consent. The situation created a continuous strain in the Smith household, not only because of secrecy but also the need to protect reputations in a hostile society. As one historian wrote, “it must severely try the men as well,” but for the women—Emma especially—it was “calculated in its nature to severely try the women, to nearly tear their heart strings out of them.” Even when Emma did agree to specific marriages, she would soon regret and denounce what had transpired.

The confusion extended to Emma’s status among other women. Some sources attribute to Emma a resilient testimony for plural marriage—Orson Pratt, for instance, claimed she “had received a testimony of the truthfulness of plural marriage.” But other accounts, including that of Emily Partridge, describe Emma as often making things “very unpleasant,” yet deserving “pity” for facing an ordeal that would “nearly tear [the] heart strings out of them.” The best available evidence suggests that Emma gave her permission reluctantly, suffered terribly for having done so, and thereafter tried to navigate the implications within the Smith family and community.

Plural marriage was not performed solely in secrecy for Emma’s sake. Society at large—both within and outside the Church—reacted strongly against plural marriage. The Republican Party Platform of 1856 named polygamy as one of the “twin relics of barbarism.” Later, the Church officially ceased plural marriage over “the opposition of sixty millions of people,” “the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the temples,” and the threat of imprisonments and confiscations by the federal government. Within this swirl of external condemnation, Joseph Smith’s own concerns about Emma’s distress were heightened by fears for the Church’s reputation and survival in an openly hostile United States.

Following Joseph Smith’s death in 1844, Emma’s public stance on plural marriage underwent a significant shift. In an 1879 interview with her son, Joseph Smith III—who led the Reorganized Church and strongly opposed plural marriage—Emma denied that her husband had “a revelation on either polygamy, or spiritual wives.” She claimed he “had no other wife but me.” She made similar denials in 1867 and 1872.

When asked if Joseph ever had “marital relations with [other] women,” she replied, “he did not have improper relations with any woman that ever came to [her] knowledge.” Notably, Emma often used precise language and restricted her answers to her personal knowledge.

Some historians have argued that Emma’s denials were not outright lies but instead skillfully employed the coded language of Nauvoo. According to Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, Emma “easily denounced the old John Bennett term[s] of ‘polygamy’ and ‘spiritual wifery’ without lying,” sidestepping her son’s pointed questions by using more technical language—avoiding mention of “the new and everlasting covenant,” “celestial marriage,” or other terms used within the Church to justify plural marriage. Lawrence Foster likewise noted Emma “chose her words carefully in an attempt to satisfy both ‘truth’ and her desire to protect her son and family.

Her denials, then, did not necessarily refute that “the true order of marriage,” “celestial marriage,” or similar teachings had been practiced—but avoided condemning her husband with the terms most associated with public scandal and abuse. As Newell and Avery suggest, Emma “continued to use [these code words] throughout the remainder of her life to protect herself and her family.”

Gramps

Gramps,

I am a bit confused about understanding whether the Prophet Joseph Smith saw the Father and the Son with his Spiritual eyes or with his natural eyes. (Mormon Doctrine: First Vision) “In it Joseph Smith saw and conversed with the Father and the Son,  both of which exalted personages were personally present before him as he lay enwrapped in the spirit and overshadowed by the Holy Ghost.” Would you please help me get an answer to this question? Thank you very much.

Edwin

Answer

Edwin,

I often hear this question because people mean different things when they say “spiritual eyes.”  And in different circumstances, they can, indeed, mean different things.

For the First Vision, we need to understand that seeing the Father and the Son “in the natural man” (i.e., as mortal flesh) wouldn’t allow us to abide their presence, such is their glory.

However, we have a belief in a principle known as transfiguration.  This simply means that the Lord has be ability to exalt our bodies to withstand His presence temporarily.

(Moses) saw God face to face, and he talked with him, and the glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Moses could endure his presence” (Moses 1:2)

To NOT have permission could mean death to our physical bodies.

And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the veil before the mercy seat, which is upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear in the cloud upon the mercy seat. (Leviticus 16:2)

Such transfiguration occurred during the First Vision.  So, he certainly saw them with “physical eyes.”  But they had to be elevated for him to withstand their glory.

In such a theophany, one could say that transfiguration allowed one to see with eyes that were altered spiritually.  Thus, it may be acceptable to call them spiritual eyes.  But that gives people the impression that he just “imagined it in his head.”  Such was NOT the case.

We must understand that spiritual eyes do not automatically exclude physical eyes.

(People like the Brother of Jared) truly saw with their eyes the things they had beheld with an eye of faith” (Ether 12:19)

In private testimony to family, Joseph spoke of how he could not initially see the Father and Son directly because of their glory.  He just saw two “figures.” He calls them “personages” in the JSH account.  Then one of them physically touched his eyes, and he could see clearly what they looked like.  And then they had the conversation that we read of in the Pearl of Great Price.

Many people have tried to take certain phrases in certain circumstances and make them appear as if he imagined it all.  They even go so far as to say that the three witnesses (and the 8 witnesses, as well) were hypnotized into believing they saw something that they didn’t see.  The problem with that is how many times they all clarified such visions and witnesses.  There was no delusion.  There was no imagination.  There was no deception.  They did all physically see what they said they saw.

Of course we were in the Spirit when we had the view, for no man can behold the face of an angel, except in a spiritual view. But we were in the body also, and everything was as natural to us, as it is at any time. – David Whitmer to Anthony Metcalfe, 2 April 1887, in Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 5:193

 

I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived!  I saw with these eyes and I heard with these ears!  I know whereof I speak! – David Whitmer

 

My eyes saw, my ears heard, and my understanding was touched, and I know that whereof I testified is true.  It was no dream, no vain imagination of the mind — it was real. – Oliver Cowdery

 

The Book of Mormon is no fake. I know what I know. I have seen what I have seen, and I have heard what I have heard. I have seen the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon is written. An angel appeared to me and others and testified to the truthfulness of the record, and had I been willing to have perjured myself and sworn falsely to the testimony I now bear, I could have been a rich man. But I could not have testified other than I have done and am now doing, for these things are true. – Martin Harris, Deathbed testimony.

None of them made any statement that they didn’t see what they saw.  They simply made an acknowledgement that some things are not permitted to be seen without divine permission and edification.

Gramps

Gramps,

If no unclean thing can dwell in the presence of Heavenly Father, how did Joseph see him?

Don

Answer

Don,

Joseph’s account of the First Vision details a moment of intense spiritual struggle. He described being enveloped in a pillar of light that descended upon him, which was brighter than the sun. In this light, he saw two beings who resembled each other, and one of them called him by name, saying, “This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!” This experience left Joseph physically weakened, as he later recounted, “when I came to myself, I was sprawling on my back and it was some time before my strength returned.”

The physical exhaustion Joseph felt after the vision aligns with the concept of being quickened. It suggests that even though he was able to see God, the experience took a toll on his mortal body, reinforcing the idea that such encounters are extraordinary and transformative.

While Joseph Smith did not hold the Melchizedek Priesthood at the time of his First Vision, it is essential to understand that his prophetic calling was established through this divine encounter. The Lord’s appearance to Joseph was a direct ordination, granting him the authority to act in God’s name. This is significant because it indicates that the priesthood is not merely a matter of ordination but also divine appointment and empowerment.

In the context of Joseph’s experience, the priesthood serves as a means through which the power of godliness is manifest. While he may not have held the priesthood at the moment of the vision, the divine encounter itself was a precursor to his later ordination and the establishment of the Church.

Joseph Smith’s vision has far-reaching implications for Latter-day Saint theology. It emphasizes the belief that God is a tangible, embodied being who desires to communicate with His children. This understanding contrasts with traditional Christian views that often depict God as an abstract, unknowable entity. Joseph’s experience reinforces the idea that God is accessible and that individuals can have personal encounters with the divine.

Joseph’s vision also contributes to the Latter-day Saint understanding of the Godhead. In his accounts, Joseph emphasized that God the Father and Jesus Christ are distinct beings with physical bodies. This belief is foundational to the Church’s teachings and sets it apart from many other Christian denominations that adhere to the doctrine of the Trinity.

The First Vision points to the importance of personal revelation in Latter-day Saint belief. Joseph’s experience serves as a model for individuals seeking truth and guidance from God. It encourages members of the Church to seek their own spiritual experiences and to rely on personal revelation as a means of understanding their relationship with God

Related articles:

How was Joseph Smith able to see the Father?

How is it Joseph Smith saw God and lived?

Gramps

Gramps,

If Emma was Joseph Smith’s first wife, why wasn’t he sealed to her first?

Esteban

Answer

Esteban,

Thank you for an excellent question.

To comprehend the intricacies of Joseph Smith’s marital sealings, it’s essential to understand the concept of “eternal sealing” within the theology of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Church). Eternal sealing refers to the belief that marriages performed in the temple are binding not just for mortal life but for eternity. This doctrine underscores the significance of family and eternal relationships in Latter-day Saint faith.

Joseph Smith introduced the practice of plural marriage, which involved marrying multiple wives, as part of his theological revelations. These sealings were believed to extend familial bonds beyond death, offering a form of eternal companionship for both the living and the deceased. However, the timing and order of these sealings, particularly concerning Emma Hale Smith, Joseph’s first wife, have been subjects of extensive debate.

Gramps

Gramps,

Who is the spokesman referred to in 2 Nephi 3:17-18? Is this Joseph Smith or someone speaking on behalf of him?

Bart

Answer

Bart,

The Book of Mormon is a cornerstone of the faith of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, offering profound insights into the nature of God, prophecy, and the Restoration of the gospel. Among its many teachings, 2 Nephi 3 contains a significant prophecy regarding a future spokesman who would emerge from the lineage of Joseph of Egypt.

As we delve into the prophetic words of Lehi, the father of Nephi, we encounter a powerful assertion about the future of God’s covenant people. In 2 Nephi 3:17-18, we find a declaration regarding a spokesman who would arise from the “fruit of thy loins.” This article examines the scriptural context, Joseph Smith’s prophetic role, comparisons with biblical figures, theological implications, and variances in interpretation surrounding this important figure in Latter-day Saint belief.

We must first consider the scriptural context to understand the significance of the spokesman referenced in 2 Nephi 3:17-18. In this chapter, Lehi recounts a prophecy made by Joseph of Egypt concerning a future seer who would descend from his lineage. The verses state:

And the Lord said unto me also: I will raise up unto the fruit of thy loins; and I will make for him a spokesman (2 Nephi 3:17).

This “fruit of thy loins” refers to Joseph of Egypt’s descendants, which includes Joseph Smith in Latter-day Saint belief. The verse emphasizes God’s intention to raise up a leader who would play a crucial role in the restoration of His covenant people.

Joseph Smith is identified in 2 Nephi 3:6 as a “choice seer” who will “bring forth my word” (2 Nephi 3:11). This connection highlights Smith’s divine mission as the prophet tasked with translating the Book of Mormon and restoring the gospel of Jesus Christ (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 2017). 

Joseph Smith’s role as the spokesman foretold in 2 Nephi 3 is foundational to Latter-day Saint theology. As the prophet of the Restoration, he translated the Book of Mormon, which serves as a vital record testifying of Christ and the covenants made with the house of Israel.

Elder Bruce R. McConkie, in his work “A New Witness for the Articles of Faith,” elaborates on this role, stating that the “spokesman of thy loins [Joseph Smith] shall declare it” (McConkie, 1985, pp. 425-426). This assertion indicates that Smith’s prophetic mission involves both translating the writings of Nephite prophets and proclaiming their messages to the world.

Notably, the comparisons between Joseph Smith and Moses enhance our understanding of Smith’s prophetic calling. Just as Moses was called to lead the children of Israel out of bondage and received divine commandments, Joseph Smith was similarly chosen to lead the Latter-day Saints in the Restoration of the gospel. This parallel is drawn in 2 Nephi 3:9, where Lehi emphasizes the greatness of the seer who will arise from his lineage, akin to Moses’s significant role in biblical history (Gospel Doctrine, n.d.).

The identification of Joseph Smith as the spokesman in 2 Nephi 3 holds profound theological implications for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It affirms the continuity of divine revelation from ancient prophets to modern leaders, establishing a framework that emphasizes the importance of prophetic authority and ongoing revelation.

Church doctrine teaches that Joseph Smith was foreordained to be the prophet of the last dispensation, tasked with restoring the gospel of Jesus Christ. This belief is rooted in the interpretation of 2 Nephi 3, which emphasizes Smith’s essential role in the latter-day restoration and the translation of the Book of Mormon (Richards, 1983).

Elder Neil L. Andersen has reiterated the significance of Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling, stating, “He was chosen by God to prepare a way for the coming of the Lord” (Andersen, 2014). This reinforces the understanding that Smith’s unique calling aligns with the prophetic traditions established in the scriptures.

While the predominant interpretation among Latter-day Saints is that Joseph Smith is the spokesman mentioned in 2 Nephi 3:17-18, some discussions have explored the potential for other individuals to fulfill this role. For example, figures like Oliver Cowdery or Sidney Rigdon have been suggested as possible spokesmen due to their involvement in the Restoration and their close associations with Joseph Smith.

Oliver Cowdery, for instance, served as Smith’s principal scribe during the translation of the Book of Mormon and was described in the Doctrine and Covenants as possessing the gift of Aaron, thus acting as a spokesman (Doctrine and Covenants 100:9). However, the consensus within mainstream Church teachings remains that Joseph Smith’s distinctive calling as the prophet aligns most closely with the attributes described in 2 Nephi 3.

This exploration of alternative interpretations highlights the richness of Latter-day Saint theology and the diverse perspectives that can contribute to our understanding of prophetic roles and functions. Still, the identification of Joseph Smith as the spokesman resonates most strongly with the teachings and beliefs of the Church.

In conclusion, the prophecy found in 2 Nephi 3:17-18 offers a clear identification of Joseph Smith as the spokesman who would arise from the lineage of Joseph of Egypt. This understanding is rooted in scriptural context, prophetic teachings, and theological implications that affirm the continuity of divine revelation through modern prophets. As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, recognizing Joseph Smith’s vital role in the Restoration of the gospel enriches our faith and deepens our understanding of God’s ongoing work among His people.

Gramps

Hey Gramps.

I was having a discussion with someone about prophets and how Joseph Smith wasn’t a true prophet because he practiced polygamy.  I told him that Joseph Smith was a prophet in a new dispensation and he stated that he wasn’t because he didn’t follow the guidelines of being a prophet from biblical times (New Testament). Any answer to that?

Richard

Answer

Richard,

It seems like, in every generation, there are individuals who will come up with their own litmus test as to who can and who can’t be a prophet. When it came to Laman & Lemuel and their litmus test it was their authority as the older siblings, thus Nephi could not be the ruler, nor the prophet as this was their calling. AND indeed it may have been if not for their rebellion as the Lord declared to Nephi (1 Nephi 2:21-22):

21 And inasmuch as thy brethren shall rebel against thee, they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord.

 

22 And inasmuch as thou shalt keep my commandments, thou shalt be made a ruler and a teacher over thy brethren.

When Adam was the Patriarch/Prophet, was it because he had one wife or because he was called and chosen by God? What about Moses who grew up among the Egyptians, and who killed a priest. What allowed Moses to be a prophet? One wife? Or was it because he was called and chosen by God? As to both, it is because they were called and chosen by God.

What about Noah, Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob? Were they called and chosen because they had one wife? Well, with Noah, it seems he had only one wife (although there is some debate). Abraham had a child with another woman. Isaac appears to only have had Rebecca. Jacob had four wives. Did the idea of having more than one wife stop Abraham and Jacob from being patriarchs/prophets? No. Their marriage relationship did not determine if they could or could not be a prophet. What determined that they were prophets is that they were called and chosen by God.

When we read the New Testament we can find the following verse of scripture referring to “one wife” statement in 1 Timothy 3:2,12:

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

 

12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

It appears the bishops and deacons are being counseled to only have one wife, and yet I don’t find any direct statement regarding a litmus test for a prophet to only have one wife, especially if God command it or allows it (as he definitely did with the Old Testament prophets). If we use this litmus test then we would have to consider Abraham and Jacob to be false prophets, as they clearly had more than one wife. Or is this individual trying to say, it was OK for them (Old Testament) but not OK for them (New Testament). Or maybe he is saying, “Well, that may have been the Law of Moses,” then there is a problem also because Abraham and Jacob lived long before the Law of Moses was ever the law.

The only true litmus test as to the calling of a prophet is whether or not a prophet was called and chosen by God. Peter did not become the Prophet because he only had one wife. He became the Prophet because he was called and chosen by Jesus Christ. All the other prophets and apostles were called and chosen by God, and that is the only litmus test to a chosen prophet.

This is the message we send to all, that Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ (as described in the First Vision), and from there he was prepared further and then called and chosen to be the Lord’s servant, his prophet, in these the last days. Remember, his calling to a prophet was long before he was a polygamist (and was called to be a prophet long before polygamy was even a part of the Church).

Gramps

Gramps,

I’ve heard somewhere a quote attributed to Joseph Smith along the lines of “Whenever I hear a new rumor about myself, I stop and examine my life for anything I might have done that could lead anyone to believe it might be true, and commit to change.”  I adore the sentiment, but cannot find the quote anywhere.  Is this something Joseph Smith or any Church leader has said?

Spencer

Answer

Spencer,

The quote you’re looking for was from a publication citing a quote from one Jesse Crosby.

I went one day to the Prophet with a sister. She had a charge to make against one of the brethren for scandal. When her complaint had been heard the Prophet asked her if she was quite sure that what the brother had said of her was utterly untrue.

 

She was quite sure that it was.

 

He then told her to think no more about it, for it could not harm her. If untrue it could not live, but the truth will survive. Still she felt that she should have some redress. Then he offered her his method of dealing with such cases for himself. When an enemy had told a scandalous story about him, which had often been done, before he rendered judgment he paused and let his mind run back to the time and place and setting of the story to see if he had not by some unguarded word or act laid the block on which the story was built. If he found that he had done so, he said that in his heart he then forgave his enemy, and felt thankful that he had received warning of a weakness that he had not known he possessed.

 

Then he said to the sister that he would have her to do the same: search her memory thoroughly and see if she had not herself unconsciously laid the foundation for the scandal that annoyed her.

 

The sister thought deeply for a few moments and then confessed that she believed she had.

 

Then the Prophet told her that in her heart she could forgive that brother who had risked his own good name and her friendship to give her this clearer view of herself.

 

The sister thanked her advisor and went away in peace.

 

— Jesse Crosby.  Cited in They Knew the Prophet, Hyrum Andrus, 162–63.

Gramps

Gramps,

Would John the Beloved or the Three Nephites have been able to give Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priestnood rather than John the Baptist  and Peter James and John?

Herb

Answer

Dear Herb,

The Aaronic priesthood is an appendage to the Melchizedek Priesthood and thus can be conferred by anyone in this world holding the Melchizedek Priesthood with one caveat: priesthood ordination is an authorized ordinance. In order for an elder to confer the Aaronic Priesthood on an individual, he must get authorization from that individual’s priesthood leader (usually a bishop or branch president).

It appears that there is a similar order on the other side. When John appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery he said “he acted under the direction of Peter, James and John, who held the keys of the Priesthood of Melchizedek” (Joseph Smith-History 1:72). So presumably these 3 could have performed the ordinance themselves, or commissioned another to do so.  “This, then, is the nature of the Priesthood,” taught Joseph Smith, “every man holding the Presidency of his dispensation, and one man holding the Presidency of them all, even Adam; and Adam receiving his Presidency and authority from the Lord” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 169). And again, “The keys have to be brought from heaven whenever the Gospel is sent. When they are revealed from heaven, it is by Adam’s authority” (page 157).

Even so, it was fitting to assign John the Baptist to give Joseph and Oliver authority to baptize. In the New Testament he is memorialized for baptizing the Savior. The very act is in his name!  Peter, James, and John’s selection was very fitting given the principles of dispensation.

Gramps

Gramps,

What does it mean a sealed book and the quote “I can not read a sealed book?

mormon4life

Answer

Dear mormon4life,

When Joseph Smith received the Golden Plates from Moroni, he immediately noticed that about two-thirds of the plates themselves were wrapped in two golden bands, preventing them from being opened and read. Joseph called this part of the plates the ‘sealed portion’. To this day, we don’t know what is written on those plates but there may be a time in the future when they will be unsealed and then be translated. The portion of the plates that were not sealed is what we have, and call, the Book of Mormon.

The quote “I cannot read a sealed book” comes from a couple places, but I’ll start with the event as recorded by Joseph Smith during the process of translating the Book of Mormon. This is from Joseph Smith-history which was written by Joseph himself.

62 By this timely aid was I enabled to reach the place of my destination in Pennsylvania; and immediately after my arrival there I commenced copying the characters off the plates. I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them, which I did between the time I arrived at the house of my wife’s father, in the month of December, and the February following.

 

63 Sometime in this month of February, the aforementioned Mr. Martin Harris came to our place, got the characters which I had drawn off the plates, and started with them to the city of New York. For what took place relative to him and the characters, I refer to his own account of the circumstances, as he related them to me after his return, which was as follows:

 

64 “I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters. He gave me a certificate, certifying to the people of Palmyra that they were true characters, and that the translation of such of them as had been translated was also correct. I took the certificate and put it into my pocket, and was just leaving the house, when Mr. Anthon called me back, and asked me how the young man found out that there were gold plates in the place where he found them. I answered that an angel of God had revealed it unto him.

 

65 “He then said to me, ‘Let me see that certificate.’ I accordingly took it out of my pocket and gave it to him, when he took it and tore it to pieces, saying that there was no such thing now as ministering of angels, and that if I would bring the plates to him he would translate them. I informed him that part of the plates were sealed, and that I was forbidden to bring them. He replied, ‘I cannot read a sealed book.’ I left him and went to Dr. Mitchell, who sanctioned what Professor Anthon had said respecting both the characters and the translation.”

Forgive the long quote, but it connects in a fascinating way with what we find in Isaiah

Isaiah 29:11

11 And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:

In fact, Isaiah 29:9-14 presents some interesting reading when considering the Book of Mormon, how it came about, and the restoration in general.

9  Stay yourselves, and wonder; cry ye out, and cry: they are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink.

 

10 For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered.

 

11 And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a bookthat is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:

 

12 And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.

 

13  Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:

 

14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous workamong this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.

Gramps

Dear Gramps,

I understand the official (or only) version of the Bible used by LDS is the King James version and only if it is/has been interpreted correctly. Where is the line drawn for correct interpretation of the bible? Could you please address the places that Joseph Smith corrected it or began to correct it. Did he die before he could complete all the corrections?

Jeanne

Answer

Dear Jeanne,

We read in the bible that

For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:11).

or, by the Spirit of God, if you will. The correct interpretation of the Bible is given by the Spirit to those who search diligently. Let me share with you an experience I once had that bears on this subject. In 1962 a stake was organized in the Columbus, Ohio area and I was called to be a member of the stake presidency. One of my assignments was with what was then called the Adult Aaronic Priesthood, later changed to Senior Aaronic Priesthood, and still later to Prospective Elders. When we conducted ward conferences, my assignment was to meet during the priesthood meetings with the Adult Aaronic Priesthood. Most of the brethren in that group were recent converts to the church, so I asked them, “Before you became members of the Mormon Church did you used to read the Bible?” Most responded in the affirmative. I then asked, “Since joining the Mormon Church have you noticed any difference in your interpretation of the Bible?” There was always a moment of reflection, and then the universal response, “Before I was a member, I was confused about the meaning of numbers of passages, but now it is all clear to me!”

That to me was a confirmation of the revelatory gift of the Holy Ghost, the things of God are understood by the Spirit of God. So, as you read the Bible and come across passages that may be difficult to interpret or to understand, I would suggest that you ask the Father in humble, sincere, faithful prayer to enlighten your mind to the understanding of the scriptures, and line upon line, precept upon precept the meanings will be unfolded to you.

Concerning Joseph Smith’s translation of the bible, he was martyred before it was completed, but much had been done. In the Bibles published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, wherever the Joseph Smith translation varies from the King James Version, and the passages are short, they are included as footnotes at the bottom of the page on which they occur. The longer passages are printed in full after the section called “Bible Dictionary” under the title “Joseph Smith Translation, Excerpts Too Lengthy For Inclusion In Footnotes.”

Gramps

Gramps,

I’m trying to find this quote “if I was to tell you who I was in the preexistence you would call it blasphemous and wish to take away my life” 40 years ago as a missionary we discussed this quotation by Joseph Smith. Can you help?

Jon

Answer

Hello Jon,

Thank you for your question. Also, thank you for serving a mission some 40 years ago. With time, our memories often dull to some degree but I commend you for remembering as much of the quote as you did. The quote you are looking for is repeated in many sources but I will direct you to the Church’s website. On lds.org, in an article entitled: The Greatness of Joseph Smith we find:

Joseph Smith was foreordained to this important calling. He was also somewhat conscious of this foreordination because he once said, “Would to God, brethren, I could tell you who I am! Would to God I could tell you what I know! But you would call it blasphemy, and there are men upon this stand who would want to take my life.” (Orson F. Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball, p. 322.)

I believe this is the quote you are searching for. Good luck in your studies.

Gramps

Question

Gramps,

I have often heard that children who die young will have the chance to be raised by their parents in heaven. Can you give me a resource to research that topic?

Mim

Answer

Hello Mim,

This is a wonderful topic of study. Learning more about this subject has given great comfort to individuals who have lost loved ones, specifically their own young children. The Church’s website has plenty of content related to this subject. I would suggest starting here: The Salvation of Little Children

In that chapter we find the following:

Joseph Smith taught the doctrine that the infant child that was laid away in death would come up in the resurrection as a child; and, pointing to the mother of a lifeless child, he said to her: “You will have the joy, the pleasure, and satisfaction of nurturing this child, after its resurrection, until it reaches the full stature of its spirit.” There is restitution, there is growth, there is development, after the resurrection from death. I love this truth. It speaks volumes of happiness, of joy and gratitude to my soul. Thank the Lord he has revealed these principles to us.

I wish you the best in your studies and commend you for doing your part to learn more:

D&C 130:19 And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come.

Gramps

Dear Gramps,

I would like to know the exact way the Prophet Joseph translated the Book of Mormon. For instance, I read that at first he used a seer stone instead of the Urim and Thummim which he placed in his hat and buried his face into the hat to block out the light. A sentence of the Book of Mormon would appear and beneath it would appear the English translation. Are the testimonies of eyewitnesses confusing the seer stone with the Urim and Thummim? If not, what happened to this stone? I’d like to clarify this for my own mind and have an understanding of the mechanics of translating the tablets.

Al

Answer

Al,

The Book of Mormon, regarded as another testament of Jesus Christ, provides a vital foundation for the beliefs of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Joseph Smith’s translation of this sacred text is not merely a story of linguistic conversion but a narrative rich with divine revelation, personal conviction, and the power of faith. By examining the methods and tools Joseph used, the spiritual assistance he received, and the testimonies of those who witnessed the process, we gain a deeper understanding of this pivotal event in Latter-day Saint history.

Gramps