Gramps,

Why was section 101 of the original printing of the D&C changed regarding monogamy vs polygamy? Specifically, verse 4, which states that we do not believe in polygamy. Also, why were early church leaders practicing polygamy while our own scripture teaches against it?

Kyle

Answer

Kyle,

The first thing to understand is that the original Doctrine and Covenants section 101 is not the same section 101 found in today’s Doctrine and Covenants. In the 1835 edition, section 101 was an “Article on Marriage” that the Church adopted for publication. Unlike most sections of the Doctrine and Covenants, it was not presented as a revelation received by Joseph Smith, but as a statement explaining the Church’s beliefs and practices regarding marriage.

Verse 4 stated:

“Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death…”

At face value, that certainly sounds like an outright rejection of plural marriage.

Readers can examine the original document for themselves in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, preserved by the Joseph Smith Papers.

So why was it later removed?

In 1876, under the direction of President Brigham Young, the Doctrine and Covenants was reorganized. The “Article on Marriage” was removed, and the revelation now known as Doctrine and Covenants 132 was added to the canon. Section 132 was dictated by Joseph Smith on July 12, 1843, and records the revelation on eternal marriage and explains the commandment to practice plural marriage under specific circumstances.

This naturally leads to the harder question.

If Joseph Smith had already received the revelation on plural marriage, why publish a statement saying the Church believed only in monogamy?

According to the Church’s official Gospel Topics essay, Joseph Smith appears to have learned about the principle of plural marriage as early as 1831 while studying the Old Testament. However, the revelation was not written down until 1843, and the practice was introduced only gradually and confidentially to a small group of trusted followers. During the 1830s, nearly every Church member was living in a monogamous marriage and knew nothing about plural marriage.

The Church’s Gospel Topics essay explains:

“Latter-day Saints believe that monogamy—the marriage of one man and one woman—is the Lord’s standing law of marriage.“

The essay also acknowledges that plural marriage was introduced gradually and that many details remain uncertain because participants were instructed to keep the practice confidential.

From that perspective, many LDS historians believe that the 1835 marriage statement accurately described the Church’s public practice. The Saints generally were not practicing plural marriage, and Church leaders were also responding to accusations that the Church promoted “spiritual wifery” and sexual immorality—charges they vigorously denied.

At the same time, the historical record creates understandable questions.

Evidence accepted by the Church indicates that Joseph Smith likely entered into at least one plural marriage during the mid-1830s and later introduced the practice more broadly in Nauvoo. If that is the case, then at least some Church leaders were practicing plural marriage while the 1835 marriage statement remained in the Doctrine and Covenants.

For many readers, this is the most difficult part of the story.

Some conclude that the statement appears inconsistent with what was happening privately. Others believe the statement reflected the Church’s public practice, while confidential instructions had been given only to a limited number of people under what Joseph Smith believed was a divine command. The Church acknowledges that many details of this period remain incomplete because the practice was intentionally kept confidential.

It is important to recognize that faithful Latter-day Saint historians do not claim this history is free of difficult questions. Whether one accepts the Church’s explanation or finds some aspects unresolved, there is broad agreement that the transition from the 1835 “Article on Marriage” to Doctrine and Covenants 132 represents one of the most complex periods in Restoration history. Understanding the historical context—including the gradual introduction of plural marriage, the practice’s confidential nature, and the later canonization of Section 132—helps explain why many sincere members have wrestled with these events while continuing to seek understanding through study and faith.

Another important point is that monogamy has always been presented as God’s normal pattern for marriage in LDS doctrine.

This surprises many people.

The clearest example comes from the Book of Mormon.

Jacob taught:

“For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none.” (Jacob 2:27)

Only three verses later, however, the Lord provides an important exception:

“For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.” (Jacob 2:30)

Current Church teaching understands this exception as the scriptural basis for the temporary commandment to practice plural marriage during certain historical periods.

Doctrine and Covenants 132 teaches that Joseph Smith was commanded to restore this ancient practice, much as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and other Old Testament prophets had lived it under God’s direction. Church leaders have consistently taught that plural marriage was never intended to become the permanent pattern for the Church but was a temporary commandment given for purposes known to the Lord.

That period officially ended when President Wilford Woodruff issued the Manifesto in 1890, announcing that the Church would no longer enter into new plural marriages. Today, plural marriage is not authorized in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and anyone who enters into a plural marriage is subject to Church discipline.

So how should Latter-day Saints view the apparent contradiction between the 1835 marriage statement and later revelations?

Many faithful members conclude that the two documents were addressing different situations. The 1835 “Article on Marriage” described the Church’s public practice and was not itself a revelation. Doctrine and Covenants 132, on the other hand, records a revelation that Church leaders believed authorized an exception to the normal rule of monogamy for a limited period under prophetic direction.

Others acknowledge that the historical tension is real and that not every question has a complete answer. The Church itself notes that many details surrounding the early practice of plural marriage remain unknown because the historical record is incomplete.

What is clear today is the Church’s current position. Monogamy is the Lord’s standing law of marriage. Plural marriage was practiced only under what early Church leaders believed was a temporary divine command, and it has not been authorized in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for well over a century. Understanding that distinction helps explain why the 1835 “Article on Marriage” was eventually replaced by Doctrine and Covenants 132, even though the history surrounding that transition continues to invite careful study and thoughtful discussion.

Gramps

]]> https://askgramps.org/why-did-the-original-doctrine-covenants-change-from-teaching-monogamy-to-including-polygamy/feed/ 0 https://askgramps.org/why-discrepancy-between-book-of-mormon-heaven-hell-3-kingdoms-glory/ https://askgramps.org/why-discrepancy-between-book-of-mormon-heaven-hell-3-kingdoms-glory/#respond Mon, 17 Aug 2026 13:32:50 +0000 https://askgramps.org/?p=76481 Question

Gramps,

I’m trying to better understand a discrepancy I’ve noticed between the explicitly clear teachings in The Book of Mormon and modern teachings about after judgment. The Book of Mormon very clearly teaches that there is a heaven and there is a hell, both post-judgment, not pre-judgment. How do you reconcile this teaching with modern teachings about kingdoms of glory? This seems to be a big deal.

Thanks,

Robert

 Answer

Robert,

The Book of Mormon repeatedly teaches that after the Final Judgment, there are two ultimate outcomes: the righteous inherit eternal life with God, while the wicked are cast off into everlasting punishment. Then, in 1832, Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon received the vision now recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 76, revealing three kingdoms of glory—the celestial, terrestrial, and telestial kingdoms. Instead of only heaven and hell, Latter-day Saints now teach multiple degrees of glory, with only the sons of perdition inheriting outer darkness.

For many people, this raises an honest question: Did LDS doctrine change? If the Book of Mormon is “the most correct of any book on earth,” why doesn’t it clearly teach the three kingdoms?

From an LDS perspective, the answer is that it didn’t change—it expanded. The Restoration is built on the principle of continuing revelation. Rather than revealing every truth at once, the Lord has consistently taught His children “line upon line, precept upon precept” (2 Nephi 28:30). The Book of Mormon establishes the foundation of God’s plan of salvation, while later revelations provide greater detail on truths previously unrevealed.

As you read the Book of Mormon, one thing quickly becomes apparent. Its prophets consistently describe humanity in broad categories. People are righteous or wicked, believers or unbelievers, followers of Christ or followers of Satan. Their purpose wasn’t to explain every detail of eternity but to persuade people to come unto Christ and prepare for the judgment of God.

Jacob taught:

And it shall come to pass that when all men shall have passed from this first death unto life, insomuch as they have become immortal, they must appear before the judgment-seat of the Holy One of Israel; and then cometh the judgment, and then must they be judged according to the holy judgment of God.

 

And assuredly, as the Lord liveth, for the Lord God hath spoken it, and it is his eternal word, which cannot pass away, that they who are righteous shall be righteous still, and they who are filthy shall be filthy still; wherefore, they who are filthy are the devil and his angels; and they shall go away into everlasting fire, prepared for them; and their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end.  (2 Nephi 9:15-16)

King Benjamin likewise contrasted the eternal destiny of the righteous and the wicked (Mosiah 2:38-39):

Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever.

 

And now I say unto you, that mercy hath no claim on that man; therefore his final doom is to endure a never-ending torment.

Alma explained in Alma 41:3-4:

And it is requisite with the justice of God that men should be judged according to their works; and if their works were good in this life, and the desires of their hearts were good, that they should also, at the last day, be restored unto that which is good.

 

And if their works are evil they shall be restored unto them for evil. Therefore, all things shall be restored to their proper order, every thing to its natural frame—mortality raised to immortality, corruption to incorruption—raised to endless happiness to inherit the kingdom of God, or to endless misery to inherit the kingdom of the devil, the one on one hand, the other on the other

These passages never state that everyone who inherits heaven receives exactly the same reward. They simply contrast the final destiny of the righteous and the wicked. That additional understanding came through Doctrine and Covenants 76.

The revelation describes the celestial, terrestrial, and telestial kingdoms.

“These are they whose bodies are celestial…” (D&C 76:70)

“And again, we saw the terrestrial world…” (D&C 76:71)

“And again, we saw the glory of the telestial…” (D&C 76:81)

One especially remarkable verse says:

“And thus we saw… the glory of the telestial, which surpasses all understanding.” (D&C 76:89)

Rather than replacing the Book of Mormon, this revelation expands our understanding of God’s justice and mercy.

Latter-day Saints believe that all three kingdoms are kingdoms of glory made possible through Jesus Christ. Only the celestial kingdom is where the Father and the Son dwell in Their fullness (D&C 76:62). In that fullest sense, it is heaven, while outer darkness corresponds to the final state traditionally described as hell.

The Book of Mormon’s mission is not to answer every theological question. Moroni explained that its purpose is to convince all people that Jesus is the Christ.

President Dallin H. Oaks taught:

“The Final Judgment is not just an evaluation of a sum total of good and evil acts—what we have done. It is an acknowledgment of the final effect of our acts and thoughts—what we have become.” (The Challenge to Become)

Before concluding, it’s worth acknowledging something important. For some readers, calling Doctrine and Covenants 76 simply “continuing revelation” may not fully answer the question. They might reasonably ask, “If the three kingdoms of glory are such an important doctrine, why didn’t the Book of Mormon prophets teach them plainly?”

From an LDS perspective, however, this pattern is consistent with the way God has revealed truth throughout history. Jesus told His Apostles:

I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. (John 16:12)

After His resurrection, He continued teaching them for forty days (Acts 1:3):

President Russell M. Nelson taught:

“There is so much more that your Father in Heaven wants you to know.” (Revelation for the Church, Revelation for Our Lives)

Latter-day Saints, therefore, see the revelation on the degrees of glory not as a correction of the Book of Mormon but as an expansion of previously revealed truth.

So, is the difference between the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants 76 a big deal? It’s understandable why people notice it. From the Latter-day Saint perspective, however, there is no evidence that doctrine changed. Rather, it illustrates one of the central claims of the Restoration—that God continues to reveal truth through living prophets.

Whether someone ultimately accepts that explanation depends on an even larger question: Did Joseph Smith receive genuine revelation from God? If he did, then Doctrine and Covenants 76 represents inspired additional light that builds upon the foundation laid in the Book of Mormon. If he did not, the apparent difference would likely remain a significant challenge.

When the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants are read together, they complement one another. The Book of Mormon lays the foundation by teaching the essential truths necessary for salvation through Jesus Christ. Later revelation opens the curtain a little farther, helping us better understand the marvelous breadth of God’s plan for His children. From an LDS perspective, that is exactly what continuing revelation is meant to do.

Gramps

]]> https://askgramps.org/why-discrepancy-between-book-of-mormon-heaven-hell-3-kingdoms-glory/feed/ 0 https://askgramps.org/what-message-in-doctrine-covenants-section-6/ https://askgramps.org/what-message-in-doctrine-covenants-section-6/#respond Wed, 07 Jan 2026 09:00:07 +0000 https://askgramps.org/?p=71668 Question

Gramps,

What is the message being said in Section 6?

Christina

Answer

Christina,

In the spring of 1829, Oliver Cowdery arrived in Harmony, Pennsylvania, eager to assist Joseph Smith in translating the golden plates—an ancient record that would become The Book of Mormon. Though he possessed great faith, Oliver, like many, grappled with private doubts and uncertainty.

Oliver’s approach was methodical and sincere. Before setting out to meet Joseph Smith, Oliver sought confirmation through earnest prayer. According to later accounts, these prayers had a profound spiritual impact, leading him to feel that his course was right. Even so, upon arrival and amidst the complexities of translation and spiritual gifts, Oliver’s uncertainties lingered. Would his faith be enough? Could he trust the process and the Prophethood of Joseph Smith?

It was in this atmosphere that Doctrine and Covenants section 6 was received. The revelation is framed as a direct response to Oliver’s hidden concerns—sometimes unarticulated, sometimes deeply personal. What makes the revelation remarkable is not merely the information it provides but the way in which the Lord addresses Oliver’s heart and mind with specificity and gentleness.

Doctrine and Covenants 6 is often cited as a masterpiece of divine empathy. The Lord does not merely issue commands or withhold answers; instead, He acknowledges Oliver’s secret prayers and desires, bringing comfort and personalized assurance. According to Steven Harper, “[Oliver] had kept the circumstance entirely secret, and had mentioned it to no one; so that after this revelation was given, he knew that the work was true, because no being living knew of the thing alluded to in the revelation, but God and himself.”

The revelation gently confronts Oliver’s fears, instructing, “Look unto me in every thought; doubt not, fear not.” This is not a casual command but a lifeline extended to those wrestling with intense private anxieties. The Lord further declares that He is granting assistance not arbitrarily or capriciously, but in answer to sincere prayers—both Joseph’s and Oliver’s. According to the retelling, “He was answering Joseph’s prayer for help before he voiced it. He came to Oliver’s aid over and over, with experiences perfectly adapted to assure Oliver that He is Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and that if Oliver will choose to look unto Him in every thought, he need neither doubt nor fear.”

This exchange reveals several theological cornerstones of the Church:

God’s Loving Omniscience: The ability to discern and respond to individual needs and desires, even those not outwardly expressed.

The Legitimacy of Seeking Answers: The process of asking questions—far from being a sign of weakness—is portrayed as both natural and divinely encouraged.

Revelation as Reassurance: Divine answers are given not to stifle inquiry but to provide confidence, personal peace, and deeper conviction.

The Church has, since its inception, emphasized that the pattern seen in Oliver’s experience is available to all sincere seekers. In modern teachings and practice, personal revelation—meaning direct communication from God through the Holy Spirit—is considered one of the defining blessings of the discipleship experience. For members, this includes everything from small daily decisions to major life callings.

Personal revelation is portrayed as a process where concerns, doubts, or questions naturally arise as part of spiritual growth. When individuals, like Oliver, turn to the Lord in prayer, they are encouraged to expect answers in ways suited to their unique circumstances and sensitivities. Leaders continually teach that “if Oliver [or any disciple] will choose to look unto Him in every thought, he need neither doubt nor fear.” In this light, revelation is a relationship—a dynamic, ongoing conversation between God and His children.

In subsequent years, official Church publications, talks, and manuals reinforce this message. They cite examples of members finding specific guidance, comfort, or conviction through sincerely sought answers. The progression moves from uncertainty to reassurance—from “doubts and fears” to confidence and action. There is now a much-quoted saying by Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf that seems appropriate here: “Doubt your doubts, before you doubt your faith.”

Moreover, the experiences of Oliver Cowdery and others from the early history are presented not just as ancient history, but as a template; the timing, delivery, and personalized wording of divine messages remain ever-relevant. Church members are taught to view themselves as potential recipients of the same loving, omniscient guidance that guided Oliver’s journey.

While doubt has often been stigmatized in religious contexts, the approach modeled in Doctrine and Covenants 6 is different. The presence of fear, uncertainty, and even disillusionment is acknowledged—even expected. What matters is what believers do with those feelings: rather than suppressing questions, the faithful are invited to “ask, seek, and knock,” trusting that answers are available through divine means.

For Oliver, the culmination of this process was a deepened faith—not only in the work he was assisting with, but in God’s individualized awareness of and concern for him. After receiving answers that penetrated to the core of his prior experiences (“Joseph had told him secrets of his life that he knew could not be known to any person but himself”), Oliver’s testimony became unshakable. This mirrors the process by which modern Saints are encouraged to “anchor” themselves—not in infallible certainty about every doctrine or event, but in a personal, living relationship with Jesus Christ.

This theology of continuing revelation sets the Church apart in significant ways. In an age where many feel disconnected from institutional religion, the invitation to seek personal guidance, reassurance, and direction is a potent antidote to alienation and doubt. It signals that God is not remote, arbitrary, or dismissive, but engaged, loving, and infinitely approachable.

The experience of Oliver Cowdery, as illuminated in Doctrine and Covenants 6, is not simply a footnote in Church history. It embodies the way The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints views revelation, faith, and the loving, omniscient nature of God. The Lord’s response to Oliver’s secret prayers and unspoken doubts offers a timeless model: honest questions are welcomed, and divine answers are tailored to individual needs.

The invitation remains open: approach God with sincere questions. Trust His awareness of your hidden fears and unspoken needs. In doing so, you may discover, as Oliver did, that divine reassurance is both possible and profoundly personal.

Gramps

Gramps,

In D&C 124:39, what does “…for your oracles in your most holy places wherein you receive conversations, and your statutes and judgments” mean?

Debbie

Answer

Debbie,

Thank you for such an insightful question. This appears to be an archaic usage of the word.  So, it meant something different to Americans of the 19th century than it does to us today.

The word “oracle” tends to conjure up images of the Oracle at Delphi.  And in today’s parlance, we tend to think of Apostles and such as “oracles.”  But that is not what is meant here.

The usage of the plural “oracles” indicates what we would call revelations today (the footnote in the current online scriptures points to Section 90).

4 Nevertheless, through you shall the oracles be given to another, yea, even unto the church.

 

5 And all they who receive the oracles of God, let them beware how they hold them lest they are accounted as a light thing, and are brought under condemnation thereby, and stumble and fall when the storms descend, and the winds blow, and the rains descend, and beat upon their house. (Doctrine & Covenants 90:4-5)

Notice that verse 4 indicates that these oracles can be given to another person other than Joseph.  So, these are not the people whom we call “oracles.”

Instead, Noah Webster defines oracles thusly:

Among christians, oracles, in the plural, denotes the communications, revelations or messages delivered by God to prophets. In this sense it is rarely used in the singular; but we say, the oracles of God, divine oracles, meaning the Scriptures.  (Oracle : Webster’s 1828 dictionary. Definition 4)

Some Bible verses also use it in this way:

This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us (Acts 7:38)

Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them [the Jews] were committed the oracles of God.  (Romans 3:2)

Therefore, it refers to the revealed word of God.   Notice that Moses received the oracles and gave them to the people.  But it is not limited to the scriptures they had at the time.

… for the beginning of the revelations and foundation of Zion… (Excerpt from D&C 124:39).

Thus, it also includes additional revelation. This will be both generally (through prophets) or individually (personal revelation).  And all this can be most easily attained through regular temple attendance.

  Gramps

Gramps,

We know Oliver Cowdery wrote the words of the Book of Mormon as Joseph Smith translated them. Who wrote down Christ’s words that were spoken to Joseph Smith in the Doctrine & Covenants?

Yvonne

Answer

Yvonne,

The establishment of systematic record-keeping within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was divinely mandated. In Doctrine and Covenants 21:1, the Lord commanded the Saints to maintain written records of their activities, underscoring the importance of preserving the Church’s history and revelations for future generations. This directive ensured that the spiritual and organizational developments of the Church were meticulously documented, providing a foundation for its growth and doctrinal consistency.

Oliver Cowdery, one of the earliest members and a close associate of Joseph Smith, initially assumed the responsibility of keeping these records. His dedication to this task was pivotal in the Church’s formative years. However, Cowdery’s missionary call soon diverted his focus, prompting the need for others to continue this essential work.

John Whitmer, another prominent early member, returned from his mission and was appointed by the Elders’ voice to maintain the Church record. His role was further solidified when Joseph Smith entrusted him with the responsibility of writing and preserving the Church’s history. Despite Whitmer’s initial reluctance—expressed through his humble declaration, “I would rather not do it”—his commitment to the Church’s mission prevailed, ensuring that the records continued to be diligently maintained.

The meticulous preservation of revelations extended beyond mere record-keeping to the very process by which these divine messages were captured. A notable example is the creation of the preface found in the Doctrine and Covenants. As documented in Doctrine & Covenants 1, Joseph Smith dictated the preface by the spirit while seated by a window, initiating a collaborative process with Sidney Rigdon.

Sidney Rigdon played a crucial role in transcribing Joseph Smith’s dictated revelations. The process was iterative and sacred: Joseph would deliver a few sentences, Rigdon would write them down, read them aloud, and upon Joseph’s confirmation of their accuracy, the process would continue. This method ensured that the written records faithfully reflected the divine inspiration Joseph Smith received, preserving the integrity and authenticity of the revelations.

This collaborative effort between Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon was instrumental in the creation of the Doctrine & Covenants. Rigdon’s obedience and attentiveness to Joseph’s dictation were vital in capturing the exact words spoken by Christ, thereby safeguarding the Church’s doctrinal foundations.

The dedication of early Church leaders like John Whitmer and Sidney Rigdon in preserving revelations and Church history has had a lasting impact on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Their commitment ensured that vital documents like the Doctrine & Covenants were accurately compiled and maintained, providing a continuous link between the Church’s inception and its current global presence.

Moreover, the establishment of a robust record-keeping system fostered transparency and accountability within the Church’s leadership and membership. It allowed for the accurate transmission of teachings, ordinances, and prophetic guidance, which are essential for the spiritual growth and unity of the Saints.

The early efforts in documentation also set a precedent for future generations, emphasizing the importance of preserving divine revelation and Church history. This legacy continues to influence the Church’s approach to record-keeping, ensuring that sacred teachings remain accessible and uncontaminated by time.

The preservation of Christ’s words in the Doctrine & Covenants stands as a testament to the unwavering dedication of early Church leaders like John Whitmer and Sidney Rigdon. Their collaborative efforts with Joseph Smith ensured that divine revelations were meticulously recorded, providing a cornerstone for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As the Church continues to grow and evolve, the foundational work of these early record-keepers remains a guiding light, exemplifying the importance of faithful documentation in sustaining religious heritage and doctrine.

Gramps

Gramps,

What is “watching for iniquity”, as described in Doctrine and Covenants section 45?

Parker

Answer

Dear Parker,

I could not find any official or direct interpretation of this phrase, but I think we can interpret it within the context of the section.  Doctrine & Covenants 45 is speaking of the last days and the signs of Christ’s Second Coming.  In this context, verses 43 and 44 talk about those who are looking for the Savior to come:

43 And the remnant shall be gathered unto this place;

 

44 And then they shall look for me, and, behold, I will come; and they shall see me in the clouds of heaven, clothed with power and great glory; with all the holy angels; and he that watches not for me shall be cut off.

At the end of 44 it mentions “he that watches not for” the Savior. From this, it’s clear that the meaning is “looking with anticipation” or “waiting for”.  Only six verses later, we have the phrase in question:

50 And calamity shall cover the mocker, and the scorner shall be consumed; and they that have watched for iniquity shall be hewn down and cast into the fire.

From this and the surrounding verses, it’s clear that the Lord is not pleased with the people who “watched for iniquity”.  When we compare it with the idea of watching for the Lord, it seems to me that this verse is speaking about those who were hoping for evil to triumph over those who are watching for the Lord.

Another interpretation could be those who “stood watch” or “stood guard” while iniquity was being committed – those who protected the works of iniquity.  While this seems far less likely to be the original intent (see below), I think it’s still a valid interpretation as these would be the same people either way.

I also found one reference in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 91, “Order in House of God Always the Same”:

Do not watch for iniquity in each other, if you do you will not get an endowment, for God will not bestow it on such.

Here, the prophet seems to be suggesting that if you are trying to discover other people’s sins – trying to find fault with them – you will not be worthy of receiving an endowment from God.  This would go hand in hand with the requirement to forgive one another and with the Savior’s teaching in the Sermon on the Mount about motes, beams, and hypocrisy.

And at another time, Joseph Smith said (Teachings: Joseph Smith, 522):

Do you think that even Jesus, if He were here, would be without fault in your eyes?  His enemies said all manner of evil against him—they all watched for iniquity in him.

Again, this suggests not just going out of your way to find fault in another, but doing so with malicious intent.  In the New Testament, those who were “watching for iniquity” in Christ were doing so hoping for an excuse to kill him.  Clearly, this is a hateful behavior.

Finally, this phrase can be found in Isaiah 29:20:

20 For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off:

And that allows us to go and look at how the phrase is rendered in other versions of the Bible: having “an eye for evil”, plotting to do evil, watching for opportunity to do evil, lie in wait to do evil, intent on doing evil, and loving to do wrong are all to be found in various translations.  If you know any languages other than English, it might be interesting to read these scriptures in other languages to see what insights they offer.

I hope this answers your question, Parker, and that all of us can seek the gift of charity, so that we might see others as Christ sees us, and treat one another with patience, mercy, and forgiveness.

Gramps

Gramps,

I read in D&C 50:42 “And none of them that my Father hath given me shall be lost.”  The cross references in the footnotes are verses that say a similar thing.  How does one become one of those that the Father gives to the Son?  Is there a way to know if we have made it on that list of those that have been given to the Son?

Whitney

Answer

Whitney,

This is a great doctrinal question which emphasizes the beauty of the atonement of Jesus Christ and the depth of our covenant relationship with Him.

Although there are dozens of scriptural references that explore this question, I think I want to answer this question mainly from the perspective of King Benjamin’s address to his people, found in Mosiah chapters 2-5.

Let’s first take a look at chapter 2, verses 17 and 19,where we learn that His name is the only name by which we can be saved, and that We need to put off the natural man and become a saint through the atonement of Jesus Christ:

17 And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent.

 

19 For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

I love how Mosiah 5:7 describes our covenant (remember King Benjamin’s people had experienced “a mighty change of heart” and taken upon themselves a covenant of obedience to all the commandments of God) relationship with Christ, and what it truly means, that we become His sons and daughters:

7 And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.

So as we enter the covenant path and let the Spirit work in us to change our hearts, we become born again, that is, our nature changes from that of the natural man or woman to become the man or woman of Christ, His sons and His daughters. In this way, we become Christ’s. But are we among those the Father has given to Christ? I say that we are! Because of the gift of agency, which is a gift from God the Father from before the foundations of the world, we get to choose our path.

Doctrine and Covenants 121:34-46 (which pertains not only to priesthood, but also to our walk with God—and is, but the way, one of the greatest “how-to” pieces anywhere on leadership) informs us that there are many called but few chosen, explains why people are not chosen, then gives instruction on how we become chosen. Being chosen is a matter of agency: we must choose to be chosen!

In 3 Nephi 15:24 the Savior tells the Nephites

“But behold, ye have both heard my voice, and seen me; and ye are my sheep, and ye are numbered among those whom the Father hath given me.”

We may not see the Savior at this time in the flesh as the Nephites did, but as we walk the covenant path and come to know His voice, and follow after Him, we get to be among those the Father has given Him.

Lastly, I want to refer to D&C 93:1, where the Lord describes exactly the path we need to be on to become His and to never be lost:

Verily, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my face and know that I am;

If we work to stay on the covenant path we truly become His, His sons and His daughters. Because we are His, He will support us in staying on that path.

Gramps

Gramps,

Can you explain what you think of Revelation 10? To me it sounds just like the Book of Mormon. Are there any other scriptures like this in the Bible?

Deyvson

Answer

Deyvson,

Revelation 10 deals with John’s prophetic calling to publicly minister. The Revelator has seen and heard some unspeakable things. Being an ever-faithful witness he records what he can, but exercises the strictest obedience in not recording what he shouldn’t (vs 4). Before proceeding with the rest of the vision, the angel instructs John to receive his mission and what he shall preach.

This method of commanding a prophet to eat the divine word serves as a symbol of internalization and gives hearers a hint of the nature of the message. Notably, this is best demonstrated by Ezekiel, the prophet of most influence in John’s apocalypse. The Old Testament seer was given a most frightful book, with writing running on both sides of “lamentation, and mourning, and woe” (Ezek 2:8-10, 3:1-3). Because it was the word of the Lord it was “in my mouth as honey for sweetness”, but as with any unsettling meal it “fill[ed his] bowels”. Those listening to Ezekiel would immediately know from this imagery that 1) Ezekiel is claiming a mandate from the Lord, and 2) it will not be a pleasant message.

Similarly, John eats a little book that is “sweet as honey” to taste but doesn’t settle well, giving him a bitter belly (10:9-10). This is John’s mission and message. Those reading the book of Revelation should now be cued that 1) John is claiming a mandate from the Lord, and 2) it will not be a pleasant message. The general context of the entire book is for the saints to flee from Babylon and then stand in holy places – something that will be quite uncomfortable for anyone who feels at home in Babylon. John is further told that he is to take this message to “many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings” (vs 11). And just as Ezekiel specifies that he is only sent to Israel, so also does Latter-day revelation confirms that John will similarly limit himself. Eating the book “was a mission, and an ordinance for him to gather the tribes of Israel” (D&C 77:14).

Since you mentioned the Book of Mormon, you will find that there is a similar pattern of prophets receiving their commission for heavenly messengers, and then receiving the text of their message to preach. We are first introduced to Lehi as he reads from a book in heaven, and he is then mocked specifically for “the things which he read in the book” (1 Nephi 1:8-14, 18-19). Similarly, this dispensation was kicked off with an angel bringing a book to Joseph Smith, which then became the message of the restoration.

Gramps

Gramps,

Will people that don’t hear about the Mormon Church in this life be given a pass on this life as long as they accept it in the next? In other words, are their sins forgiven them if they repent and accept the Gospel in the hereafter? I have heard people say this and it seems that if this is true the only people that will be accountable for this life are Mormons. Please enlighten me. Thanks.

L

Answer

Dear L.

Do you think that the people living in one room of a house would be responsible before the Lord while those in an adjoining would not be responsible, simply on the basis that they were in two different rooms? Mortality and the post mortal spirit world have a rather similar relationship to one another. Passing from mortality into the spirit world through the transition that we call death is very much like going from one room to another through a door. Let’s say that before going through the door from one room to another, you take off your coat and drop it on the floor. Leaving our physical bodies as we exit mortality is much the same as taking off one’s coat. In other words, when we leave mortality and enter the spirit world we still will be the same person that we have always been. We will have the same likes and dislikes; we will have the same passions and appetites.

As the environment in one room may be different from that in another, so will the environment in the spirit world be different from that in mortality, but we will still be the same person that we were before the transition of death. If we rejected the gospel on the earth, we will tend to reject it after death. If we would have accepted the gospel on the earth had the conditions been different, we could also accept it in the spirit world under different conditions

If we accept the gospel in mortality, fully repent of all our sins and are baptized by immersion for their remission by one having the requisite authority, those sins will be forgiven us and we will have entered into the Church and kingdom of God. If we accept the gospel in the spirit world and fully repent of all our sins, we are stopped in our progress at this point–the reason being that baptism is an ordinance that must be performed in mortality by submersion in water. The conditions in the spirit world are so different from the mortal world that such a baptism cannot be performed there. However, if a person in the spirit world is prepared to be baptized, the ordinance could be carried out by proxy by a mortal acting in his behalf. Then it would be as if he himself were baptized and he would be the beneficiary of the same blessings merited by those who are thus baptized in mortality. That is why Peter said what he said, as recorded in 1 Peter 4:6; and which was reiterated to the prophet Joseph F. Smith, as recorded in D&C 138:10—

For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

Gramps

Dear Gramps,

In D&C 8, the Lord gives Oliver Cowdery the power to translate the Gold Plates.  The Lord directs him four separate times in verses 1, 9, 10 and 11 to ask Him for the translation he needs.  In D&C 9, we find out that Oliver was perfectly obedient to these directions to ask, yet he failed and is chastened by the Lord because he did not “study it out in his mind”.  Why would the Lord tell him four times in section 8 to ask, and yet say nothing about studying it out in his mind?

Robert

Answer

Robert,

The answer to your question is found in Section 9:

5 And, behold, it is because that you did not continue as you commenced, when you began to translate, that I have taken away this privilege from you.

Now it seems very likely that before Oliver Cowdery asked for permission, he did ponder it and study it.  When he asked, the Lord gave him the missing pieces; permission and instructions to ask in faith.

Apparently Oliver, like many of us focused on the new stuff and neglected the actions and behaviors that got him there in the first place.  This can be an all too common failing.

Of course God, being God, knew that this would happen, so why didn’t He intervene to correct it?  That is simply another form of the question of ‘Why does God not stop bad things from happening?’  We simply have to have faith that God knows what He is doing, and what He is doing is for the best.

That leaves us with speculation.  In this case I would speculate that God did not need Oliver to translate (Joseph was called for that), but he did need to teach Oliver how to receive answers from God.  Now, God is a master teacher, and I know that sometimes I learn the most from my failures, and not necessarily as much from my successes.  Maybe that is what Oliver needed in order to to learn?

Also Oliver was a School Master by trade who shouldn’t have needed to be advised that some measure of intellectual rigor would be necessary to undertake the work of translation. Hence the absence of any “study-it-out-in-your-mind” injunction in D&C 8.  It’s what I perceive to be a general, gentle tone of “you-should-have-known-better.” In D&C 9 it becomes clear that whatever process Oliver used lacked any real intellectual effort on his part.

I do know that because of Oliver’s request and struggles we have Doctrine and Covenants sections 8 and 9.  This allows all of us who read and ponder the words and instructions to also learn the lessons that God was teaching Oliver.  How many hundreds or thousands of people have also been taught because of these events?  While my thoughts are speculative, it is not really that hard for me to think of some very good reasons that God might have had to let this happen.

Anyway, for those interested, the Church has posted an article covering the events in question here.  You can read here.

Gramps

Gramps,

The scripture found in D&C 13:1 says,

1 Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.

What is this scripture talking about?

Scott

Answer

Scott,

This is a great question because, in this single sentence, there are multiple, fascinating items of great doctrinal significance. The restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood took place on 15 May 1829. Oliver Cowdery related that, immediately before this time, Joseph and he completed the translation and transcription of the Savior’s appearance to the Nephites. If you will recall, there was a moment in that narrative when the Lord of Glory called Nephi forward and gave him authority to baptize believers into the Church. Cowdery related how this prompted them to consider their own standing before God, once it occurred to them that the authority to baptize might not be upon the earth. Oliver wrote:

 “After writing the account given of the Savior’s ministry to the remnant of the seed of Jacob, upon this continent, it was easy to be seen, as the prophet said it would be, that darkness covered the earth and gross darkness the minds of the people. On reflecting further it was as easy to be seen that amid the great strife and noise concerning religion, none had authority from God to administer the ordinances of the Gospel. For the question might be asked, have men authority to administer in the name of Christ, who deny revelations, when His testimony is no less than the spirit of prophecy, and His religion based, built, and sustained by immediate revelations, in all ages of the world when He has had a people on earth? If these facts were buried, and carefully concealed by men whose craft would have been in danger if once permitted to shine in the faces of men, they were no longer to us; and we only waited for the commandment to be given ‘Arise and be baptized’ (Joseph Smith—History).

Oliver gives a vivid description of the encounter with John the Baptist.

This was not long desired before it was realized. The Lord, who is rich in mercy, and ever willing to answer the consistent prayer of the humble, after we had called upon Him in a fervent manner, aside from the abodes of men, condescended to manifest to us His will. On a sudden, as from the midst of eternity, the voice of the Redeemer spake peace to us, while the veil was parted and the angel of God came down clothed with glory, and delivered the anxiously looked for message, and the keys of the Gospel of repentance. What joy! what wonder! what amazement! (Joseph Smith-History).

When we learn about the restoration of the priesthood, our Sunday School and seminary teachers don’t usually mention the fact that the Lord spoke to Joseph and Oliver at this moment, but Oliver related that the “voice of the Redeemer spake peace to us.” The heading for Section 13 also tells us that John claimed that he was acting under the direction of Peter, James, and John. To me, these details outline the way the order of the priesthood operates. The apostleship operates under keys given by the Savior and directs the work of salvation. The Melchizedek Priesthood holds the rights of presidency and directs the Aaronic Priesthood as an appendage to its mission. Joseph and Oliver’s experience is a lesson in the administration of heaven in this regard.

Oliver mentions that John the Baptist restored the “keys of the gospel of repentance.” After they were ordained by the heavenly messenger, Joseph and Oliver were sent to baptize one another for the remission of sins. It is interesting to note that they were not ordained to an office in the Aaronic Priesthood; the priesthood only was conferred upon them. This is because the offices of the Aaronic Priesthood are office of the Church, which would not be restored until April of the following year. There was no Church yet in which they could hold a priesthood office.

Along with the keys of the gospel of the remission of sins was included a special spiritual gift: the ministering of angels. Many saints have wondered why this marvelous gift is given to the Aaronic Priesthood expressly, but is not mentioned as part of the Melchizedek Priesthood. This is necessary for the protection of gospel ministers who act without the benefit of the greater priesthood’s authority. D&C 107:18-20 teaches us:

 18 The power and authority of the higher, or Melchizedek Priesthood, is to hold the keys of all the spiritual blessings of the church–

 

19 To have the privilege of receiving the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, to have the heavens opened unto them, to commune with the general assembly and church of the Firstborn, and to enjoy the communion and presence of God the Father, and Jesus the mediator of the new covenant.

 

20 The power and authority of the lesser, or Aaronic Priesthood, is to hold the keys of the ministering of angels, and to administer in outward ordinances, the letter of the gospel, the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, agreeable to the covenants and commandments.

Aaronic Priesthood holders may rely upon angelic ministrants to protect them as they preach the gospel. In the 19^th century, it was common for priests to travel on missions, usually (but not always) in the company of Elders. Doctrine and Covenants Section 128, verse 20 relates that Michael, the archangel, appeared as a ministering angel on the banks of the Susquehanna River and detected Satan, who apparently appeared as an angel of light and tried to deceive Joseph and Oliver. We have no other official record of this event, but it mentions in the sequence of various visions and appearances, the appearance of Peter, James, and John immediately after this reference. If the reader desires more information on the circumstances of the restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood, the following Ensign article contains some additional, fascinating information:

The Restoration of the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods

Finally, the words of John the Baptist leave us with an enticing question. What does he mean when he says the priesthood will not be taken from the earth until the sons of Levi offer an offering in righteousness? We immediately think of Aaronic Priesthood offerings in John’s time, which would have involved animal sacrifices. We wonder, will the Aaronic Priesthood eventually be taken from the earth? If animal sacrifice ended with the shedding of the Savior’s blood which it symbolized, what will the offering be?

In the Bible, the sons of Levi included Moses and his brother, Aaron.  D&C 84:31 and 34 tell us that the modern sons of Levi are those who hold the Melchizedek and Aaronic Priesthoods. What is the offering they will offer? Joseph Smith answers this question in D&C 128:24,

 … [A]nd he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness. Let us, therefore, as a church and a people, and as Latter-day Saints, offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness; and let us present in his holy temple, when it is finished, a book containing the records of our dead, which shall be worthy of all acceptation.

The vast genealogical work of the Church, under the direction of the Priesthood, is the book containing the records of our dead, to be presented to the Lord as an offering when He returns. If this work was not underway when He returns, the earth would be smitten with a curse (See Malachi 4:6). This work will continue throughout the Millennium, thus the work of the Aaronic Priesthood will continue right up until the end of the thousand years, when its mission will be fulfilled as a preparatory priesthood and a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ (D&C 84:26,Galatians 3:24).

In a single short verse of scripture, a marvelous outpouring of light from an angelic messenger connects us to many other brilliant facets of gospel truth from the restoration.

Gramps

Gramps,

I have a special needs daughter and would like to know if she should receive her endowments? She has the mental and emotional level between 4 and 8 years old. She was baptized at 8 years old. She is now 22 years old.

James

Answer

James,

As a loving father I am sure this question is important to you and your family. The Church provides the following information regarding children or adults who have intellectual disabilities. Priesthood leaders and parents should consider their wishes/desires to receive any saving ordinance. Priesthood leaders and parents should also consider if the adult is worthy. Are they personally desiring the ordinance?  Do they truly understand the responsibility and accountability of the ordinance and covenant they will receive?

As priesthood leaders and parents ponder this possibility, they should also remember that children/adults who do not have the intellectual capacity to comprehend the responsibility and accountability of these covenants they are not required to receive any temple ordinances. They would be found within the predicated law as described in this scripture D&C 29:46-50; as such, they “are redeemed from the foundation of the world through mine Only Begotten.”

In light of the previous statements, speak with your priesthood leaders. Discuss with them your desires. Allow your bishop (under guidance with the stake president) to determine whether or not your daughter would need temple ordinances.

Gramps