Truth Never Changes Volume 12, Number 4

TRUTH NEVER CHANGES

A PUBLICATION IN THE SPIRIT AND TRADITON OF TRUTH MAGAZINE

Y VOLUME 12    OCTOBER  2009   NUMBER 04 Y

PLURAL MARRIAGE
AFTER THE MANIFESTO
Rulon C. Allred, 08/01/1970, Salt Lake City, Utah, Fireside
PART I

RCA: There is an editorial in which Professor Wolfe of the BYU, a devout Mormon, took time out to visit the colonies in old Mexico.  This appeared in the months of June or July in 1901, in the Salt Lake Tribune.  When he got into old Mexico, he was astounded to find that all of the leading elders of the Church at Juarez and Dublan, Casas Grande, had entered into polygamy.  He talked to some of his friends and relatives there, and the women who were there told him that they had no intention of marrying a man unless he would live the fullness of the gospel, unless he entered into polygamy.

“But,” he said, “what of the covenant the Church has made with the government?”  “Well, we can’t answer that for you.  You’d better go to the president of the Church or some of the apostles.”  Having visited with them for about a week, he returned home.  He met with John Henry Smith and explained what he found in old Mexico, and asked John Henry Smith about it.  John Henry Smith said, according to the Tribune report, “Why Brother Wolfe, don’t you understand the situation?  The Manifesto was only a ruse to beat the devil at his own game.  That’s an eternal principle.  It can’t be stopped.”  And then the Tribune comments: “Maybe polygamy can’t be stopped, but it stopped Brother Wolfe.  He apostatized.”

IN THIS ISSUE: PLURAL MARRIAGE AFTER THE MANIFESTO………………………………………...65 A SKETCH OF THE LIFE OF ISAAC MORLEY…………………………………………….71 THE FALSE GODS WE WORSHIP……………...73 EDITORIAL………………………………………….78

Q: Was he the one who gave the temple ceremony to the Tribune later?

RCA: Yes, I think so.  These things will be published.  Very carefully, we are gathering them.  The testimony concerning these things is so positive, so much evidence to sustain it.  We look back over the history of the world, and we find that as early as Isaiah, recorded in Chapter 28, in Daniel, Chapter 2, speaking of the latter days when the gospel would again be preached and the stone should be cut out of the mountain without hands and roll forth until it filled the whole earth.  Daniel says that out of the nations that would come forth from the ten nations, from the Roman kingdom, and one other nation would come that would be represented by an eagle shadowing with wings (US), and that it would be a short, stout horn diverse from others, proud in its speech and its conduct toward God and man, that it would make war with the Saints and prevail against them.  Isaiah in Chapter 28 said that Ephraim would be proud in the heads of the fat valleys, that they would make a covenant with death and an agreement with hell, that the bed they would lie on would be too short to lie on, and that the covering that they had over them, too narrow, that they would make lies their refuge and under falsehood and pretext would they hide themselves.

And the manifesto was the direct result of the devil making war with the Saints, using the United States Government as its instrument, as prophesied by Daniel and Isaiah, overcoming them as predicted by the ancient prophets, an agreement being made with the government that Ephraim would not intend nor attempt to keep, that they would do this on the basis that it was the only course they could pursue in order to keep the temples open and possess the temple and have their offices and buildings and temples and their tithes and their cattle and everything that had been seized by the government returned to them, and that they could do their work for their dead and the living in the temples.  “Because,” said Wilford Woodruff in his Logan address, “if we hadn’t done this, they would have stopped the principle anyway and taken everything they had away from them.  Why not make the agreement with the government and keep our temples open, get our temples back, get our tithing back, get our cattle and our goods back, and continue the work of the Lord?  It’s not a question I am asking you—which is better, to do what we have done, or to have all of this work stop?”  Then he said it wasn’t going to stop; it was going to go on.  Well, all of this work certainly included plural marriage.  As for evidence for the fact, a day or two after President Woodruff signed the Manifesto, he set Anthony W. Ivins apart to go into Mexico and perform marriages.  The agreement with the government was simply a means of preserving the Church, and it was foreshadowed by the revelation of 1886, when the Lord said, “Have I not borne with my Saints because of their weaknesses and because of the perilous times?  Have I not given my word in great plainness upon the subject to my servant Joseph?  I have not revoked this law, nor will I.  But all those who would enter into the fullness of my glory must and shall abide the conditions thereof, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord.  Nevertheless, it is my will that they should use their free agency regarding these matters.”

So there was not going to be any more pressure from the Church, there was not going to be any more sustaining hand from the Church.  They were going to have a stand on their own feet.  Shortly after that, President Joseph F. Smith said, “The time has come when no man can put his responsibility as to whether or not he keeps the commandments of God upon the First Presidency of the Church.  Every man must stand on his own feet as a tub sits upon its own bottom.”

Q:  From this 1886 revelation, the Church itself quit pushing plural marriage as such, and the Manifesto itself was never an issue, is that not correct?

RCA: The Manifesto came only because the press demanded a statement to the public on the matter.  They demanded a public statement from the Church.  Official marriages with the Church’s sanction ceased in 1887, not in 1890.

Q: How come Wilford Woodruff said it was a revelation from God?

RCA: He didn’t.  It is construed that he said it was a revelation.  In his Logan address he didn’t say that.  He said, “I didn’t do what I did until I knew that this was the thing the Lord required at my hands.  I was asked to present to the Saints at Brigham City, and I am presenting the same question to you here: What is best, for me to have signed this document and preserved our temples and our ordinance work, or to have refused to sign it and continued the prosecutions which in themselves would have stopped the practice?”

COMMENT: There are two statements, one in the Salt Lake Temple and in the Logan Temple, and they are almost identical.  But the problem is when people get deciding what Wilford Woodruff meant instead of taking what he said as he said it.  They decide what he meant.

RCA: He didn’t say the Manifesto was a revelation, never at any time.  In fact, in the Reed Smoot Investigation, President Joseph F. Smith talking, President Lorenzo Snow in his Petition for Amnesty, all of the leaders of the Church, said it wasn’t a revelation.

Q: Then how come President Joseph F. Smith said no one inside or outside the Church had the authority to seal plural marriages?

RCA: I’m going to tell you how it came.  The pressure in 1911 was so hard on the Church again and was continuing, and the government was pressing them so hard, that an official statement was demanded again from the authorities.  So President Smith called up the president of the  temple at Logan where they were performing sealings and had continued to perform them—and this will give you the data to prove it—and he said, “I am going to have to make an official statement.  I am asking you and telling you, don’t perform any more sealings until after I have made this statement.”  He contacted every man who had that authority and said, “I am withdrawing, for the time being, your right to perform any of these sealings in plural marriages.  No man in the Church or outside of the Church, until this official statement is made, shall do anything about it.”  And then just the same as he could have told them they could not, he could have told them afterward they could.  And he did.  And it is the absolute truth.

Now, I know that this is true, because Joseph W. Musser, Nathan Clark and Bishop A. K. Kean were set apart in 1909, by President Joseph F. Smith, to perform sealings and keep that principle alive, and that right was withdrawn from them during that time.

Q: Your right to perform plural sealings can be taken from you by the president of the Church?

RCA: If he wanted me to cooperate with him, and he came to me and said, “Brother Allred, I am going to have to take an official position for the sake of the Church.  Will you please not perform any sealings during this time until I give you the go-ahead again,” I would be glad to cooperate.

COMMENT: Then he could say no one had the authority to perform any sealings for, say, 24 hours.

RCA: Twenty-four hours or two or three weeks.  The truth of the matter is that this same situation presented itself during the time of President John Taylor.  We have President John Taylor stating that he had authorized no plural marriages during the time of his presidency.

COMMENT: And that was before Wilford Woodruff and even before the Manifesto.

RCA: And even before the 1886 revelation.  Now, how do you get away from something like that?  President John Taylor, if you go into it, answered it himself.  Senator Hollister, a very eminent lawyer, was sent from Washington D. C., to see what he could do to get plural marriage stopped among the Mormons in the year 1885.  He talked to President Taylor.  He asked President Taylor if he was performing plural marriages.  “No.”  “Well are you performing plural marriages in your temples?”  “No.”  “Well, I thought that was the only place you could perform plural marriages.”  He said, “No, it’s the power of the Priesthood that sanctifies an ordinance, not the place.”  “Well, are there other people who have authority to perform plural marriages?”  “Yes.”  “Where did they receive their authority.”  “From me.”  “Would you please be so kind as to give me their names?”  “I would not be so kind as to give you their  names.”  “Well how many are there set apart by you to perform plural marriages?”  “Oh, a hundred or more.”  “Do they perform them just any old place?”  “Oh, in their private offices, in the groves, or wherever it is best; they can perform them anywhere.”  “Would you give us the records of your temples to prove to us that you are telling the truth that there are no plural marriages performed in your temples?”  “I would not.”

So officially, John Taylor wasn’t performing any plural marriages during his presidency.  He was president of the Church.  He safeguarded the Church by not doing it.  He authorized others to do it, and said so.  Oh yes, and he said, “Don’t they have to tell you when they perform these plural marriages so you know about it?”  “No, I make it my business not to know.”  Now, this is President John Taylor.  And if you are going to take history that far back, you’d have to say that plural marriages has stopped long before the Manifesto.

Angus Cannon, in his being questioned before the Senate Investigation Committee, was asked, “You have performed plural marriages haven’t you?”  “Yes.”  “Are you performing plural marriages now?”  “No.”  “You refuse to do this as an officer of the Church?”  “Because I went to John Taylor and he told me not to perform them.”  This is 1887 again.

COMMENT: So in reality the thing that most people are standing on is the Manifesto, and the Manifesto changed nothing; the change had already taken place.

RCA: Three years before.

COMMENT: I want this point specifically looked at, because everybody stands on the Manifesto, and it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

RCA: It was only an official representation of the Church’s position.

Q: But then you take all the presidents after the Manifesto and they say that plural marriage is not to be lived now.

RCA: Yes, as far as the Church was concerned.  The Church could not give its sanction.  The Church had made a covenant with the government—an agreement with hell.  It made that covenant and it intended to keep it.  And they did keep it.  But the Church didn’t practice polygamy in 1832 or in 1836 or 1843 or 1852, but it was being lived.  The Church never accepted the principle of plural marriage by uplifted hand.  They never did.  It was simply presented to them in 1852—you can live it if you want to; you don’t have to live it if you don’t want to.  It was a law of the Priesthood.  But as members of the Priesthood, independent of the Church, every leader of the Church, including President Joseph Fielding Smith and Heber J. Grant, lived the law.

COMMENT: If the Church was never given the privilege as a church of accepting this law, then rejecting it didn’t change anything they never actually accepted.

RCA: It didn’t change anything at all.

Q: And you can’t find anywhere where they accepted it with uplifted hand; it was merely stated…

RCA: They rejected it with uplifted hand.  But they didn’t accept it.  It was simply presented to them in a special conference in 1852, and they were told if they didn’t live it, they would be damned.  They couldn’t enter into the fullness of celestial glory.  They listened to the discourses, and that’s all.  And from that time it was allowed in the Church, if they would accept it.  But in 1890, the Church said, “We don’t want it.”  So it simply reverted back to its former position where the Church had nothing to do with it.  And the Priesthood carried it on.  It had been in that position, and it shall remain in that position, because that’s the position it must occupy.  Let’s take Section 131 of the Doctrine and Covenants:

“In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood, meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage; And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.  He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.”

COMMENT: They say they don’t have to live it now, they can live it during the Millennium.

RCA: You don’t have to live baptism now.  You can live it in the Millennium too.  But you will be in the terrestrial glory.

COMMENT: How can you be resurrected to the degree you desire if you haven’t lived the law in order to be resurrected to that degree?

RCA: Nobody has to live it.  Nobody has to be baptized.  Nobody has to have hands laid upon himself for the gift of the Holy Ghost.  Nobody has to hold the Priesthood.  Nobody has to.  But if you want the blessings predicated upon obedience to the law, you have to live the law.

COMMENT: Some take the stand that the law was restored, it was lived, that’s all that was required.

RCA:no, you don’t have to live it, but you won’t get the blessings unless you do.  Where do you get the promise of the blessing?  The Lord said in the 82^nd Section, speaking of this subject, “I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.”  Now, the Lord God Himself made that statement to President John Taylor.  “All those who would enter into the fullness of my glory must and shall abide this law or they shall be damned, saith the Lord.”  Now, in Section 132, in answer to a question of the Prophet, you find the Lord saying, “I will answer thee as pertaining to thy question as to why my servants Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and others of my servants the prophets had many wives and concubines.  Wherefore prepare your heart for that which I am about to reveal unto you.  For no one can have this law revealed unto them and refuse it and enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord God.”

Q: Well can’t a person be good enough without living this law to be resurrected into the celestial kingdom?

RCA: There is a law irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of the earth were laid, upon which all blessings are predicated.  And when you receive any blessing it is by obedience to that law upon which that blessing is predicated.

COMMENT: Here’s where my stickler comes.  The Lord has the power to revoke or reveal any time He wants to, saying this is not to be lived now because of the Manifesto.  Therefore if we live it now we are disobeying the Father and we will be damned.

RCA: Yes, but how are you going to reconcile the fact that the Manifesto is a revelation when you have at least four of the presidents of the Church who said it isn’t?

COMMENT: Read page 383 of the Most Holy Principle, which answers that.

RCA: And let me ask you another question.  If you’re going to live the law in the Millennium and you’re living now, then you haven’t lived it in this life, and the only glory you can come to is one of the lesser degrees of glory in the celestial kingdom or the terrestrial kingdom.  And speaking of that subject, the Lord says in verse 17 of Section 132, “All those who do not enter into this law which was instituted by me and my Father before the foundations of this world shall be ministering servants to those who are worthy of a far more and exceeding and eternal weight of glory.  And they shall remain separate and single in their saved condition forever and ever.”  Now, I didn’t make that up; it’s right in the Doctrine and Covenants.

COMMENT: Wouldn’t it be correct to assume then, that if this principle is not to be lived today, and the 132^nd Section of the Doctrine and Covenants is a commandment or be damned, that if we cannot live it today, then the 132 Section ought to be taken out and the monogamist section put back in?

RCA: Yes, it should be taken out, because we have rejected it and it should no longer be a part of the law.  Now let’s come back to George Q. Cannon in 1883, speaking upon this subject.

He said, “If the Church in conference assembled, with uplifted hand, reject this law, the Priesthood will be withdrawn from them, the heavens will withdraw themselves, the Spirit of the Lord will be grieved and they can no longer have that portion of the Priesthood which will give them endless lives.”  He goes on to say that if peradventure the Church does not take this stand, then they will have a law of carnal commandments similar to ancient Israel, which will give them sufficient of the Priesthood to bear off the kingdom triumphant, but which will not give them endless lives.  Now if the Manifesto is a revelation, then we are like ancient Israel.  If we obey it, we cannot have eternal increase, we can’t have endless lives, we cannot be Gods.

COMMENT: We might as well be wiped off the earth.

RCA: We might as well.

COMMENT: It has happened before.

RCA: The singular thing about this whole thing is that the prophets predicted in ancient times that this was going to take place.  They said if we do not revere the law given to us by our Moses, as ancient Israel had not revered the law given to them by their Moses, then we, like ancient Israel, would be given a law of carnal commandments that would not give us endless lives.

Now, if the Manifesto was the word of God, we are like ancient Israel—rejected of God, wandering in the wilderness.  And I do not believe that because God said, “I have restored the gospel and its powers and its Priesthood, never to be taken from the earth again.”  And He also says that He would not give all of the law to us in this day until we had perfected ourselves and become like the brother of Jared, that we had sufficient faith that all of these things could be made known to us.  So we are approaching a time when the sealed portions of the Book of Mormon are to be given to us by revelation, by a prophet of God who will translate them and give them to us.  And why is he going to give them?  Because we are living the fullness of the law.  “And again, saith the Lord, I will not redeem Zion, for it cannot be redeemed except by those who live the law of the celestial kingdom.”  So we can’t even redeem Zion, if the Manifesto is a revelation!

COMMENT: The early prophets did say, as you said, that Christ cannot come until these laws are lived.

COMMENT: Well, they say we have more time.

RCA: We have always said that.  Ancient Israel did.  It is the nature and disposition of human beings to say God does not require that of us now.

When Israel was in bondage, it is recorded in the Bible that all Israel bowed down before the golden image, except Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego and Daniel.  All Israel bowed down.  And John Taylor, in speaking of this said, “All Israel today will not bow down to the golden image, which is monogamy.”  There are those of us who will remain true, no matter what comes.

But most of Israel has bowed to it, and it is only a repeat, because God Himself predicted that this would happen to the Church in our day, that we would go astray, that we would fall short of our glory and our exaltation.  Let me quote Daniel.  He said, “Many of those who have been made white shall be led astray and shall fall by the way at that time.”  Let’s take the Book of Mormon, 2^nd Nephi 28: “And at that day they shall say, All is well in Zion; Yea Zion prospereth, all is well.  And thus shall the devil carefully, as with a flaxen cord, lead them down to hell.”

“Oh, you who have received the gospel, is it not better to obey the revelations of God than to deny them that you may receive the praise of the world and the honor of men?”  All is not well in Zion.  In the 8^th chapter of the Book of Mormon, “Oh ye pollutions, ye hypocrites, why have ye polluted the holy Church of God?  Why have you rejected the revelations of God?  Why do you prefer the wickedness of the world and that misery?”  The Book of Mormon said all Israel will reject Christ when He comes.  {To be continued}  (Rulon Clark Allred, Treasures of Knowledge, Volume One, pp. 49-56)

A SKETCH
OF THE LIFE OF MY FATHER

ISAAC MORLEY, 
ONE OF THE PIONEERS TO SALT LAKE VALLEY IN 1848

               

Isaac Morley was born in Montague, Massachusetts, March 11, 1784 [?].  He lived there until 1812.  He married a girl by the name of Lucy Gunn and moved to Kirtland, Ohio.  In 1830, the Church of [Jesus] Christ of Latter-day Saints was introduced in Kirtland, Ohio.  In the winter, Joseph Smith and wife came to Father Morley's and lived in his family through the winter.

                A branch of the Church was organized there, meetings held there, and many of the people were baptized.  A frame house was built on Father Morley's lot for Joseph Smith's family to live in.

                In 1831, he was called to go to Jackson County, Missouri to find a location for the Mormon people to settle.  A nice place was found near the town of Independence, Missouri.  They sent back to Ohio for their family and in a short time a settlement was made.  The people of the county began to threaten the settlers and to warn them to leave.  They continued building and soon had a flourishing town commenced.  This enraged the inhabitants of that county and they began to threaten to drive them out.  They said they would kill men, women and children if they did not leave the county.  Father Morley with others were taken prisoners and put into jail.  He was kept there overnight.

In the morning he had a trial and was sentenced to be shot on the public square at eight o'clock for treason.  God willed it otherwise and his life was spared.

                There was no peace or safety to be found there. The Mormon people began to leave their home.  Father Morley had raised a good garden.  His vegetables with thirty bushels of potatoes were buried in the ground.  His house was not finished and his family was in poor circumstances.  We left our home with one team and wagon to take his family, eight in number, and started to find another home.  We went into Clay County, Missouri and settled on a piece of low, swampy land.  Soon his family was taken down with chills and fever; the family was all sick with not well ones enough to take care of those that were sick.  In this condition Father Morley was called on a mission to the Eastern States.

                He went from his home to Ohio and from there to Massachusetts.  The place where the family was left was so sickly, the family abandoned it and moved to another place and rented a farm.  Father Morley filled his mission and returned home to his family once more.  The mob commenced threatening to drive the people again from their homes.  Father Morley was in poor circumstances.  He left all and went this time into Caldwell County, Missouri.  A good home was built there, a farm was cleared, and the family comfortably situated again.  In the town of Far West were many happy homes, but it did not last long. In a short time the mob began to threaten the people again and peace was taken from them.  It was trouble and vexation all the while.

                One day about five hundred men came riding into Far West with their guns, their bayonets upon their shoulders, calling themselves militia.  They rode to the public square. The men were called together and there forced to give up their arms and ammunition.  Forty-five men were taken prisoner and driven to Richmond, Missouri by a strong guard on horseback, through the mud and water like so many hogs driven to slaughter.  Father Morley asked permission to see his family once more.  Two armed men came with him to his home.  He came to tell us that he was a prisoner and had to go to Richmond to jail.  Amidst the cries and pleadings of his children, he was ordered to go; his time was up.  The prisoners were put into an old frame building and guarded day and night.  Father Morley had an Indian blanket.

This he would lay down upon the floor; a part of it was his bed and the rest of the blanket was thrown over him for a covering.  His boots were his pillows; his food was cornbread to eat and cold water to drink.  In this condition he remained for three weeks.  He had his trial; they couldn't find anything against him so they turned him loose to return back to Far West the best he could.

                The people begged for peace, but there was none for them and they were driven again.  They went from Far West, Missouri to Hancock County, Illinois.  Father Morley pitched his tent in the backwoods.  This was his home and all the one he had for his family.  It was a cold winter.  The snow was falling fast and there was but little to eat and scanty clothes to wear.  The body of a log house had been built on the land for a claim.

This Father Morley bought.  He covered the house, built a chimney, then the family moved in without a door, windows or floor in the house.  The next summer an addition was built onto the house and we were comfortably situated again.  In a few years it became a large settlement.  It was organized.  Father Morley was president and Walter Cox and Edwin Whiting were his counselors.  It was a fine country.  The town was called Yelrom (Morley spelled backwards).

                When all was prospering, hostility began again.  The mob came upon us and drove off the stock, burned their houses, and stacks of grain, and left but little for the people to subsist upon and they were driven again.  This time, Father Morley moved into Nauvoo, rented a house, and lived there through the winter.

In the year 1846 he started west and traveled as far as Pisgah [Morley remained at Mount Pisgah from May 18, 1846 to June 2, and wintered at Winter Quarters in 1846-1847] where he stopped and stayed one year.  From there he went to the Missouri River, a place the Saints called Winter Quarters, called now Florence.

Here mother died, January 3, 1847.  The journey had been very hard for her and for the want of proper food and comforts of life, she died and was buried with three of her grandchildren under the ground where now the city of Florence is built and no trace of her grave is to be found.

                In 1848 he crossed the plains and came to Salt Lake Valley to find him a home somewhere there.  In the spring of 1849, President Young called Father Morley, Nelson Higgins, Charles Shumway as commanders to go south to find a place for a colony to settle.  They started with Chief Walker [?] for a guide.

They entered Sanpete Valley and reached the present site of Manti, August 20, 1849.  A company of about 10 [?] families came in.  Some pitched their tents, some lived in dugouts, others in their wagon boxes through the winter.  The snow was very deep.

It took the men and boys to shovel the snow in winnows to bare the grass for food for the starving cattle.  When it began to be warm weather, the people were startled by the hissing of rattlesnakes that would crawl into their boxes, beds and cupboards and everywhere in their homes.

                In August, 1850, President Young visited the colony and called the town Manti, in honor of one of the cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon.  The county was called Sanpete after an Indian tribe that inhabited this section of country.  In a short time the Indians became hostile and commenced raiding the valley.  The Indians were driving off the cattle and horses and often the news would come of some man being killed.  The men were obliged to stand guard night and day.  It was heard by the people that President Young thought it too much for so old a man as Father Morley, so he called him back to Salt Lake and furnished him a house to live in.

                He lived there two or three years, then moved to Santaquin, Summit County.  There he lived a year or so and then came to Fairview, where a home was built for him there.  He was ordained a patriarch in the Church and for many years traveled, visiting the Saints and hundreds received their patriarchal blessing from under his hands.  In traveling as he did, he took a severe cold and rheumatics set in and he was almost helpless for ten months.  He died in Fairview, June 24, 1865.  His body was brought to Manti and buried in the cemetery beneath the shadow of the glorious temple.  Sweet rest to thee, my earthly father, sweet rest until the morning of the resurrection, to come forth and receive a just reward for all thy toils. . . . (Source:  Cordelia Morley Cox, Biography of Isaac Morley,  holograph, BYU.)

First Presidency Message

The False Gods We Worship

By President Spencer W. Kimball

Spencer W. Kimball, “The False Gods We Worship,” Ensign, June 1976, 3

I have heard that the sense most closely associated with memory is the sense of smell. If this is true, then perhaps it explains the many pleasing feelings that overtake me these mornings when I am able to step outdoors for a few moments and breathe in the warm and comfortable aromas that I have come to associate over the years with the soil and vegetation of this good earth.

Now and then, when the moment is right, some particular scent—perhaps only the green grass, or the smell of sage brought from a distance by a breeze—will take me back to the days of my youth in Arizona. It was an arid country, yet it was fruitful under the hands of determined laborers.

We worked with the land and the cattle in all kinds of weather, and when we traveled it was on horseback or in open wagons or carriages, mostly. I used to run like the wind with my brothers and sisters through the orchards, down the dusty lanes, past rows of corn, red tomatoes, onions, squash. Because of this, I suppose it is natural to think that in those days we were closer to elemental life.

Some time ago I chanced to walk outdoors when the dark and massive clouds of an early afternoon thunderstorm were gathering; and as the large raindrops began to drum the dusty soil with increasing rapidity, I recalled the occasional summer afternoons when I was a boy when the tremendous thunderheads would gather over the hills and bring welcome rain to the thirsty soil of the valley floor. We children would run for the shed, and while the lightning danced about we would sit and watch, transfixed, marveling at the ever-increasing power of the pounding rainfall. Afterward, the air would be clean and cool and filled with the sweet smells of the soil, the trees, and the plants of the garden.

There were evenings those many years ago, at about sunset, when I would walk in with the cows. Stopping by a tired old fence post, I would sometimes just stand silently in the mellow light and the fragrance of sunflowers and ask myself, “If you were going to create a world, what would it be like?” Now with a little thought the answer seems so natural: “Just like this one.”

So on this day while I stood watching the thunderstorm, I felt—and I feel now—that this is a marvelous earth on which we find ourselves: and when I thought of our preparations for the United States Bicentennial celebration I felt a deep gratitude to the Lord for the choice land and the people and institutions of America. There is much that is good in this land, and much to love.

Nevertheless, on this occasion of so many pleasant memories another impression assailed my thoughts. The dark and threatening clouds that hung so low over the valley seemed to force my mind back to a theme that the Brethren have concerned themselves with for many years now—indeed a theme that has often occupied the attention of the Lord’s chosen prophets since the world began. I am speaking of the general state of wickedness in which we seem to find the world in these perilous yet crucially momentous days; and thinking of this, I am reminded of the general principle that where much is given, much is expected. (See Luke 12:48.)

The Lord gave us a choice world and expects righteousness and obedience to his commandments in return. But when I review the performance of this people in comparison with what is expected, I am appalled and frightened. Iniquity seems to abound. The Destroyer seems to be taking full advantage of the time remaining to him in this, the great day of his power. Evil seems about to engulf us like a great wave, and we feel that truly we are living in conditions similar to those in the days of Noah before the Flood.

I have traveled much in various assignments over the years, and when I pass through the lovely countryside or fly over the vast and beautiful expanses of our globe, I compare these beauties with many of the dark and miserable practices of men, and I have the feeling that the good earth can hardly bear our presence upon it. I recall the occasion when Enoch heard the earth mourn, saying, “Wo, wo is me, the mother of men; I am pained, I am weary, because of the wickedness of my children. When shall I rest, and be cleansed from the filthiness which is gone forth out of me?” (Moses 7:48.)

The Brethren constantly cry out against that which is intolerable in the sight of the Lord: against pollution of mind, body, and our surroundings; against vulgarity, stealing, lying, pride, and blasphemy; against fornication, adultery, homosexuality, and all other abuses of the sacred power to create; against murder and all that is like unto it; against all manner of desecration.

That such a cry should be necessary among a people so blessed is amazing to me. And that such things should be found even among the Saints to some degree is scarcely believable, for these are a people who are in possession of many gifts of the Spirit, who have knowledge that puts the eternities into perspective, who have been shown the way to eternal life.

Sadly, however, we find that to be shown the way is not necessarily to walk in it, and many have not been able to continue in faith. These have submitted themselves in one degree or another to the enticings of Satan and his servants and joined with those of “the world” in lives of ever-deepening idolatry.

I use the word idolatry intentionally. As I study ancient scripture, I am more and more convinced that there is significance in the fact that the commandment “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” is the first of the Ten Commandments.

Few men have ever knowingly and deliberately chosen to reject God and his blessings. Rather, we learn from the scriptures that because the exercise of faith has always appeared to be more difficult than relying on things more immediately at hand, carnal man has tended to transfer his trust in God to material things. Therefore, in all ages when men have fallen under the power of Satan and lost the faith, they have put in its place a hope in the “arm of flesh” and in “gods of silver, and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which see not, nor hear, nor know” (Dan. 5:23)—that is, in idols. This I find to be a dominant theme in the Old Testament. Whatever thing a man sets his heart and his trust in most is his god; and if his god doesn’t also happen to be the true and living God of Israel, that man is laboring in idolatry.

It is my firm belief that when we read these scriptures and try to “liken them unto [our]selves,” as Nephi suggested (1 Ne. 19:24), we will see many parallels between the ancient worship of graven images and behavioral patterns in our very own experience.

The Lord has blessed us as a people with a prosperity unequaled in times past. The resources that have been placed in our power are good, and necessary to our work here on the earth. But I am afraid that many of us have been surfeited with flocks and herds and acres and barns and wealth and have begun to worship them as false gods, and they have power over us. Do we have more of these good things than our faith can stand? Many people spend most of their time working in the service of a self-image that includes sufficient money, stocks, bonds, investment portfolios, property, credit cards, furnishings, automobiles, and the like to guarantee carnal security throughout, it is hoped, a long and happy life. Forgotten is the fact that our assignment is to use these many resources in our families and quorums to build up the kingdom of God—to further the missionary effort and the genealogical and temple work; to raise our children up as fruitful servants unto the Lord; to bless others in every way, that they may also be fruitful. Instead, we expend these blessings on our own desires, and as Moroni said, “Ye adorn ourselves with that which hath no life, and yet suffer the hungry, and the needy, and the naked, and the sick and the afflicted to pass by you, and notice them not.” (Morm. 8:39.)

As the Lord himself said in our day, “They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own God, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall.” (D&C 1:16; italics added.)

One man I know of was called to a position of service in the Church, but he felt that he couldn’t accept because his investments required more attention and more of his time than he could spare for the Lord’s work. He left the service of the Lord in search of Mammon, and he is a millionaire today.

But I recently learned an interesting fact: If a man owns a million dollars worth of gold at today’s prices, he possesses approximately one 27-billionth of all the gold that is present in the earth’s thin crust alone. This is an amount so small in proportion as to be inconceivable to the mind of man. But there is more to this: The Lord who created and has power over all the earth created many other earths as well, even “worlds without number” (Moses 1:33); and when this man received the oath and covenant of the priesthood (D&C 84:33-44), he received a promise from the Lord of “all that my Father hath” (D&C 84:38).

To set aside all these great promises in favor of a chest of gold and a sense of carnal security is a mistake in perspective of colossal proportions. To think that he has settled for so little is a saddening and pitiful prospect indeed; the souls of men are far more precious than this.

One young man, when called on a mission, replied that he didn’t have much talent for that kind of thing. What he was good at was keeping his powerful new automobile in top condition. He enjoyed the sense of power and acceleration, and when he was driving, the continual motion gave him the illusion that he was really getting somewhere.

All along, his father had been content with saying, “He likes to do things with his hands. That’s good enough for him.”

Good enough for a son of God? This young man didn’t realize that the power of his automobile is infinitesimally small in comparison with the power of the sea, or of the sun; and there are many suns, all controlled by law and by priesthood, ultimately—a priesthood power that he could have been developing in the service of the Lord. He settled for a pitiful god, a composite of steel and rubber and shiny chrome.

An older couple retired from the world of work and also, in effect, from the Church. They purchased a pickup truck and camper and, separating themselves from all obligations, set out to see the world and simply enjoy what little they had accumulated the rest of their days. They had no time for the temple, were too busy for genealogical research and for missionary service. He lost contact with his high priests quorum and was not home enough to work on his personal history. Their experience and leadership were sorely needed in their branch, but, unable to “endure to the end,” they were not available.

I am reminded of an article I read some years ago about a group of men who had gone to the jungles to capture monkeys. They tried a number of different things to catch the monkeys, including nets. But finding that the nets could injure such small creatures, they finally came upon an ingenious solution. They built a large number of small boxes, and in the top of each they bored a hole just large enough for a monkey to get his hand into. They then set these boxes out under the trees and in each one they put a nut that the monkeys were particularly fond of.

When the men left, the monkeys began to come down from the trees and examine the boxes. Finding that there were nuts to be had, they reached into the boxes to get them. But when a monkey would try to withdraw his hand with the nut, he could not get his hand out of the box because his little fist, with the nut inside, was now too large.

At about this time, the men would come out of the underbrush and converge on the monkeys. And here is the curious thing: When the monkeys saw the men coming, they would shriek and scramble about with the thought of escaping; but as easy as it would have been, they would not let go of the nut so that they could withdraw their hands from the boxes and thus escape. The men captured them easily.

And so it often seems to be with people, having such a firm grasp on things of the world—that which is telestial—that no amount of urging and no degree of emergency can persuade them to let go in favor of that which is celestial. Satan gets them in his grip easily. If we insist on spending all our time and resources building up for ourselves a worldly kingdom, that is exactly what we will inherit.

In spite of our delight in defining ourselves as modern, and our tendency to think we possess a sophistication that no people in the past ever had—in spite of these things, we are, on the whole, an idolatrous people—a condition most repugnant to the Lord.

We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become anti-enemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching:

“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; “That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 5:44-45.)

We forget that if we are righteous the Lord will either not suffer our enemies to come upon us—and this is the special promise to the inhabitants of the land of the Americas (see 2 Ne. 1:7)—or he will fight our battles for us (Ex. 14:14; D&C 98:37, to name only two references of many). This he is able to do, for as he said at the time of his betrayal, “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matt. 26:53.) We can imagine what fearsome soldiers they would be. King Jehoshaphat and his people were delivered by such a troop (see 2 Chr. 20), and when Elisha’s life was threatened, he comforted his servant by saying, “Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them” (2 Kgs. 6:16). The Lord then opened the eyes of the servant, “And he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.” (2 Kgs. 6:17.)

Enoch, too, was a man of great faith who would not be distracted from his duties by the enemy: “And so great was the faith of Enoch, that he led the people of God, and their enemies came to battle against them; and he spake the word of the Lord, and the earth trembled, and the mountains fled, even according to his command; and the rivers of water were turned out of their course; and the roar of the lions was heard out of the wilderness; and all nations feared greatly, so powerful was the word of Enoch.” (Moses 7:13.)

What are we to fear when the Lord is with us? Can we not take the Lord at his word and exercise a particle of faith in him? Our assignment is affirmative: to forsake the things of the world as ends in themselves; to leave off idolatry and press forward in faith; to carry the gospel to our enemies, that they might no longer be our enemies.

We must leave off the worship of modern-day idols and a reliance on the “arm of flesh,” for the Lord has said to all the world in our day, “I will not spare any that remain in Babylon.” (D&C 64:24.)

When Peter preached such a message as this to the people on the day of Pentecost, many of them “were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?” (Acts 2:37.)

And Peter answered: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and … receive the Holy Ghost.” (Acts 2:38.)

As we near the year 2,000, our message is the same as that which Peter gave. And further, that which the Lord himself gave “unto the ends of the earth, that all that will hear may hear: “Prepare ye, prepare ye for that which is to come, for the Lord is nigh.” (D&C 1:11-12.)

We believe that the way for each person and each family to prepare as the Lord has directed is to begin to exercise greater faith, to repent, and to enter into the work of his kingdom on earth, which is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It may seem a little difficult at first, but when a person begins to catch a vision of the true work, when he begins to see something of eternity in its true perspective, the blessings begin to far outweigh the cost of leaving “the world” behind.

Herein lies the only true happiness, and therefore we invite and welcome all men, everywhere, to join in this work. For those who are determined to serve the Lord at all costs, this is the way to eternal life. All else is but a means to that end.

Gospel topics: faith, worldliness

E    D    I    T    O    R    I    A    L

When is it Revelation?

One of the distinctive features of the Restored Gospel is current revelation.  The Ninth Article of Faith states:

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

What mischief comes when “current revelation” justifies every idea, notion, impression or activity.

Here is one definition of insanity: two Latter-day Saints claiming “contradicting revelations”. Like little children, playing the “one-up-manship-game”, they sit in their sand box throwing sand at each other.   “Nana, nana, nana,.. my revelation’s truer than yours..”(sing that as little children do).  Confusion and heated contention ensue over who is “deceived” and who is “obedient to the Lord’s revelations”.

So, what do we do? How do we discover for ourselves if a so-called “revelation” is true or not?

The LORD has given four keys to determine if a revelation is from the Lord.  Let us review these Keys and then apply them:

1. The Fruits- The Savior taught in His ministry on earth, “By their fruits, ye shall know them” 

If a “revelation” brings misery, darkness, and bondage, then the “revelation” is not of God, even if it does come from one “holding the Fullness of Keys”.

If a “revelation” justifies a person “in their righteousness”, assuring him that “all is well, yea, all is well”, that “revelation” is not from God.  .

If a “revelation” agitates to anger and tears apart a family or a people bringing fear and suspicion to their hearts, that “revelation” is not from God. 

2. The Scriptures-. If a “revelation” contradicts the Standard Works, then you can set it down as false doctrine
3. The Patterns of Priesthood Government—if a “revelation” contradicts Joseph Smith’s teachings, or those who followed him, you can know that “revelation” is not from God.

4. Truth—if a “revelation” contradicts the truth of things as they were, as they are now and as they will be in the future then set it down as a “false revelation”.

Example to apply the above Keys:

A wife decides she wants a “divorce”.  She claims passionately that “the Lord has given her a ‘revelation’”!   Let us examine this revelation applying the above KEYS to know if the revelation is from God:

1.       The Fruits—The divorced wife and children are left husbandless and fatherless bereft of strong Priesthood leadership in the home.  They become confused, heart-broken, insecure, frightened, shattered, angry, hopeless and find little meaning in their lives.  Often they leave the Gospel in search of “something better”, which they never find.

2.       The Scriptures—The divorced wife and children find themselves ignoring those sections of the scriptures which teach against divorce. A pattern is established where they make the scriptures of no effect as they pick and choose what they will and will not obey.

3.       The Patterns of Priesthood Government—the divorced wife and her children live chaotic lives. A false matriarchal order governs the family, subject to volatile emotions, insecurities and excesses which are kept in check by a righteous Patriarch.

4.       Truth—a marriage break-up is caused by lack of repentance. One or both of the spouses deceive themselves believing that false doctrine that “I (or we) are better divorced”.  Once having established this LIE, LIES permeate the life of the deceiving spouse with the consequent bondage.

What if a wife and her children are:

1.       happier, more secure, more healthy, have greater faith and love

2.       more in tune with the scriptures

3.       more in tune with the Priesthood freed from volatile emotions, insecurities and excesses

4.       freed from the lies and open to receive the truth

because of the divorce?

Perhaps the so-called “Patriarch” is an abuser of women and children. To restore her and her children’s sanity, the Lord counsels her to “get away from the covenant breaker.”

Such is a true revelation from God and we can plainly see that it is.

What about Priesthood holders who receive and/or endorse “false” revelations ignoring the keys to detect falsehoods?  The Scriptures are clear:

The rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

These principles of righteousness and their application are a function of receiving true revelation.  If a Priesthood holder receives a “revelation”, a “messenger” or a “vision”, it behooves him to test what he receives.  Not all revelations are from God and not all Messengers are sent from the Father.  If he is deceived we say “amen to the Priesthood or authority of that man.”  The Heavens won’t recognize what he does and in turn, he will be condemned for his failure to act in accord with the LORD’s will.  We must handle the Priesthood very carefully lest we find our sins and weaknesses tangled up with our exercise of the Priesthood to our condemnation.

In summary, then, judge righteously the source of your revelations.  Is it you getting what you want calling it the Lord’s revelation? Or is it really light and knowledge from the Lord that causes repentance and a higher spiritual path?  On this issue, many fall into the pit and others are blessed, either to the weeping and gnashing of teeth, or to joy in the Celestial Kingdom.  —the Editor—

Holiness

Y
To The  

Lord

TRUTH NEVER CHANGES
Volume 12, Number 04
October 2009