Transcript:
[00:00:15] Speaker A: Welcome to the weekly Deep Dive podcast on the Add On Education Network. The podcast where we explore the weekly come follow me discussions and try to add a little insight and unique perspective. I’m your host, Jason Lloyd, here with my friend and this show’s producer, Nate Pyfer.
[00:00:29] Speaker B: What’s up?
[00:00:30] Speaker A: Hey. So in this episode, we’re taking a look at Doctrine and covenants, sections 20 through 22, but we probably won’t get to 21 and 22. Section 20 is pretty loaded and pretty heavy. We’re talking about the organization of the church, some of the priesthood there. But there’s a few interesting verses right off the start that kind of capture my attention and imagination. I think we’re going to kind of dive down into those a little bit today.
So right off the bat, in verse one, there’s something a little bit controversial, at least controversial in my mind.
[00:00:59] Speaker C: Here we go.
[00:01:00] Speaker A: Here we go.
It says, okay, this has been cited by a few people, including President Hinckley, President Kimball, President Lee, as the reason why we think the birth of Jesus Christ was April 6th, way back, thousands of years ago when he was born. Because at the introductory to this. This section, it says a thousand. Let me see before I. Before I just butcher this completely. It says the rise of the Church of Christ in these last days being 1,830 years since the coming of our Lord the Savior, Jesus Christ in the flesh.
So citing that example, they’re saying, hey, this is referencing to the day 1830 years since when Christ was born.
And I’ve had a hard time with that, personally, when I look at that, it seems to me just a fancy way of saying the year 1830. Or it’s 1830. And further study from the Joseph Smith papers kind of bears that out where they find out that this first verse wasn’t even part of the original revelation. It was written as a preface to the revelation after the fact.
But it’s not to say that they are necessarily wrong for stating that.
Joseph Smith says that the day that the church was organized was given to them by revelation. So maybe there is something still there. But how do you separate when a prophet is prophesying in the name of the Lord versus when they are saying something to the best of their understanding? And is it always right? Do we always listen? Or is there some leeway there? Is there a little bit of flexibility with what a prophet is saying? Is, is he always dead on? What are your thoughts, Nate?
[00:02:48] Speaker B: Oh, here we go. Dude, I should make a little bumper. I should make a little bumper that anytime we’re ready to go for it. I can just hit that bumper and it’s like this massive, like, just get everybody fired up because we’re going for it. I mean, here’s where my answer would be. First of all, you always listen. Like, I think that that’s the easy. That’s the easy and safest place to start.
Whether or not that means that they have to be right or wrong about every detail of every little thing, I don’t think that, that, I don’t think that that is affected by that. If that makes any sense. And especially something like this. You go, I mean, is it exactly this day, Like, I don’t know, is that going to matter if I believe that that’s exactly, literally the day however many years before? I don’t. Hopefully that doesn’t keep me out of heaven, if it does. But I think to the, to the bigger part of that question, I think that the, the answer is, sure, pray about it. Do that stuff. Go through that process. And if there’s something that’s, that’s you’re having a hard time with doctrinally that’s conflicting, like, yeah, for sure, spend some time and try to figure out where that is. If it’s things like this, like, I don’t think it’s unhealthy to talk about it and find out, like, oh, is this, is this being interpreted correctly? Is this being whatever. And we were never told, we were never promised that a prophet will never be wrong about something. Right? Like, we were never nowhere, anywhere in the Scriptures that we promised that, like, that the man that is called to be the prophet won’t make mistakes or misinterpret things or say things that are incorrect. We’re told that he won’t lead the Church astray. Right.
[00:04:35] Speaker A: Excellent point.
[00:04:36] Speaker B: And I think that there’s a pretty big difference in leading the Church astray versus some of the wacky things that Brigham Young may or may not have.
[00:04:46] Speaker C: Said back in the day.
[00:04:47] Speaker B: You know what I mean? Like, things that I don’t know. I guess for me, and from my perspective, I couldn’t possibly look at and be like, oh, the church is being led astray now, even then, though, does it mean that there have been things, things that have needed to change and be corrected and fixed over time as we’ve received more revelation? Sure.
[00:05:08] Speaker A: Yeah. That’s a great point. And I look at this Joseph Smith, as I’ve been studying doctrine and covenants and looking back at his history and the history of Joseph Smith, if there’s one thing I’ve learned that it’s God really does respect the agency of all men, including the prophet, right. Joseph Smith, the Lord had a very important work for him to do, yet the Lord waited years for him to come back to the Lord and ask him what next. Instead of trying to mandate and dictate and take away Joseph Smith’s agency, the Lord allows his prophets, his called people, the ability to grow to make decisions. Just because they are his servants doesn’t mean that now all of a sudden they’re disqualified from having any agency or any opportunity to do things on their own. If anything, being the Lord’s chosen or Lord’s servants means that Lord trusts them and respects their agency to allow them to explain, share, do whatever they can. And the Lord helps them when they are speaking in his name. Though I think that is another thing.
Reading Joseph Smith’s journal, there was a day that he was reading German, studying, and then later he had a brother and sister from Michigan come and visit him. And he had kind of a disagreement with the sister.
She thought that once a prophet was called as a prophet, that they were always a prophet. And Joseph Smith corrected her and said, a prophet is only a prophet when acting as a prophet.
[00:06:39] Speaker B: So that’s a great point. I guess the easy question then would be like, well, then how, how are we supposed to, you know what I mean? Like, how are we supposed to determine? Because the thing is like, dude, I understand, I understand the trickiness of this, right? Like, I understand the trickiness of, well, so does that mean that like, if they ever say anything wrong, we can just chalk it up to, well, I guess they weren’t speaking as a prophet at that time, you know what I mean? Or it’s like, I guess I can see the criticism in that going, oh, I guess that’s too easy of a way out. Right?
[00:07:13] Speaker A: Right.
[00:07:14] Speaker B: And the thing is that, and again, I’m not gonna claim that I have all the answers about this, but to me, I look at it like anything else through the progression of time that God has shown, like you just said, with his prophets, being human and being able to make mistakes is that I look at it and I go, cool. Is this, is this something that is going to send the church into apostasy? Right? Is this something, Is this, is this thing that they said that that has later been revised or revisited or all out? No, that wasn’t, that wasn’t right. Are any of those things, things that took away from the, the priesthood, being on the earth and from the, you know what I mean? Like the ordinances that we get done from the nature of God, from. You know what I mean? All of those things that fundamentally the church is built on. And then like you said, it’s like, yeah, yes. Like even people receiving revelation about the church can have opinions on things and try to be pondering and try to be learning and trying to be, you know what I mean, figuring some of this stuff out too. You got to remember, like, Joseph Smith was trying to figure so much of this out on the spot as he was going to.
[00:08:31] Speaker C: Right.
[00:08:32] Speaker B: And again, like, I just look at it, big picture would be, are any of those things things that would have compromised, you know, the restoration of the church?
[00:08:48] Speaker C: Right, right.
[00:08:49] Speaker B: Are any of these things shooting the members into apostasy? Right.
[00:08:54] Speaker A: Excellent. And I think maybe a good example to kind of drive that point home is Jeremiah. When you go back and read the Old Testament, and he uses a parable about a bird. I believe it’s the partridge, I can’t remember.
He says that the bird will come over and steal other birds eggs by sitting on their nests and hatching what wasn’t their own. But then the birds end up leaving them at the end. And he’s using this story to try to portra. Portray a principle.
And today we look back that. And geologists, naturalists, scientists, biologists, they say this doesn’t happen. This characteristic was misunderstood back then, that the partridge isn’t stealing other birds eggs, or this isn’t happening the way it is. But does it change the principle, whether the story is accurate or even take it back to Christ’s time, if he is using a story, a parable, you can ask yourself, was there really a judge or was there really a woman that was doing it? Was that story tr.
Or is that story really. It’s not about the story, it’s about the principle or what’s trying to be conveyed. The message, as you say, what’s important, what’s the heart of it? What are we supposed to be learning out of it? And is our focus in the right place? Because if we’re focusing on the fallacy of the story or the details in a way that we missed the whole point, or we’re shooting beyond the mark, maybe we’re falling off the boat or we’re falling behind because we were so hung up on a detail and not realizing that the Lord is trying to communicate with us in a way that makes sense for us, but might not always be entirely 100% accurate. But it is very effective at getting the principle or getting the meaning conveyed to us.
I am going to skip ahead a little bit into verse eight.
We are talking about Joseph Smith receiving power to translate the Book of Mormon. So in verse eight, it says, and gave him power from on high by the means which were before prepared to translate the Book of Mormon, which contains a record of the fallen people and the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles and the Jews. So the Lord gave him this power to translate the Book of Mormon. And the question I want to ask is, why? Why was this so important? Why did the Lord feel like it was necessary that he had a Book of Mormon translated before they restored the gospel here on earth in the last days?
Do you have any thoughts, Nate, before we dive into the next verse?
[00:11:13] Speaker B: Yeah, I’ve got thoughts.
[00:11:15] Speaker A: Any thoughts you want to share?
[00:11:19] Speaker B: Always.
I mean, fundamentally. And again, this has been, I feel like, hammered home by various, you know, general conference talks and things like that. But, I mean, I personally truly believe that the Book of Mormon is absolutely the best tangible evidence that we have of God restoring his church back to the earth, right? Oh, yes. And that when you look at it from a scientific level, for as many holes as you might try to find or poke in it, there’s so many more unexplainable, miraculous things contained within it that trying to explain it. Trying to explain it away and dismiss it scientifically is. Is hard for me to fathom. And as somebody that has spent, you know, a lot of time combing through all of the arguments of why.
[00:12:28] Speaker C: And.
[00:12:28] Speaker B: The evidences of why it is or isn’t authentic or real or what we claim it is, and they don’t hold up for me when it comes to the details contained within it, trying to be explained away as something that could have been fabricated by Joseph Smith.
[00:12:50] Speaker C: It’s just.
[00:12:51] Speaker B: It doesn’t hold up those. Those things don’t hold up scientifically. And then more importantly, spiritually, it’s just like, I believe that. That you can come to know whether or not that Jesus and Heavenly Father restored this church themselves on this earth by reading the Book of Mormon and by studying it and praying about it and the testimony that it is of Jesus Christ. I truly believe that it is maybe the most tangible proof of what we are doing here than anything else.
[00:13:33] Speaker A: Absolutely. Such a great answer. And you’re right. I mean, Hindsight is always 2020, right? And that’s the unique position that we have to be standing here 200 years later and 200 years of people trying to tear this book down or trying to explain it away. And yet nobody has definitively, conclusively found anything to show how this book was made up or invented or faked or whatever the case may be or stolen.
[00:13:59] Speaker B: Or cop or whatever it is.
[00:14:00] Speaker A: Yeah, you can’t. Nobody can explain it away. Even here, 200 years later, you might be able to explain it away, this or that, but conclusively to the point where you’ve proven just hasn’t happened. And exactly as you say, verse 11 is right with you saying, proving to the world that the Holy Scriptures are true. So it is not just about the Book of Mormon. It’s not just about the restoration of the gospel or Joseph Smith as a prophet today, but also proving to the world that the Bible is true. And in today’s age, so much of it, there’s a lot of question about the historicity of the Bible. Did the flood happen? Did Jesus really exist? Were these stories exaggerations? What about the Exodus? There’s a lot that calls into the question of did Israel even exist as a nation?
The scriptures, is it true? And to have something coming in the last days, when we would be critically, scientifically looking at the Bible, scrutinizing it, diminishing it, or questioning it, to have something come at this time in this age that verifies it, that solidifies it. Because the role of the Book of Mormon isn’t just about the restored gospel, but really, like you say, to prove that God is the same, that he’s not sleeping, he’s aware, he’s talking to us now just as he did back then, that what he spoke about back then was just as legitimate as what he is talking about now, that he is the same God. And this is concrete evidence. And I love that you said that. This book, as we read it, scientifically, spiritually, however, it conveys that message to us. There’s a lot of people that have spent a lot of energy trying to prove how this book was faked or how this book came about.
Different channels are not inspiration or not God’s work or not scripture. But if you were to take that energy and devote it to unlocking the secrets in the Book of Mormon, and some people have, and I’m fascinated by what we have learned and how this book stands as evidence today of God’s scripture and that God is doing things as he has before.
[00:16:12] Speaker B: Well, to your point, too, it’s like the things that were criticized, say, when I was a kid, like, oh, the Book of Mormon says blank about like this, you know, that wasn’t found in America at the time. And so that was like the big anchor for everybody be like, oh, it’s not true. And then evidence comes of this. Like, oh, actually not only that, but it was true. And there’s no way that Joseph Smith would have had any idea about this. And the thing that you thought was proving it not true is just another anchor of, of even like scientifically, you know what I mean? Confirming, confirming truth spoken in it that Joseph Smith wouldn’t have known about. And then it’s like as time progresses, like the more and more it’s like, well, what about this? Well, what about this? What about this? At times, like, yeah, maybe we don’t have all the answers, but like time continually unlocks and shows us more and more evidence of its truth on like a tangible factual basis.
That at a certain point you’re like, that’s, that’s necessary for somebody to have faith in something, right?
[00:17:21] Speaker A: Yes.
[00:17:22] Speaker B: And, and, and I love the idea that it’s like that. It’s like, yes, you have something that’s tangible and you still have to show a level of faith in, in understanding. Well, maybe I don’t have the exact answer to that. And then like all things in time, if you’ve, if you’ve had, you know, spent time trying to figure stuff out, you can receive answers as you go down there. Like, holy cow, like, how on earth would that have been? How are we still discovering new things about this and the authenticity of this book even now? You know what I mean? Like after you said, After 200 years of people, for whatever motive or whatever reason, doing everything they can to disprove the authenticity of this book.
And as time continues, we continually learn more and more how insanely detailed and rich with things that, you know what I mean, no 20, 30 year old person would have had any idea about.
[00:18:21] Speaker A: Oh, absolutely. And it reminds me, I’ll probably come back to this a lot. Throughout these podcasts we do that Thomas S. Monson, something that he said over and over again really stuck out to me. That the wisdom of God oftentimes appears as foolishness to man.
[00:18:36] Speaker B: Yes, I love that.
[00:18:37] Speaker A: Yeah, the scriptures are full of that.
[00:18:40] Speaker C: By the way.
[00:18:40] Speaker B: It’s always my favorite stories. Like, I know we’ve talked about it before, I don’t mean to cut you off, but it’s like the perfect example is Jesus walking across the water in the middle of a storm and Peter getting out of the boat. Like, where does man tell you the safest place in the middle of a storm? Out on the water is Right. But where was the safest place, Right. And the idea that, like, at any time, the winds and the waves can turn that boat over. So even though you might feel safer in the boat, strangely enough to God, the safest places out on the water walking with him. Right, Right.
[00:19:12] Speaker A: And I remember so many times when we were younger, people would say, you know, there were no horses in America. This is all ridiculous. Right?
[00:19:19] Speaker B: That’s what it was, was the horses in America. That was their big, like, oh, we got you now.
[00:19:24] Speaker A: And then they start finding evidence of horses in America and they find bones in the excavations, like, oh, wait a second, we have to revise everything we thought. But with God, you don’t have to revise. It might seem weird at first and foolish to believe it, but come to find out in the end, you’re not disappointed. You were right. And it’s so cool. So some people that I really admire for having done this and some of the cool things that they have, they’ve discovered because of it. Because, remember, you have to put your faith in there first. Instead of taking your energy and trying to tear it down, they’re devoting their energy to trying to understand it. And because of that, they’re rewarded with so much more. And Royal Skousen did a research on the Book of Mormon. He’s a famous linguist professor at byu.
He did a study on the vocabulary from the Book of Mormon. And what he found is that the vocabulary was not from Joseph Smith’s period of time. In English, it actually predates Joseph Smith. And not only does the vocabulary predate Joseph Smith, but the vocabulary predated the King James Bible.
Picking up on that, there was another scholar, his name was Stanford Carmack, and he did a study on the Book of Mormon. But instead of focusing on the vocabulary, he focused on the syntax, the grammar and the expressions and how things were put together in the words. And mind you, they’re going back to the original writing of the Book of Mormon. Not things that were edited to try to make it sound better, but how it was translated by Joseph Smith. As he looked and saw the words and read them off to the scribe, the scribe wrote them down. And again, dating the Book of Mormon to just the language that was used to write the book, he would date it to the late to the early middle age, to a time period that corresponds to about 1400 BC. Excuse me. AD yeah, that would be really strange. No English back then, 1400 A.D. to 1600 A.D. again, predating the King James Bible, which is kind of weird, right? Why was Joseph Smith, and not only this, but Carmack says, the phrases, the parts of speech, the syntax, the grammar, not only is it predating Joseph Smith and predating the King James Bible, but it’s things that nobody should have any right of knowing in 1800. Like, this is not Joseph Smith’s speech. This is not common to him. This is not things that he would be familiar with.
And it’s kind of weird, it’s kind of interesting. And you look at it, why wouldn’t Joseph Smith, if he’s making up this book, why would he be making it up using English that predated him? Why, like us, if we were to write a book, would we be writing it in the style of Beowulf?
And these are things that he wouldn’t have been very familiar with as he’s trying to do it. And you might question, well, how is this happening? Why is it happening? And there’s a couple theories here, right? I mean, you talk about Tyndale, the guy died 1538. So right in this time period when this English was being used, that’s the English that we’re talking about in the Book of Mormon. His life work was trying to translate the Bible into English. For that purpose, he was put to death and killed. So when God gives him power from on high, when he’s looking into that rock or he’s trying to get inspiration to know what words to write, who is on the other end of that inspiring him? Is the Lord calling servants on the other side of the veil to help him just as much as he’s calling servants on this side of the veil. This is our work, the work of people that belong here on earth. And how is the Lord using his instruments even after our death to help things? Not to say that that’s how the Book of Mormon was translated. Not saying that I have the answer. It may be simply just. The answer is the Lord did it in a different English just to prove that this was not Joseph Smith doing it. Maybe it was the Lord using older examples as a way of signing the Book of Mormon. Just as we see that Janus parallel as we talked about in the first episode, as the signature of the Lord, saying that the Doctrine and Covenants was his, not, not the work of man.
Maybe the Lord is using old unfamiliar English through Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Mormon as a way of saying, this is not Joseph Smith’s work. This is not some uneducated farm boy speaking in terms that he would be familiar with. I’m going to try to hide something here to kind of put my own signature like you see in art sometimes. And people have a way of painting a certain style or hiding something in the image that that’s just lost on the critics if you’re, if you’re not looking for it, or if you don’t believe it, you don’t see it, you don’t notice it.
[00:24:14] Speaker C: But there is so much how Jesus taught, right?
[00:24:16] Speaker A: Absolutely.
[00:24:17] Speaker C: The parables, that’s to me, I mean, like to what you’re saying, it’s like.
[00:24:21] Speaker B: Even another way to go.
This is the Lord signing this with. This is how I teach people things. On the surface, it’s a good story for anybody. But for those with eyes to see.
[00:24:31] Speaker C: And ears to hear are going to see two, three, four levels deeper than that.
[00:24:37] Speaker A: And something that I’ve seen that’s really inspired me about the Scriptures. And I could be just off in my imagination on this one though. But I look at the Scriptures as not necessarily the prophets are inspired. And they’re writing what they think is good. They’re telling their stories, they’re telling about their lives, and they think they’re just writing about them. But I think God has weavened that together to where he’s telling us about him. And I think we learn about him through what these people are saying. And here’s an example of that. We have this understanding of one third of the host of heaven falling away and rejecting the gospel or rejecting God. But even though they rejected God, they were still sent here on earth. And they try us or they interact with us in a way that. Trying to be an adversarial role. Right. But two thirds of his children were righteous. So I go back to the story of Adam and Eve and I read it and it doesn’t make much sense to me. How do you populate the entire world with three boys, Cain, Abel and Seth. Like that doesn’t happen. You’ve got to have a daughter here somewhere along the line, then you’ve got to be having other sons and other daughters. And clearly they did. In some apocryphal texts and pseudepigraphal texts, they talk about how Adam had 64 children or so many. But for as many kids as they mentioned, we only get three names. Cain, Abel and Seth. Why is it that only three are mentioned when you have all of these other children that he had to populate the earth? Well, you look at these three, and one of them falls away, rejects God, slays Abel. And then you have this 1/3, 2/3 dichotomy where the story of the Father of all the human Race almost really becomes more the story of God and his children. And you see it play out when the world resets, because before Adam and Eve, the whole world is covered with water, right? And God separates the water from the dry land and creates things. But when he starts all over, what does he do? He floods the earth. And then he gets Noah on the ark. And you have the animals on the ark. And then he separates the water again from the earth so that there’s dry land. And then you have almost this paradisical, all the animals there and Noah and his family. And despite who let me in there, all you have is the three Ham, Shem and Japheth. And of the three, you have Ham that gets cursed with the gospel because of some weird incident after they leave the ark. But then you have Shem and Japheth, which are blessed, and you have the whole 2/3, 1/3 happening again. And then you see this play out in the Book of Mormon, and it might not be quite as obvious, but you have Lehi leaving. And you know Nephi’s got sisters because they talk about his sisters getting married, but none of them are mentioned by name. So if we talk about who’s mentioned by name, Laman, Lemuel, Sam, Nephi, Joseph and Jacob. Six kids. Of the six kids, Laman and Lemuel, two decide to stop following their father, to stop following the gospel, to fall away, if you will.
So 2 out of 6 is 1/3, where 4 out of 6 is your 2/3. And despite the separation, all of them still head to the same land, but for the 1/3, they feel like it is a cursing. They kept not their first estate. They wanted to go back to Jerusalem, but they were cast out. They felt like they were losing something, something they wanted to go back to. And the new land was a curse to them. They thought it was terrible. Whereas in for the 2/3, they were coming to the same place, but they were coming to receive an inheritance, to receive something better. So I see these stories, whether it be the Old Testament or the Book of Mormon, that God is continually looking at us and trying to address us and tell us this is not just a story about Lehi or a story about Noah. This is my story. You are my children. I am still talking to you. All you need to do is hear.
Okay, I just wanted to end that with two scriptures.
And then we will move to the next point. Alma, chapter 26. This is one of my favorites. Verse 22, Yea, he that repenteth and exercises faith and bringeth forth good works. Praying continually without ceasing. Unto such is given to know the mysteries of God. Yea, unto such it shall be given to reveal things which never have been revealed. Yea, and it shall be given unto them to bring thousands of souls to repentance.
And then, third Nephi 26 and if it so be, that they will excuse me, 26, verse 9 and when they shall have received this which is expedient, that they should have first to try their faith and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things, then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them.
So it’s up to us on what we do as we read this. Do we accept the Book of Mormon for what it is and demonstrate that faith first? If we do, the Lord has so many hidden cool things waiting for us, things that nobody else has ever thought of or seen or experienced, that he will allow us to see, to understand, and to bring to light so that his work can be manifested in these days.
All right, next point. This was an interesting one for me. Doctrine and covenants, section 20.
And it talks about he says to take heed, members of the Church. So this is he’s trying to warn people so that they don’t fall away. He says verse 32. But there is a possibility that man may fall from grace and depart from the living God. Therefore, let the Church take heed and pray always, lest they fall into temptation. Yea, and even let those who are sanctified take heed also.
So here’s my question.
In the first part, he’s saying, take heed all members of the Church. And then he says, yea, even also, almost apart from different from the members of the Church. Let those who are sanctified take heed also. And that causes me to pause for a minute. Do we not believe this is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? In order to be brought into the Church, we need to go through the ordinance of baptism. Are we not sanctified? So what’s the difference? Why is he referring to these two different people as if they are two separate groups? Are the members of the Church different from the ones that are sanctified?
And if so, how or why?
And I think he gives us a hint in verse 31.
And we know also that sanctification, through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, is just and true to all those who love and serve God with all their might, mind and strength.
So they’re trying to tell us, just because you’re a member of the Church, sanctification comes to all Those who serve God with all their heart, might, mind.
[00:31:38] Speaker C: And strength, which is good to bring up. And this is when you pose this question, I guess my thought immediately went to, man, I know a lot of people inside the church that don’t do that and myself included sometimes. You know what I mean? Like, we’re all working on it, right? And I also know a lot of people outside of our particular religion, religious.
[00:31:59] Speaker B: Practice that probably do just as good.
[00:32:01] Speaker C: If not a better job of dedicating their lives to service and to, you know, to following God’s commandments. So that, that actually is a. I like that those two things are separated because they’re not always one and the same, you know.
[00:32:14] Speaker A: Oh, absolutely. And in fact, to that point, and I’ll come back to what we’re talking about, but in verse 37, to your point, they’re talking about all those who are going to be baptized, all those who humble themselves before God and desire to be baptized, right? And it says here, I’m going to skip a little bit to the end of the verse it says, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins shall be received by baptism. You’re like, wait a second, I thought baptism was for the remission of sins. But now they’re saying you can’t be baptized unless you’ve manifested that by the Spirit you have already received a remission of your sins.
So what role is baptism playing? I think. I think it’s almost a misnomer. We associate baptism just because we’re going in the water. So similar to a bath, as this is what’s washing away our sins. But it’s not baptism that’s washing away our sins. Baptism is a sign of a covenant we’re making with God. It’s the Spirit, right? And here it’s saying those who have manifested that they have received the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins shall be received by baptism. Even before they’re baptized, that Spirit is manifesting that they have received that remission of their sins.
[00:33:27] Speaker C: But I think that. And again, like, I might be totally off on this, but I think that this becomes less confusing when you look at what that is actually saying, which is the remission of sins, not the annihilation of sins or the forever having never and never will sin again of sins. You know what I mean? It’s the remission of sins. It’s like if somebody has, say, a cancer or something like that, if they’re in remission, it doesn’t mean that they don’t stand the risk of potentially getting it again or that it is just completely gone. It just means that it’s not spreading or taking hold or. You know what I mean, that it’s in remission. And I think that that’s kind of an important thing too, because to your.
[00:34:06] Speaker B: Point, like, yeah, like, you should be.
[00:34:09] Speaker C: Received unto baptism, hopefully, with the idea that, hey, I’m now going to start the journey of trying my best to be better, knowing that I’m not going to be perfect and knowing that I’m going to be sinning all the time, but that I’m going through the eternal process of getting better over time and that my sins aren’t. You know, it’s like, I’m not a perfect person before I can get baptized, but I’m doing my best to change my behavior, right?
[00:34:41] Speaker A: And Joseph Smith, if we look at him as an example, when he went to the sacred grove and had that first vision experience, he didn’t go there seeking what church was true. That was secondary. His primary reason for searching was, what’s my standing before God? How do I get my sins cleaned? What can I do? Right?
And secondarily is what church can get me that?
And when he goes in verse five, it tells us that he received a remission of his sins.
At that point, when the Lord says, you’re standing before me is clean. So as we talk about the difference between the sanctified versus the members of the church, we might be surprised to learn that there are a lot of people outside of the church that have been sanctified or their sins are remitted to the fact that they are trying to serve the Lord and the Lord is trying to help them. It is not to say that they don’t need to make covenants with God. It is not to say that baptism is not valid, but it is to say that a simple act of being baptized is not the difference between whether or not you’ve been sanctified or whether or not you’re on the path to follow the Lord.
And I don’t know if I’m saying that 100% right.
[00:35:57] Speaker C: I think you are. I think you are. Makes sense to me.
[00:36:00] Speaker A: Okay.
[00:36:01] Speaker C: Hopefully it makes sense to everybody else.
[00:36:03] Speaker A: So if that’s the case, if the simple act of baptism is not what’s saving us and the part of, of being sanctified is to be putting our whole heart, might mind and strength into this. Is anybody sanctified? How do we do that?
[00:36:21] Speaker C: That’s the tougher question.
[00:36:23] Speaker A: Right. It seems like back in the day, that would be an easy deal. Like, you’re going through the refiner’s fire, people are taking away your property. People are burning your stuff and making you walk around in the snow barefoot, or you go back to the coliseum. And the saints and what they endured. And those people said, you know what? I will fight the good fight. I will worship God. And they would willingly be a martyr. Like, those people are saints. They did it with all. But what’s the fight that we have? Something Brigham Young said really stuck out to me as I was reading these verses. He said that his biggest fear for the Saints as he was preparing them and moving them out west, he said his biggest fear was that as soon as they moved out west and they were left alone, that their biggest struggle or challenge or trial would be prosperity.
When all of a sudden, it’s not picking sides. Are we still finding that motivation? Is our heart still engaged and our might and our mind still engaged when it’s not being forced to by outside influence?
And Jesus Christ says that it’s harder for a rich man to get into the kingdom of heaven than it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.
So now here we have it. I mean, if we have it good, if we’re comfortable, if we have food on our table, if we’ve got jobs, clothes, and there’s not a whole lot of need. Christ says that he came to the sick, he came to the afflicted. He went not to the 99 that were all right, but looking for that lost sheep. How do we recognize the loss that’s inside of us? How do we drive that need to humbly come to the Lord, even when everything seems to be going all right?
[00:38:09] Speaker B: To be fair?
[00:38:10] Speaker C: Yeah, to be fair.
Money doesn’t get rid of people’s problems.
[00:38:17] Speaker A: Right.
[00:38:17] Speaker C: So the thing is, is that I think that I always just want to be careful, personally, not to be judgmental towards people’s hearts, whether or not they have money or they don’t. Because I know. I mean, my life has been so blessed by a lot of really wealthy people who are incredibly humble and generous and paid it forward. And I sometimes, you know, rub shoulders with a lot of people that don’t have a lot of money, that are insanely prideful and wouldn’t share their wealth even if they had it and spend most of their time talking bad about people that do have money as if they’re getting the raw end of, you know, the deal. Right. And so to. Even more to that, Point like I, I agree that, that sometimes we, we associate money with not having problems, but my goodness, like that’s, that that couldn’t be further from the truth, in my opinion. People have problems, right?
[00:39:21] Speaker A: Absolutely. And I think, I think to your point, what we’re driving at here is I think a lot of the problems that we have don’t manifest themselves on the surface as much as they have for other people.
[00:39:35] Speaker C: Yes, that’s a good way to put it.
[00:39:37] Speaker A: The story of the knight and shining armor and the dragon. Right. The Greek heroes that had to go to go overcome all of these monsters. I mean it’s a cool story and it’s right in what it’s trying to convey. But our monsters today, our dragons that we’re slaying, it might be different, it might change. It’s not this physical challenge or this physical. But it still takes all of our might, mind and strength to find ways to really pray, to really come face to face with our weaknesses. We might not see that somebody is struggling with anxiety, with stress, with self worth.
How many people constantly beat themselves up thinking that they’re not good enough, that everything they do is just not enough and they’re their own worst enemy and they have to overcome this and realize who they are and see themselves through God’s eyes or see themselves through the value that they have. And that’s a fight that’s taking all of their might, mind and strength and that effort as much as it’s the thorn in their side. And we’ve read about Paul talking about how he’s prayed to have that thorn removed. But that thorn I think drives them to sanctification. It endears them in the eyes and the heart of the Lord as he looks and he sees our struggles even if nobody else sees them. Because as you say, a lot of these things, wealth didn’t take care of it. It’s not like we don’t have problems. Having good health doesn’t mean that we don’t have issues and struggles. Just because they’re not as visual, just because they’re not as surface does not mean that we don’t have the opportunity to still engage all of our heart, might, mind and strength in trying to fight these silent dragons or these non visual monsters that we’re trying to overcome.
All right, next. And we’re probably running out of time here. There’s so much to cover in this and maybe just want to touch on all of this organization of the priesthood as he talks about assigning the duties and who’s responsible for what the duty of an elder, the duty of a teacher, the duty of a priest, the duty of a deacon.
It’s cool to see that here. Dectrine covenant, section 30. At the beginning of the church, the Lord has already putting in place contingency plans. Right. If there’s no elders to preside, then it’s the duty of a priest to preside. If there’s no priest to preside, then the teacher preside. And this is what they do. You have separation of duties, responsibilities, and what to do in case of an emergency. There’s a lot of organization, and it really attests to the fact that the Lord says, mine is a house of order.
And right off the bat, before we even start into it and we talk business, contingency planning, what to do if there’s a disaster or if somebody can’t be in the business anymore that’s not even being developed or employed much in businesses until the 1970s, but here in the 1800s, I can’t imagine a whole lot of businesses back then are saying, okay, what do we need to do to make sure we have this continuity and organization? I don’t know that you had that level of organization yet. The church, right off the bat in the very first step, is trying to take its time and organize and put things in order.
[00:42:56] Speaker C: I would be a little bit nervous if I was one of those people getting removed in the contingency plan.
[00:43:04] Speaker A: Never thought of that.
[00:43:06] Speaker C: I’d be like, wait a minute, what do you mean, if there’s no more priests left, I’m a priest. What’s that supposed to be?
Why do we need a contingency plan for that?
[00:43:14] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:43:16] Speaker C: Think about that. Did you, Jason?
[00:43:18] Speaker A: Nope. Sure didn’t.
[00:43:19] Speaker C: I did.
[00:43:20] Speaker A: I did. And that’s. And that’s why you’re here, Nate.
[00:43:23] Speaker B: Right?
[00:43:25] Speaker A: All right. That’s all I’ve got for this lesson. Thanks for. Thanks for tuning in and joining us.
[00:43:30] Speaker C: It’s awesome. I want to just real quick, we’re getting a little bit of traction with this podcast. Wanted just to say thank you for everybody that’s been listening.
Some of the feedback that we’ve gotten is that.
Is that some of you have some questions and feedback that you would like to shoot our way about either, like, some past podcasts that we’ve done or some upcoming podcasts. And so we now have a. Have an email address set up so that you can send us feedback or send us any questions or. Or comments on either upcoming Come Follow me lessons or previous Come Follow me lessons. And that email address is hieeklydeepdive.com and if you send us that stuff, we will gladly receive all constructive criticism or positive feedback. Preferably positive feedback so that we don’t hate ourselves. I’m just kidding. Do whatever. People criticize everything I do in my life. Anyways. Send whatever you got.
[00:44:41] Speaker B: Do your worst.
[00:44:42] Speaker C: And if you have any Jason, though, on the other hand, he’s sensitive. Don’t be mean to Jason. You can be mean to me more than anything.
[00:44:49] Speaker A: We just want to hear from you guys.
[00:44:50] Speaker C: Yeah, Jason just wants to hear from you, but I’m ready.
I’ve got the battle armor on. More importantly, though, is if you have any questions or anything specifically that you would like us to discuss or touch on, we would love to take a stab at it in case we may have some perspective on it. And we will always preface that with but we’re also just trying to figure this out too. So anyways, what do we talk about next week, Jason?
[00:45:16] Speaker A: Yeah, next week it’s going to be Doctrine and Covenant, sections 23 through 26, and we talk a little bit about Emma Smith’s calling to put the hymnbook together. Awesome.
[00:45:25] Speaker C: Ah, here we go. Now we’re in my territory.
[00:45:27] Speaker A: There we are.
[00:45:28] Speaker C: All right, until next week.
[00:45:29] Speaker A: See ya, Sa.
0 responses on "D&C 20 - 22 (2025 Repost)"