Sunday Dinner Discussion

What follows relates to a family conversation around the Sunday dinner table with my daughter Lauren and son Chad. The conversation was impromptu and I did not have the benefit of framing my points as I will now.

At the outset I will state that it is not my intent to judge anyone, past or present. Being fully aware of my own sins and weaknesses I am content to leave all judgment to the Lord. I do not want to be considered an accuser of my brethren so my conclusions are not intended to pass judgment on others who have been asked by the Lord to lead His flock. Their burden is difficult enough and I do not want to be a critic of faithful men and women committed to the cause of Christ.

Let's begin with a discussion of perspective. What has always been amazing to me is the phenomenon that occurs to witnesses of an auto accident. Multiple witnesses view the same event. What differs is their perspective. The witnesses each view the accident in the context of their own experience as well as angle from where they were standing. Standard investigative procedure calls for police to interview each witness and record their account.

As each person describes what they saw they draw on personal bias and past experience to interpret the event. In addition to describing what they saw, their explanation is influenced by their personal perception and prejudice. Is one of the cars a Mercedes driven by a well groomed driver or perhaps a Latino person in a small pick up truck? How might a person with prejudice allow their views to influence their description?

Time also plays a role in ever evolving perspective. Like reading accounts of historical events, the further away chronologically and geographically a person is from the event the more inclined they are to allow creative instincts to influence and alter their description of events.

I contend such may be the case with our view of early Church history. The early Saints suffered tremendous persecution and deprivation at the hands of their contemporaries. Driven from homes and property, the Saints moved west by handcart in a migration that cost the lives of many of the faithful. Rightfully, we acknowledge and revere their faith and sacrifice feeling tremendous pride in and gratitude for the righteous heritage we inherit.

Through the years our desire to acknowledge their accomplishments may skew our perspective of events prior to the westward trek. Again, I have no criticism of our early forefathers. They deserve our love, admiration and respect. That said, the answer to one question has greatly influenced my perspective on these events. It challenges the conventional wisdom of how we generally interpret the past so what I say may be uncomfortable for some.

The question I pondered that led to question traditional beliefs regarding early Church history is the subject of why the scriptures compare Joseph Smith to Moses. The two Prophets are compared in the prophecies of Joseph,who was sold into Egypt. (JST Genesis 50, 2 Nephi 3.) Why are Moses and Joseph a good comparison? What parallels did Joseph and Moses share?

Moses led the children of Israel out of Egyptian bondage. Their deliverance was both spiritual and literal. When Israel left Egypt they were freed as slaves, but also freed culturally from false traditions that no doubt crept into Israel's religious tradition. After fleeing Egypt, Moses led Israel to Sinai to sanctify them and introduce them to self representation before the Lord at the veil:

"And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God. Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest. And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifet unto men in the flesh; For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father and live. Now this Moses plainly taught to the children of Israel in the wilderness, and sought diligently to sanctify his people that they might behold the face of God; But they hardened their hearts and could not endure his presence; therefore, the Lord in his wrath, for his anger was kindled against them, swore that they should not enter into his rest while in the wilderness, which rest is the fulness of his glory. Therefore, he took Moses out of their midst, and the Holy Priesthood also; And the lesser priesthood continued...," (D&C 84:19-26)

This marked the beginning of Israel's rejection of covenant promises and spiritual decline. In effect, Moses had the same objective as Joseph Smith and all Prophets called by God. Their divine commission is to sanctify their people, lead them to a mount or Temple where the higher ordinances can be administered by the power of the Melchizedek Priesthood. The ordinances are part of an empowerment ritual for the Lord's people and the restoration of Zion. When Moses failed in his commission he was withdrawn and translated into heaven.

In essence Joseph Smith repeated the same pattern with the Gentiles. Unlike ancient Israel, the Gentiles were not in literal bondage. The Gentiles were captive in "Babylon" which the Doctrine & Covenants defines as spiritual wickedness. (D&C 133:14) The name "Babylon" is a derivative of "Babel" which means confusion or mixture. (Cruden's Concordance, pg.578) To be led out of modern Babylon is to be led from confusion arising from mixed or blended doctrine. Turning to the words of Joseph Smith's account of early events we read:

"During this time of great excitement my mind was called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness; but though my feelings were deep and often poignant, still I kept myself aloof from all these parties, though I attended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit. In the process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them; but so great were the confusion and strife among among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong..., At length I came to the conclusion that I must either remain in darkness and confusion or I must do as James directs, that is ask of God." (Joseph Smith History 1:8)

Joseph led a small group out of Babylonian captivity by revealing new doctrine that led them to gather and seek to establish Zion. But Joseph's attempt at establishing Zion failed, even as Moses attempt did. "But, verily I say unto you all those to whom the kingdom has been given-from you it must be preached unto them, that they shall repent of their former evil works; for they are to be upbraided for their evil hearts of unbelief, and your brethren in Zion for their rebellion against you at the time I sent you." (D&C 84:76) Historically, it appears the restored Church suffered a similar fate as the children of Israel. They were driven west, suffered privation persecution and loss of property. They were also deprived of their inheritance.

As best as we can tell, the children of Israel never received their full endowment under the Melchizedek covenant. Unlike Israel, the latter-day Church did receive their endowments and the ordinances of the Temple are given to the Saints. This placed the Saints under the Higher covenants of the Melchizedek Priesthood. Failing to establish Zion (like Moses) led the Saints to rejection by the Lord and a western migration similar to Israel.

Given this perspective on our early history has the membership of the Church been scattered (following the example of ancient Israel) and currently endure a period of strategic retreat where we are in a state of regression/probation. Could this be why we are counseled by the brethren to "raise the bar?"

Why the need to raise the bar? Because the bar was never lowered. We have a role to play in the gathering of Israel. It just may not be as prominent as once thought.