The Bible: a Set Apart Compilation of Books

What is the Bible? 

A holy (holy means "set apart") 
compilation (compilation means "putting together")
of books (books being a set of thoughts, ideas and stories). 

Who decided what went into the Bible, the holy compilation of books?  Do we know anything about the individuals who compiled it? 

Christians view the Bible as complete, inerrant, and perfect.  Is that true?  Let's examine this idea, just briefly. 

What was it about this compilation that caused it to be "set apart"?  Was it simply a decision made, by the individuals compiling it? What power did they have?  Were they gifted with heavenly power? 

Did the reader's honoring of it give it increased power to be set apart?  Did the continuous reverence toward it as a sanctified (made holy) thing create it to be more power-filled? 

What if the holy-ness of the Bible is a man made thing?  What if we stretch our minds a little, and suppose that the level of holy thoughts, holy ideas, and holy stories has no end?  What if the Bible really extends to the vastness of time and eternity, and the life forms put on the planet? 

What if you are a living "bible", a holy set of thoughts, ideas, stories and experiences, and what if you are as unique and qualified to be important as Jacob, Isaac, Noah, Paul, Joseph or the rest?  Naomi, Ruth, Mary, Eve... what if your story is equally as important?  What would you do with your life?  What would you do with your opinions?  Your thoughts, ideas, and stories? 

Today I believe that God instilled an idea in my mind, that we all are part of the Bible.  Our story has simply not been published yet, and in time, who knows but what our story will mean to someone down the road.   

Thoughtful Questions on Official Declaration 1

Listed below is an excerpt of an address offered by President Wilford Woodruff, which was given following the release of Official Declaration 1.  It is included in the 1981 copy of the Doctrine and Covenants, held in LDS Scriptures:

"The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty."

A few questions I would pose to the thoughtful reader:

1. What does "lead you astray" mean?  To lead one away from some one, some thing, or some belief or doctrine?
2. What would it look like for one to be "removed out of their place"?

• Would it resemble being murdered with a gun, knife, or other weapon?
• Would it resemble poisoning? 
• Would it resemble being imprisoned? 
• Would it resemble crucifixion? 
• Would it resemble bleeding from every pore? 
• Would it resemble being falsely accused or persecuted?  
• Would it resemble being voted out? 
• Would it resemble division, strife, or envy? 
• Would it resemble death of natural causes? 

(photo source)

3. Does the fact that Christ, Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, and the early apostles who walked and talked with Christ were murdered through weapons, crucifixion, persecution, and other means of early, untimely death were leading us astray?  Did God remove them, their "oracles", and their duty, because of their inaccuracy of teachings?  Or is this simply a new doctrine, unlike any doctrine previously taught in the scriptures, that untimely death means that one is teaching incorrect principles?  


Here are the first lines of Official Declaration – 1:

To Whom It May Concern: 

Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes, from Salt Lake City, which have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages are still being solemnized and that forty or more such marriages have been contracted in Utah since last June or during the past year, also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy–

I, therefore, as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false.  We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice, and I deny that either forty or any other number of plural marriages have during that period been solemnized in our Temples or in any other place in the Territory.

One case has been reported, in which the parties allege that the marriage was performed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake city, in the Spring of 1889, but I have not been able to learn who performed the ceremony; whatever was done in this matter was without my knowledge.  In consequence of this alleged occurrence the Endowment House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay.  

Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.  

There is nothing in my teachings to the Church or in those of my associates, during the time specified, which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage polygamy; and when any Elder of the Church has used language which appeared to convey any such teaching, he has been promptly reproved.  And I now publicly declare that my advice to the Latter-day Saints is to refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land.  

-Wilford Woodruff
President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

4. The yellow highlighted words stood out to me as words pertaining to legalese or public release/policy statements.  If this were to be regarded as a revelation from God, where is the reference to Him revealing the change?  All previous revelations contained some sort of directive, indicating that the Lord had given instruction.  This contains no such thing, nor any reference whatsoever to Jesus Christ or Father in Heaven.  Where is the Lord's voice in the matter?  

5. Why was this recorded in our scriptures as an Official Declaration, rather than a revelation?  What implications does this have for our current declarations, proclamations, and policy changes?  Is this acceptable to speak for the Lord without referring to Him?  Or is this inferring His name without declaring it, in essence implying it vain, without the power of His name included?

These are just some questions to consider.  It seems that there are a lot of things coming down the pipe that model this sort of transaction.  It would be wise to consider what is revelation and what is personal persuasion and opinion.    

Ordained to Expound Scriptures

And thou shalt be ordained under his hand to expound scriptures, and to exhort the church, according as it shall be given thee by my Spirit.

What a gift this would be, to be ordained to expound scriptures.  So many times, scripture is difficult to understand.  It takes careful listening for the mind of God to really get a good grasp of the meaning of some verses.  Being ordained under the hand of the Prophet, Joseph Smith, would be quite a marvelous privilege.  To have it written permanently in scripture an additional confirmation of the truth of it.

(Joseph Smith, acting as voice)

And what an honor, to be qualified to exhort the church members.  It would be humbling to be given such, as not all are given this ability.  And to be given instructions of the Lord by His Spirit would be even more qualifying.  It's as if He is saying, "I trust you to hear my voice well enough to share what I want shared."

Would this not be a privilege?  A sacred calling?  A holy ordination?

And what of the word ordained?  There's a lot of hubbub going on right now over what this word means.  Perhaps its interpretation is key.  What does the word ordain mean?  What qualifies one to be ordained for anything?

Perhaps understanding the true meaning and context of it would help.  This verse was part of a revelation given to Emma Smith, the prophet's wife.

In this revelation Emma is given the following titles:

• my daughter
• forgiven
• elect lady
• called
• ordained

The Lamanites were kept from the truth because of the incorrect traditions of their fathers.  Laman and Lemuel were taught the truth, however when they got off on their own, they changed things up.  The switched the meaning of truth, and taught their children things which they in turn believed as truth.  When they turned to God instead of the traditions, their skins became white.  Sometimes I wonder where our traditions have taken us, and how much of what we believe it truth vs tradition.  Are the beliefs which allow us to disregard scripture making our skins white or darkened in unbelief?  At what point will we let go of traditions that keep us from the full measure of God's glory?

Pushing the issue further...

What if Emma had said, "Wait a minute, Joseph.  You used that precious word 'ordain'...  Um, that's not kosher in Christ's true church.  Maybe you'd better re-write that?  It doesn't flow with the policy of no women receiving any sort of ordination.  That's priesthood terminology.  Perhaps we could use the word "called" or "calling" instead?  If I roll with this as the real deal, I'm not in alignment with the Church Handbook of Instructions and I don't want to lose my temple recommend for believing false doctrine.  Then I would go to hell and not be saved and my family would fall into apostasy for generations, damning them.  So can we just switch out that teensy word 'ordain'?"

Joseph would have likely rebuked her for not having faith in the revelation.  He was, after all, a Prophet who communed with God, FACE to FACE on more than one occasion.

And Joseph would have also likely explained that the word "ordain" meant something different than it does in 2014.

Interestingly enough, the revelation ends with these words:

And verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my voice unto all. Amen.

I wonder if that means "all" as in everyone?  Or everyone as in women?  Or everyone as in women and men?  Maybe we'd better read the whole thing and get some more context.  The scriptures are pretty awesome when we read and believe them in full.  Here's hoping this post inspires someone to open theirs up.

Primary 3, Lesson 5

Dear Daniel,

I'm a little disturbed today by a paragraph in my Primary Manual.  I'll share the last paragraph with you.

"Be sure to emphasize that Heavenly Father and Jesus usually answer prayers by giving us a peaceful feeling, which the children will learn more about in another lesson.  The children should not expect Heavenly Father and Jesus to appear to them to answer their prayers."  

Daniel, I find this very, very disturbing.  This book was published/copyrighted in 1994 by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I sustain my leaders; I teach from the manual put out by the Church.  However, this teaching is no different than any other church, which tells us that these things no longer happen.  They can, they should, and they do.  This is the kind of teaching that God told Joseph was "corrupt".

"I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

Does God want us to draw until Him with our hearts?  Or only our lips?  What is the difference between the two?  How do we draw near to God with our lips, and not our hearts too?

And does telling a 5 year old that they should not expect Heavenly Father and Jesus to appear to them "deny the power thereof"?  I'm not saying that's the case, but I am certainly pondering it.

I understand the point of the lesson, and the idea that we shouldn't feel sad and depressed if we haven't experienced such things, yet.  But the scriptures are FULL of people experiencing these things, and partly why they're included is to show us that these things do happen!  I find this last line very, very disturbing.  God wants us to seek such things, which is why I believe so many things in the scriptures are veiled from our view.  It reminds me of when we encouraged you to walk.  We stood a little ways away, and waited for you to step into our arms.  We stepped back so you could step forward in faith.

God is an unchanging God.  He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.  How many times is that line repeated throughout scripture?  So just as James' admonition spoke to Joseph about God upbraiding (scolding) not for us asking, He does not scold us for asking with sincerity either.  He wants us to, He expects us to, and when we choose not to, it is it OUR condemnation.  Just because He has not appeared to us, or to common, everyday man, does not mean that He won't, can't, or that we shouldn't hope that He will.

Don't forget to ask, little one.  Maybe someday, He will appear to you.

~Mom<3