Prophecies and Witnesses - D&C 17:1

"Behold, I say unto you, that you must rely upon my word, which if you do with full purpose of heart, you shall have a view of the plates, and also of the breastplate, the sword of Laban, the Urim and Thummim, which were given to the brother of Jared upon the mount, when he talked with the Lord face to face, and the miraculous directors which were given to Lehi while in the wilderness, on the borders of the Red Sea."

 Two points on this passage, one short, one long, and then a question:

1. Many revelations to the Prophet Joseph Smith came by way of instruction, not future-casting. Of the more properly "prophetic" revelations, some are conditional. But if the test of a prophet's truth is in his fruits, this Section ought to count as a conditional prophecy that was fulfilled. Anyone challenging a believer to point to a prophecy the supposed prophet made that came true, can logically and rightfully point to this one in all its particulars.

2. This Messianic revelation addresses the three who would later become the Book of Mormon's 3 witnesses. There were 8 others, whose experience was different, added to the first and all subsequent printings. Balanced thinkers may be frustrated that the plates and other artifacts were taken up into an angel's possession and are no longer available to examine archeologically, but the nature of the testimonies of both sets of witnesses complement each other logically, according to standards of law and logic, and put the lie to the many creative and plausible, but ultimately discredited critiques that have attempted explanations other than the one Smith gave on his own.

The plates were not a figment of his imagination. Credible people, many of whom later had personal incentives to discredit the story, stuck to their witness that the plates were material, weighed what they should, had characters on them, containing a record of some kind.

It was not a mere conspiracy of believers. Besides the aforementioned fact that people who fell away from belief in the subsequently Restored Church, or from belief in Smith as a prophet, nonetheless did not recant their testimony of the Book of Mormon's reality and truth already establishes this fact. But the fact that 3 saw an angel, heard the voice of the God, and saw artifacts mentioned in the plates' narratives with their own eyes, and the other 8 did not, allows analysis to straddle both spiritual and objective standards of truth. Mass delusions or shared visions are incredibly rare. But it would be hard to claim two separate mass delusions for different pools of believers on different dates, especially when the nature of their experience was so strikingly different, the latter being almost scientific in its objectivity and modesty of claims. But even in the more religious testimony, the claims deserve logical weight: by what skill and from what materials could Joseph Smith have otherwise fabricated or procured even plausible forgeries for not just the plates themselves, but the sword of Laban, the seer stones and breastplate of the brother of Jared, and the Liahona?

3. I think I need more archeologist friends. I have a conjecture--not even really a full hypothesis, really--about why those specific artifacts. My curiosity is about whether it is an attested practice from ancient times when the authenticity of accounts would have been harder to verify that historians compile artifacts that are mentioned within their accounts. And if so, why choose from the beginning of the accounts and not amass them all along as new mentions gather and the history unfolds? Why do we not have the javelin of Teancum, or Moroni's title of liberty, or a tile from the wall on which Amulek's ancestor Aminadi interpreted the writing of the finger of the Lord? Why do we have the Liahona from Lehi's first years in the wilderness, Laban's sword from the first days of his family's departure from Jerusalem, and stones from the Jaredites' first prophet, and nothing from the intervening historical events?

One attempt at a hypothesis might be that for someone to carry something from the beginning of a record forward to its end and sealing up is a way to establish that the entire record--passed from generation to generation as it was--was kept sacred, safe, and integral from beginning to end.

Honestly I can't think of any other analog, but I suspect that something like this must have been a practice among some ancient peoples.

The Priesthood Restored, Part One - D&C 13

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

I can't stress enough how mind-blowing this angelic visit must have been--to Oliver Cowdery, certainly, who expresses surprise in his account of the event, but even to Joseph Smith who had seen heavenly messengers aplenty by this point. The Biblical concept of a Priesthood was clear. But two??!! Who would ever have imagined such a major, defining thing would have been so lost over time that neither Protestants nor Catholics would even conceive of such a possibility. It makes total sense: a "lesser" law of Moses of outward rituals and performances for the body paired with a "higher" law of spirit and inward principles when Christ comes, each requiring separate authorities. But theorizing this, understanding how, why, and where this split applies will only come by revelation to Joseph Smith years after this angelic demonstration that there are, in fact, two branches of Priesthood, of which the Aaronic is only one. In fact, Smith had been told in his first angelic visitation that the Priesthood would be restored by the hand of Elijah, but here came a different prophet to confer the Lesser.

The last of the Old Testament prophets, and first of the New himself came to confer this Aaronic line of authority upon the two inquirers after its Source--each taking time out of critical translation work to let principles sink in, drive them to curiosity, and faithfully ask, seek, and knock, to obtain the blessings of knowledge and power from on high. This John, the greatest of all the prophets, as his Exalted Cousin once called him, was an "Elias" or forerunner, not just for preparing the people of his mortal generation to receive Christ, but for ours as well. He came in angelic form to grant Cowdery and Smith the information and authorities they faithfully desired by the laying on of hands, and also to let them know new truths--that there was a second entire Priesthood, and that it too would be forthcoming, and that it, too, was not yet the key-holding portion that Elijah was prophesied to bring.

Nearly a year after this Restoration event, Smith received another revelation outlining, in "constitution" fashion, the offices and duties of the Aaronic Priesthood, which include: "to warn, expound, exhort, and teach, and invite all to come unto Christ." Understanding that the function of angels is to speak the words of Christ and specifically to warn of the consequences of failing to prepare to meet Him, to expound and teach on His doctrine (of faith in Him, repentance, Baptism, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and endurance to the end), and to exhort and invite all to receive Him by covenant, this charge to all Aaronic Priesthood officers seems like a tight parallel to the "ministering of angels" to which this Priesthood holds the keys. But this, too, must have been a surprise to Smith, whose experience with angels and with Biblical Priesthood could not have led him to this explicit conclusion: that angelic ministry was directed through the Levitical Priesthood.

It's important also to note that this idea of the remission of sins--made possible by the Atoning Sacrifice of Christ--is not paired in this verse with its next step in the Gospel: the Gift of the Holy Ghost. This Priesthood has limits to its functions, and it corresponds only to the ritual "new beginning" or "new birth" of new covenantal relationship that Christ taught. It's clear that He also taught everyone from Nicodemus to his disciples that there was a two-step process involved--a evacuation of sin so that a filling with the Spirit could occur; a purification by His blood, followed by a life walking as He walked; a purging of our "natural man" tendencies in preparation for a process of becoming joint-heirs with Christ. This differentiation of Priesthood functions makes more and more sense, the more you think about it and connect it to scriptural practices, doctrines, and examples.

Finally, a point my daughter raised as she noted in her own study that Oliver Cowdery remembered the words of the angel differently. Compare the implications of the words canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants with those canonized in the Pearl of Great Price:

"and this [Priesthood] shall never be taken again from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness." - D&C 13:1

"this authority, which shall remain upon earth, that the Sons of Levi may yet offer an offering unto the Lord in righteousness!" - JSH, Cowdery remarks after verse 75

While Smith's version suggests that after Levites fill the condition, this Priesthood will be removed from the earth, Cowdery's version flips the causality, suggesting that the authority won't be removed at all, but instead connects that its purpose is to re-integrate worthy Levitical service. I would suggest that since the order of Aaronic Priesthood at the time of Moses was an inherited authority, the "taken from the earth" phrasing in the D&C may mean that the need for Aaronic offices may be obviated when the worthiness of all families allows for the Higher, Melchizedek Priesthood to be among them. Before Moses, the Patriarchs held the Higher Priesthood, and passed it from father to son, but because of the Israelite wickedness--as we will learn in Section 84--they were given not only a lesser law, but a lesser authority to go along with it until Christ's ministry. The two variations therefore can easily reconcile once the context and explanation for the need for the split factors in, even though the reconciliation, context, and explanation won't be available until new revelation three years later comes down the pike.

The Lord and His Father had come nearly a decade prior to this angel's visit, and had demonstrated the doctrine of the Godhead--3 distinct persons rather than the Trinitarian notion of 3 combined essences with separate manifestations--in a way that was clear and unequivocal, but which would require later revelation to unpack the explanation of. This seems to be God's pattern--He reveals truth, grants authority, offers blessings, commands obedience, and directs action before we get the understanding of the how and why. Following God means leaping forward in faith, trusting that the explanations will come after the obedience. It means walking in the path of the blown mind, in the discomfort of the as-yet-unexplained wonder of His light.

 

Obtaining the Word - D&C 11:21

"Seek not to declare my word, but first seek to obtain my word, and then shall your tongue be loosed; then, if you desire, you shall have my Spirit and my word, yea, the power of God unto the convincing of men."

Joseph Smith's gung-ho older brother took the trip to visit the translation site sometime in May 1829, likely after the Restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood. Like a few we'll see in ensuing Sections, he was among many whose thoughts after feeling assured that Joseph really did receive revelations from God turned to asking him to ask the Lord what would be best for them specifically and individually to do.

The response here contrasts with the message given to their father--who was told to share more openly the testimony he had of God's workings with his son, especially to Oliver Cowdery who was living with him at the time--and basically says instead, "hold your horses."

It's possible to explain the differences by appeal to personality--Joseph Senior was reticent and needed a push, Hyrum was too eager, and needed some temperance. It's also possible to think about timing as the factor--the Lord knew speaking to Cowdery would provide material aid for the translation project, but needed Hyrum to hold off until the Book of Mormon was published before he really sunk his teeth into missionary efforts publicizing the newly Restored Church.

But thinking about how this verse might apply to me personally, or to everyone generally, I have to focus instead on the meaning of "obtain." As a full-time missionary myself, I often took this to be about information. I have to know a thing before I can teach it. That's fair enough as a principle of humility goes--you shouldn't pretend to know more than you do, therefore you should always strive for more understanding than what you currently have.

It's also an important spiritual principle. The Holy Ghost certainly can inspire worthy people with words of wisdom beyond their own intelligence, but even with the Apostles, that's not how it normally proceeds. It's a gift that is present in the time of teaching to allow truth to penetrate the mind and heart, but primarily, it's not a magical conduit to new information, but rather will bring the right things to remembrance at the right times.

So how do you know when you've "obtained" enough to begin sharing? Certainly in Hyrum's case, more of the "word" was set to be available shortly, and from his study of the Book of Mormon, the interpretive range of a vast number of doctrines and practices extant in the broader set of Christian beliefs would narrow to the core, distinctive set of them. As his brother had learned, likely days before, Hyrum would discover only after the publication of Joseph's translated manuscript that authorities were necessary for certain covenantal ordinances--and therefore that the creeds of nearly all of the Protestant religions were missing something key. He would discover that baptism was necessary to salvation as Catholics insisted--to the chagrin of many Protestants who wanted to believe that saving by faith meant that no rituals or mediating authorities should be involved at all in any personal relationship with the Savior--but that it required immersion, which they don't practice. Hyrum would learn so much more in his Book of Mormon studies about the nature of the fall of Adam, the nature of the Atonement of Christ, the purpose of this mortal period, infant baptism, the resurrection, and the proper resolution of the faith vs. works debate. For him, there was a clear, material thing he should "obtain" and examine as the Word of the Lord, only after which would he have sufficient new information from which to begin preaching truth.

For us, however--even though we are under the same challenge to make sure we are familiar with all of God's extant "word" before claiming to preach from it--there's a sense in which we will never fully "obtain" it. Paraphrased from Heraclitus of ancient Greek philosophical fame who once stated this about a river, a man never reads the same passage twice because it is not the same passage and it is not the same man.

One other available, more discretely self-measurable meaning is available, however, when recalling John's esoteric and mystical description of Christ as THE Word. can we obtain a testimony of Him as our Savior? That's an off or on binary. And if we can "obtain" THAT Word--have the assurance of His atoning blood covering OUR personal sins, being alive in Him--then this scripture's result clause seems reasonably triggered also: we will have His Spirit and His word to share, unto the convincing of those of our interlocutors honestly open to that same Spirit of edification and peace.

Suffering Satan - D&C 10:14

"I will not suffer that Satan shall accomplish his evil design"

The story of the lost 116 pages can be read as a broader allegory for our lives. A trusted benefactor pressures us to drift from our mission and make a mistake--trusting too far. That benefactor doesn't have ill intent personally, but cares more about worldly concerns than s/he should, and doesn't take enough care with the trust. Something precious and unrecoverable is lost. We sink into a depression for a time, losing our bearings. Eventually, turning back to our main mission, working on our own sense of how to live and love in a world that has betrayed us deeply once too many times, we begin to move forward again. Soon we discover that even though we should have avoided that one pitfall, there was a long-running backup plan and getting through the recovery actually taught us a few things along the way anyway.

Every redemption story there is looks a little like that one.

The gold plates began with Lehi, not Nephi. But we know little more than that about the contents of the lost 116 pages. Some suggest that the current book of Mosiah contained chapters that covered the first king Mosiah's reign in more detail than Amaleki who passed the small plates on to his son, Benjamin. Whatever the case, we know from Section 3, given some 10 months prior, that it was gone and lost for good, and that the translation gift that resulted in the manuscript was going to be gone for a time. What strikes me is how long Smith must have languished not knowing what God knew 2400 years prior: that plan B was already assured. Around 600 BC, the Lord had inspired a second set of plates, which didn't make sense to Nephi at the time, to be commissioned and for their content to run parallel to the parts of the manuscript we were going to lose in 1828. Silly Satan, scriptures are for God.

We worship a God playing 4D chess with us mere mortals. Whatever evil design to distort your story the Devil has, God will not suffer it. You read that right! His will is to suffer ZERO evil designs. Our job isn't to defeat Satan, it's to line up with God so He can spoil the spoiler for us.

A Wicked Man - D&C 10:1

What do you call a person who listens carefully as you share your spiritual experiences, takes time to find out more, is willing to travel to spend time with you, even supporting you financially in significant ways, who prays with you, speaks about you only positively in public, and is willing to sacrifice substantial amounts of effort, means, and reputation for you. Is this man your minister?

The Lord called him a "wicked man."

Martin Harris was 20 years or so older than Joseph Smith, and had some measure of material success in the world by the time he met and showed favor to the Smith family, Joseph in particular, despite their awkward community standing in Palmyra. As an entrusted scribe, creditor to Joseph, and family friend, Harris enjoyed proximity to some of the early wonders of the translation process, traveled to New York in search of potential scholars able to help or at least help verify authenticity of the Book of Mormon characters. And he demonstrated a profound sense of guilt at the theft of the 116 pages immediately upon discovery.

The Lord called him a "wicked man."

After the loss of the pages, his status as scribe for the translation, and his marriage, Harris continued to support the Book of Mormon, mortgaging his farm, and regaining the Lord's favor enough to hear His voice directly, see an angel, and handle the Gold Plates as a special witness.

The Lord called him a "wicked man." Twice.

Who do you think of, when the term "wicked" is deployed in scriptural language? Cain? Pharaoh? Jezebel? Delilah? The adulterous woman? The Pharisees?

How about yourself?

You can be highly faithful and oriented toward worship, and still be wicked. You can be highly interested in, well educated in, and willing to sacrifice a lot for spiritual matters, and still be wicked. You can perform deep service, possess deep godly knowledge, and hold public positions of influence for good, and still be wicked.

Wicked is the descriptive pole of a spectrum on the other end of which is righteous. With Christ as our model for what that other pole looks like, by comparison we're all wicked. You are wicked. I am wicked. We're all wicked.

And we are who His sacrifice was made for. Acceptance of His forgiving power both prevents that polarized term from sticking permanently and enables any move along the spectrum in His direction.

It may seem harsh to have your person labeled with the term "wicked" in a published revelation, but He has taken that shame upon Himself too. For us all.

Both Smith and Harris had to square up to the sins and mistakes they made, and regain the favor of the Lord through repentance. In the final analysis, repentance is the only process whereby the label flips and we can become righteous. We share the Gospel that this happens through Christ. Let's worry less about whether we are flatteringly or unflatteringly portrayed in the world, and more about how we shine with the Light of He who has borne our sin and made us His.

Moses and the Revelatory Process - D&C 8:2-4; 9:7-9

 

"I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart. Now, behold, this is the spirit of revelation; behold, this is the spirit by which Moses brought the children of Israel through the Red Sea on dry ground. Therefore this is thy gift; apply unto it, and blessed art thou, for it shall deliver you out of the hands of your enemies, when, if it were not so, they would slay you and bring your soul to destruction."

I've been pondering for several days on how the spirit of revelation connects to the Biblical episode of God parting the Red Sea in Moses's time. There are so many other more direct scriptural episodes to draw from. The Exodus narrative is a striking miracle, but we don't often think of it as revelatory, or as related to the revelatory process. It's a testimony confirming evidence of God's power, and its action contains messages: I'm God; I am on your side; I'm saving you; No one else could save you; You're about to spend time in the wilderness, so keep following my prophet for safety; etc. But this isn't the moment that Moses receives 10 commandments to convey, or judgments to consider and adjudicate, or doctrines to expound. It's an action shot, not a monologue. The image brought to mind is not one of translation as Cowdery's desires were toward, nor is it one of the peace-speaking Oliver was recently reminded--in the previous Section--that he had received upon inquiry of the Lord to know he was undertaking the right path. Instead, it's bold motion, it's surprising and impossible action, it's confident steps taken through physical barriers trusting in God's power to remove what no human can.

Why not bring up Moses's time, shoes removed, with the burning bush? Why not connect the spirit of revelation to the days-long cloudy encounter with the Lord on Mount Sinai? Why not link the spirit with the still, small voice that whispered to Elijah after the storm, earthquake, and fire? Why not recall the Mount of Transfiguration where both of these deathless prophets reappeared to Jesus, Peter, James, and John and the voice of God announced His Son in whom He was well pleased? Or why not the chapter before, in Matthew, where Peter's name is cause for word-play as the "rock" of heaven's revelation that Jesus is the Christ is given to him--rock on which the Church would be built?

What about Moses's Red Sea scenario is applicable to the Cowdery context here?

I'm not entirely satisfied that I've found the key to this one, but I have a few thoughts that might frame the beginnings of an answer.

Moses had many experiences which prepared him to hear and act on the word of the Lord. His burning bush encounter is one, but can be broken down into steps. 1. He saw the bush burning, but it required that he turn aside from his daily shepherding concern, and take steps to approach something more valuable, more eternally significant going on at the mountain of the Lord in order for him to hear the Lord's voice; 2. After that effort of moving, of dropping less important things, and the effort to remove his shoes, he could face the fear of what his tradition had taught him--that the presence of God was too much for humans--and he could see the face of God and converse with Him; 3. Next, he was called to speak truth to a group who he wasn't sure would accept him as their messenger. Here again, his effort of willingness to face the prospect of rejection is what brought God's confirming revelation--Moses would win their ears by revealing God's name to them; 4. After this, Moses continued to take effort of thought to anticipate challenges, and inquire of the Lord how he could make them listen. This led to a surprising use of means--a rod being transformed into a snake and back again--that Moses could not have predicted, but was a paradigm-shifting revelation made available after effort, both of inquiry and of obedience. In all of these cases, there was a decision point in which he was sort of backed up against a barrier before He could hear the word of the Lord give him ideas beyond his earthly comprehension. He didn't know what to do about a burning bush until he was willing to sacrifice his care for sheep. He didn't know what to do about the doctrinal fear that seeing God's face unprepared would destroy a person until he was willing to approach the veil of fire without his shoes to receive instruction. He didn't know what to do about the Hebrew's skepticism until he was willing to accept ostensibly irrational commands to throw a stick on the ground, put his hand in his bosom, and drop water on the sand. He had no way to know the stick would become a snake, the hand would become leprous, or the water would turn to blood. In a way, the obstacle came first, the faithful action came second, and the miracle and its attendant knowledge and confidence followed on only from there. Seriously! Think about what must have been going on in Moses's mind when God commanded him to put his leprous hand BACK into his bosom!

This pattern--obstacle, faithful act, revelation--leads to Aaron being supplied, each of the ten plagues refuting a specific aspect of Pharaoh's supposed divine control of the natural forces that the Egyptian pantheon supposedly mastered, and then to the details of the Passover meal and rituals. We have to imagine that the pattern holds--Moses was put up against his obstacle, put thought-work into what he could do, and then let God show the way, provide the miracle, issue the revelation.

The Lord led the Israelites to an uncrossable body of water, made them camp, showed them the pursuit of Pharaoh's armies, and let them panic for a bit before he showed Moses His power in dividing the waters. The process of obstacle, faithful action, then revelation--not just in the form of information from on high, but in the form of miraculous protection from enemies--is the process we need to understand and "apply unto" by leaning into our gifts of the Spirit.

Pharaoh's armies drowned. So can our fears when He reveals the way and we let Him act through us for the blessing of others.

There may not have been physical danger immediately threatening Oliver's mortality in the moment of translation, but his failure to trust the revealed process explains his failure to receive revelation, as recorded in the next Section.

"you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right. But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought that shall cause you to forget the thing which is wrong; therefore, you cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me."

In some sense, the "burning in the bosom" we're taught to look for, and the "stupor of thought" we're taught to pay attention to aren't the mere feelings that the surface reading imply. First, they combine the emotional vocabulary of feeling with the language of mental enlightenment--this is not a purely "trust your heart" doctrine. Secondly, the feelings don't make sense except as a response to a process--a repeated, methodical effort rooted in a process of meaning-making, not just aimless, new-age-y openness to suggestion. He was commanded to apply unto a gift, and then took no thought on his own. Perhaps later, as persecution of the Saints gains traction, Oliver's sense of the reality of the obstacles and enemies will congeal into the awareness of obstacle Moses had, and then his efforts to meet the problem with action will generate unmistakably Divine responses to his inquiries. In fact, we know it did--in partnership with Smith, Cowdery felt the impossibility of salvation without Priesthood authority to perform covenant-making rituals, and was present as heavenly messengers restored the keys to the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods within a month of his failure to receive translation revelations.

And therein, perhaps, lies the key--praying with real intent to be led is different in faith outcomes from even honest humility in open-ended requests to be guided. And the lesson is not merely to put thought in first, it's to not lose faith when the obstacle strikes. The spirit of revelation that is best embodied in the Red Sea episode is the spirit of trust even at the critical moment of impending destruction. Stick with the Omnipotent One even when, and perhaps especially when He engages in brinksmanship, and your faith will grow.

Prophets and Chronology - D&C 7, 8:1-2

 

Original Image author unknown, copied from: https://www.orthocuban.com/2020/06/anachronisms-and-isms/

One of the benefits of omniscience is that you know things before they happen. All the intellectual debates about causality and determinism aside, the concept of a prophet receiving messages from an omniscient God not only gets the messages relayed, but offers the non-prophets both a test of faith and something upon which to make a faithful test. People that suffer because they didn't heed a prophet may be deserving of more clemency than those who knew the message came from higher, and chose not to obey anyway. And it's also true that after the prophecy has been fulfilled, we can retroactively offer the prophet their due respect, no matter how they were treated in the moment. The corollary to prophets is that fulfilled prophecies become proof of their prophetic nature and therefore their divine provenance. At least intellectually, this kind of "proof" should satisfy after the fact, and if the intellect is honest and humble enough to allow for the concept of an omniscient Creator who speaks to His creation through authorized messengers, then it should tool the sensibilities to help identify true messages from God, and true messengers, before the time of will alignment has passed.

Stated another way: evidence of a prophetic calling consists in clocking their anachronisms. Saying something they couldn't have known naturally, which turns out later to come to pass, confirms their claims. Those of us who notice these are likely already believers whose testimony of a prophet's calling already has the single most compelling evidence--the Spirit's witness. But noticing them can still confirm and corroborate, and add meaning to their words and frames.

I noted a couple of these in Sections 7 and 8 in my study, that I hope will supplement what truths you already gleaned from the passages.

1. The contextual introduction to D&C 7 mentions an inquiry made through the Urim and Thummim on a question that arose between Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith in April 1829. What it doesn't mention is what the precise question was or how it came to be a subject of curiosity between them. More context can be found in the historical introduction to the section's manuscript record at the Joseph Smith Papers project site. It reminds us that this was the period of heavy productivity in the pair's project to translate the Book of Mormon. We know very few of the details of the translation process--Joseph Smith seemed loath to describe it in detail--but we know that it began in earnest on April 7 of that year, and took around 60-90 days to complete. From this information, and recalling the fact that because of the 116 lost manuscript pages, the two began from the current Book of Mormon's book of Mosiah, it stands to reason that they could have been well into Alma by the end of the month, but could not have completed 3 Nephi. The Joseph Smith Papers historians estimate, with the modifier "probably" attached, that it was their translation of Alma 45:19 that triggered the question. In this passage, Mormon entertains theories from church members at the time of the prophet Alma's son Helaman to the effect that Alma the Younger had been taken up to heaven without tasting death as was Moses. This must have led them to other biblical cases where a power to escape death was discussed, and perhaps the most famous of these is the case of John the Beloved, from the final verses of John 21 in which the resurrected Jesus used word play to keep Peter guessing about whether or not John would be granted an early immortality to be able to serve Him without dying. D&C 7 corrects and appends those verse in John to assert that John really had been granted this power. But what Joseph Smith could not have known until the next month when 3 Nephi came up in the order of translation, that the same resurrected Lord, during His visit to Nephites, also confirmed that John did, in fact, not taste of death, and that three Nephite apostles were also blessed with the same thing.

And therein lies the prophet-confirming anachronism: it was revealed to him because of a question of curiosity before it was confirmed to him by translation.

2. Verses 1-2 of Section 8 announce to Oliver Cowdery an encouraging and joyful bit of news: he would be given the power to translate that he desired. It would have to be according to certain principles and practices--and we know from the next Section that these were not met, and that this entire episode was a bit of a set-up by the Lord to help Oliver feel oriented higher, but satisfied in his role, and to have confidence in the prophet whose task translation really was. The language deployed has striking similarities to phrasing neither of the two of them would learn that Moroni had used 14 centuries earlier. 

The two are laid out here:

"Whatsoever things you shall ask in faith, with an honest heart, believing that you shall receive...by the manifestation of my Spirit. Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart." - D&C 8:1-2

 And here: 

 "I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."

Are you noticing the parallels in the "honest" and "sincere" heart? The "believing that you shall receive" and the "asking in faith" and the "with real intent?" The "asking in faith" and the "with faith in Christ?" The "by the manifestation of my Spirit" and the "he will manifest the truth...unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost?"

When they finally stumbled on Moroni's wording, probably in May, I wonder if Oliver remembered Section 8 from the month earlier, and how the revelatory process as was explained to him those short weeks ago was so nearly identical to the revelatory process Moroni outlines for all seekers after the truth of the record Moroni had sealed up for our time.

Oliver's instructions came with a reference to other spiritual gifts--the gift of "Aaron" along with the above guidance on how to recognize the Spirit's truth-revealing influence. Moroni's came with an enumeration of dozens of spiritual gifts as part of his argument that the manifestation of the truth will not be limited to a mere emotional connection with Deity, but has an effect over time that flowers and fruits into measurable growth toward God's goodness, attributes, and powers. But I'll write more on that soon.

Sons, Heirs, Flocks, Adulterers, and Intertextuality - D&C 6:32-37

 

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, as I said unto my disciples, where two or three are gathered together in my name, as touching one thing, behold, there will I be in the midst of them—even so am I in the midst of you. Fear not to do good, my sons, for whatsoever ye sow, that shall ye also reap; therefore, if ye sow good ye shall also reap good for your reward. Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail. Behold, I do not condemn you; go your ways and sin no more; perform with soberness the work which I have commanded you. Look unto me in every thought; doubt not, fear not. Behold the wounds which pierced my side, and also the prints of the nails in my hands and feet; be faithful, keep my commandments, and ye shall inherit the kingdom of heaven. Amen."

In closing remarks to a revelation that opened addressing Oliver and his doubts and questions most directly, Joseph Smith in Messianic voice now begins a passage in which the Lord is addressing the both of them together. The "you," for the first time in this Section becomes unambiguously the subject pronoun of the second person plural. It's as if this is the moment that the Lord wants to turn the corner from letting Oliver know both that he is singled out for praise and individualized messages, and letting Joseph know that he is now not alone in the ways he very recently was. Joseph and Oliver were "disciples" together, and the Savior was with them in the same very real way He was with His ancient apostles.

And they could take courage from that--from knowing God was literally on their side in the things they were sowing--they could only reap good if they kept on this path of discipleship--putting the Lord's work first, seeking to know His will through prayer, revelation, and the translation of previously unrevealed scripture. Even more explicitly, the ensuing verses let them know that opposition will mount, but that they are protected in His flock, and built upon His rock.

Two things strike me in this stretch of passage:

1.notice how quickly the metaphors pile up. The Lord is using language familiar to them both, but not telling the full story. He could have relayed more of the Good Shepherd who sacrifices Himself for the sheep, who goes after the 1 and leaves the 99, who keeps predators out. He could have relayed more about the sand that the foolish man built on, about how His higher laws led to Him, the rock of salvation, as He did for three full chapters in Matthew's Sermon on the Mount as Oliver and Joseph knew it. It was enough for them to hear the references keyed up, and the entire content of the sermons were alive in their minds. The Lord taught them through intertext--through allusion and metaphor, through allowing their own minds the space to actively fill out the meaning of the message, through giving their hearts a chance to sit in the feeling of a full sermon without interminable, dry explanation. The Master evokes, and our righteous desires to orient our hearts and minds--and ears--toward His voice, provides the meeting of the will, and the oneness in Spirit.

2. Again, look closely at the vocatives--at the evocative nicknames He seasons His allusions with. He combined Oliver and Joseph into a plural "you" as this passage opened, but as we move on, He calls them "sons," a "little flock," and alludes to them as heirs--those who "shall inherit the kingdom." Each moniker is unnecessary to the propositional content of each message, but adds tenderness and intimacy. The point both men to the love and connection with a Higher Being--inspiring them through a call to their divine nature as "sons" of God, all while encouraging them to think of their inheritance as not conditioned upon their blood kinship, but on their behavioral choices--doing good, fearing not to do good despite the opposition of the world. Notably, the Church--which is traditionally thought of as the "flock" that the Great Pastor shepherds--is a year out from organization at this point. Joseph knows that it's about to be restored, but the Lord is telling him now that there is, in fact, a little flock of two that He is carefully guarding and tending.

Finally, in one more evocative stroke of didactic mastery, the Lord drops a phrase that can't have failed to register with these two earnest seekers after Gospel knowledge. The context was very different the last time Jesus spoke such similar words as in the string: "behold, I do not condemn you, go your ways and sin no more." Peter Paul Rubens, famous baroque painter whose work is featured above, depicts the famous scene from the Gospel of John at the beginning of chapter 8 in which a woman taken in adultery (and not the man she was having adultery with), is brought before Jesus while He was teaching the people. Ignoring the Pharisees who had sought out the provocative confrontation, and who thought of themselves as the authorities in these matters, Jesus continued writing whatever pedagogical aid on the ground that His previous teaching task had Him engaging in. He then refused to engage in their insistence that the woman be stoned, but rather convinced the crowd to take note of who would throw the first rock, asking that he who was without sin to cast it. The Pharisees, embarrassed by the crowd, shrunk from their Law of Moses duty--even as they understood it--but missed the point: there WAS one without sin in that meeting, and He didn't cast a stone. The woman, grateful and shocked to be left alone rather than executed publicly, hears the Lord's last words to her--the same that Oliver and Joseph record: go and sin no more.

We shouldn't supposed the two friends guilty of anything so serious as sexual sin--we need not suppose them guilty of anything at all--but the warning in the midst of the encouragements to be careful not to sin would not have failed to ring loudly in their minds in all its intertextual seriousness. They must be worthy of their revelatory work at all times, and if they did that part, they could trust that the Lord would take away all reasons for fear, and leave them with its twin opposites: faith, and love.

Reason or Emotion? D&C 6:14-17

 

"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, blessed art thou for what thou hast done; for thou hast inquired of me, and behold, as often as thou hast inquired thou hast received instruction of my Spirit. If it had not been so, thou wouldst not have come to the place where thou art at this time. Behold, thou knowest that thou hast inquired of me and I did enlighten thy mind; and now I tell thee these things that thou mayest know that thou hast been enlightened by the Spirit of truth; Yea, I tell thee, that thou mayest know that there is none else save God that knowest thy thoughts and the intents of thy heart. I tell thee these things as a witness unto thee—that the words or the work which thou hast been writing are true."

The historical caption to Section 6 leaves me unsatisfied. It leaves the impression that this entire section is a revealed response to an inquiry without specifying the nature of the inquiry. Given that the section can mostly be summed up as a description of Cowdery's role in the "great and marvelous work" from verse one, one might be able to reconstruct that the "inquiry" might have been Oliver asking: "what is my role?" But I wonder if there was something more specific going on. Oliver had only just begun work as a scribe on the Book of Mormon translation project, but knew it was connected to something bigger than merely marking down and reading back phrases all day. I can imagine a big picture "what is going on here" or "if this is the tip of an iceberg, help me understand the iceberg," kind of question. And I can imagine it going on simultaneously with more personal questions like "What is my part? How can I best fill it? and What assurance can I have that this is really from God?"

It's the latter question that the above verses really shed some light on as they apply to each of us. Joseph Smith, who is receiving the revelation, doesn't know what his dad and his new scribe had discussed, or what Oliver's prior prayers had contained at this point. Oliver is hearing a message that only God could have known come through the mouth of a seer and revelator. It's both reaffirming and evidentiary. the Lord is aiming at both head and heart as He comforts his son with the encouraging words "blessed art thou" introduced with an emphatically repeated "verily verily" and then immediately reminds him of emotionless facts: he inquired, the Lord enlightened, it was already a matter of memory.

Or was it?

Yes, and no. Memory is fickle. And spiritual experiences are sometimes ineffable. Sometimes you don't understand an experience until way later when you can process it differently. It's like the memory is written on the hard drive somewhere, but until you have the key search term, you can't access it. This is the same reason a child can ask you to tell a story and you draw a blank, but when the same child tells you they got an owie, you immediately and effortlessly can recall a story of when you also got injured. It's why you have trouble when I ask you what you had for lunch yesterday, but can give me endless details of taste and texture when prompt you differently, perhaps with a (gentle) command and a quota--"tell me about the 2 most delicious things you ate for lunch." Does the latter not provide privileged access to recall? Maybe I'm stretching, but I've seen it in my pedagogical practice that the normal Socratic method often leads to a paralyzed classroom, no one seemingly able (or willing) to respond to a query in interrogative form, but if I elicit the response in the imperative with a quota, it garners voluminous discussion.

Maybe memory, in a similar way to response elicitation, sometimes requires reframing before it registers. Maybe the Still, Small Voice whispered so softly, or distinguished itself from the impulses you've had all your youth, all day long so little that you didn't recognize--like a fish not knowing it's wet--that all of those righteous desires and promptings and enlightenments were the Spirit speaking to you. Maybe it takes a cranking up of your own faith, or of your own heed to the Voice, for you to hear the "yes, this is Me, I'm guiding you right now" message embedded in the substance of the guidance. And having a strong witness of this nature can enable you to think back, and re-align: all those memories of small promptings really were footprints in the sand accompanying you all along, carrying you when you couldn't move on by yourself.

And also, maybe perception itself is fickle. Maybe it's possible to be a willing instrument in the Lord's hands for lengthy periods of service and not realize His influence, His detailed and involved Hand doing good through you. Cowdery was told that "as often as" he inquired to receive further light and knowledge, God had responded by granting it, but it was only later that he could recognize it as such. How often is that the pattern for us as well--God answers every spoken query, and guides every righteous desire, but we don't always know if He did.

Here, a connection to another text serves. As a multi-ethnic society with prophets and priesthood among them began overtly choosing evil over repentance, their civilization broke down from a democratic form of government into tribes within three years of a prophesied set of calamities was set to overturn their world. Literally. Earthquakes, fires from the heavens, and cities crumbling into the sea wiped away the more wicked part of the unrepentant, leaving only those less stained by serious sin, and the few believers who recognized that these acts of God were in fact signs timed to the crucifixion of their Lord on another continent. The voice of this freshly slain sacrificial Lamb came down from the heavens to take responsibility for the calamities, to confirm that those left behind were the more righteous, to command all to repent, and to command an end to the sacrifice of animals because the great and last sacrifice had been accomplished. Instead, the command was to replace these with the sacrifice they were always meant to accompany--each individual should sacrifice their own broken heart and contrite spirit. And in the very verse that this Voice from heaven spoke of sacrifice, it also reminded the people that there were many members of one ethnic group who had traditionally been enemies of the priesthood-holding people, who had nevertheless received a baptism by fire and with the Holy Ghost that we can all receive, but they "knew it not." 

How is it possible to convert, and not know it? To receive the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of Promise or Comfort, and not know it? To obtain a witness, and yet not obtain awareness that we witnessed? Isn't the Holy Ghost supposed to be something overwhelmingly evident, like tongues of fire on the day of Pentecost or something?

I think it comes from our natural, Cowdery-like assumptions of how the Spirit must speak. And the keys are here in the passage. The Spirit does bring fruit connected to emotion. Paul's letter to the Galatians includes a comparison of feelings to fruits. Just as the Lord in His Sermon on the Mount had asked us to distinguish true from false prophets by fruits they produce, the Spirit of God produces demonstrably good emotions

"the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance"

 But are these really properly emotional? Certainly in their pure forms, they are, even if they are also  distinguishable from surrogates or counterfeits--love is more like what a mother feels at the birth of her child than the kind of infatuation the world wants to reduce it to; joy is more like what a mother feels as the child takes its first steps than the kind of passing fun or titillation the world wants to reduce it to; peace is more like what a mother feels as she bravely nurtures the child in spite of the challenges it needs protection from in the world than it is the absence of challenge the world wants to reduce the emotion to. But, some of those on this list--even peace, joy, and love--might more accurately be described as virtues lastingly nourished than mere neuroactive chemicals temporarily stimulating our brains. The patience of longsuffering, the moderation in temperance, the courage in working toward goodness despite uncertainty that defines faith are all not merely emotions, or even pure ones. They are attributes. They are characteristics nurtured over time through obedience and faith. They are made of choices, confidently and fearfully chosen in an environment of opposition to them, that produce both subjective and objective effects in the world--both in heart and in mind. They are things we become. They are the divine format. They change both heart and mind. They develop character, power, and destiny.

Cowdery is being told, in a way that is highly attentive to his emotional need for assurance and motivation, that the nature of the "witness" of the Spirit that he didn't know he had, was an "enlightenment" of the mind. The Lord could have revealed Galations 5-like language deploying more emotion-centric words, but He didn't. Here it is very much mental, intellectual even. The Spirit's influence added intelligence.

Now don't get me wrong, enlightenment is not purely cerebral either. It does come with a rush, with a joy, with a peace. Even secular scientists and engineers know the feeling of Eureka! Anyone who has seen the control room as a robot lander touches down on Mars knows that scientists, engineers, and technicians rejoice. But if you feel you haven't yet received your "witness" even after earnestly seeking it--if you've sat in church, maybe for years, feeling like everyone around you is experiencing some deep visceral, maybe even hokey ecstasy connecting them to God that you are simply insensitive to--maybe it's less because He's not answering, and more because your assumptions are putting His Voice in a box that He won't penetrate until you open it. Maybe He's enlightening your mind and your heart, and you need to open one or the other more to see the balance, catch the vision, and ride the feeling. Maybe you've been stretching out with your feelings like some kind of Jedi, but failing to recognize that cause-and-effect reason is more divine than the "trust your heart" magic our society grooms us to expect.

The good things you both know and feel are Him. You both know and feel truth. So test it. Do something good. Learn something new. Repent of something you've done wrong. Let Him speak to both reason and emotion. See and feel how He responds.

Variations on a Theme - D&C 6:5-8

 

"If you will ask of me you shall receive; if you will knock it shall be opened unto you. Now, as you have asked, behold, I say unto you, keep my commandments, and seek to bring forth and establish the cause of Zion; Seek not for riches but for wisdom, and behold, the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto you, and then shall you be made rich. Behold, he that hath eternal life is rich. Verily, verily, I say unto you, even as you desire of me so it shall be unto you; and if you desire, you shall be the means of doing much good in this generation."

Imagine yourself as a Christian teacher, a believer, well versed in the Bible, and while well educated, you're not necessarily a scholar, you're just earnest. Your education is in the basics of rhetoric and math, science and civics, not ministry. And yet your honest service among school children mirrors a pastor's work in many important ways. You were well brought up immersed in a scripture-filled home, and your liberal arts education has trained you not just in the skills of a profession, but has trained you to frame your profession as a pursuit that can contribute to a meaningful life, but not as its endpoint. In fact, you have some doubts about what your career should really be centered on--you are willing to earn your keep, but know that it's in what you choose to do with your free time that you may have the most impact. Also, in fact, you've been employed at fairly meaningless tasks longer than you have been an actual teacher--like a clerk whose function is important to keeping the books for a business, but whose work is not very spiritually satisfying by itself. Teaching has allowed you to have a more direct purpose--the education of children is satisfying and important in many ways--but you're not sure this is the career for you, and are maybe thinking about giving it up at the end of the school year. 

This description is not far off from Oliver Cowdery's situation in 1829. As was common in the period, he boarded with parents of some of his students near Manchester, NY. But his boarding hosts, Joseph Senior and Lucy Mack Smith, were not so common. They had spent the last 10 years in that greater Palmyra area making ends meet, but living on the social margins on account of their son's incredible stories of theophanies, angelic visitations, and especially a remarkable gold book. Understandably, during the fall months of the school year, the head of household was a little tight-lipped with the stranger living among them. But after a February visit, and a revelation received through his son in which he was encouraged to commit more fully to sharing what testimony he could provide, the senior Smith dropped his reticence and opened up to Oliver about his son's translation project. It took Oliver under 8 weeks to become convinced that he should put down his teaching gig as spring planting season took his students out into the fields, and serve as scribe for the translation project.

This is the kind of character and historical context that might bring to life a sense of meaning as the passage above is dictated to him through revelation.

Imagine now this eager young adult with his Biblical upbringing, hearing Joseph Smith, Jr. speaking Messianically, voicing some of the most often repeated messages of the Savior Himself. What ends of phrases are you expecting when he says "ask and you shall..."? Is it "receive"? What about "knock and it shall..."? Are you expecting "be opened unto you"?

So where's the "seek" part? Aren't we supposed to read those in a familiar package of three?

Seek does appear above, but it's sticking out like a sore thumb for all the extra instructions it comes with and for being out of its customary order. This version is not the clean and concise "seek and ye shall find" that we're expecting from its formulation to the disciples at the Sermon on the Mount. It tells Oliver what to seek: the cause of Zion (incidentally, this is the first D&C mention of Zion, which itself will become an oft-repeated theme in the book) and wisdom. It tells Oliver what not to seek: worldly remuneration.

This variation on the theme of petitioning God and faithful work toward goals He sanctions seems striking to me as a pedagogical method. Oliver is being given what he asks: direction. Just as wise Solomon was praised by the Lord for asking from its Source for even greater wisdom not for himself, but for better serving his people, Cowdery was receiving encouragement to prioritize greater things than what the world could offer. And because of the "variation on a theme" manner in which this message was delivered, it must have struck him with force.

In a way, we are all Oliver when we seek the Lord's counsel. And His answer always includes some form of impetus to align our desires with His: to do good. What themes has the Lord varied to teach you how to better produce such an alignment in your life?

Attitude is Everything - D&C 5:6-7

"Hereafter you shall be ordained and go forth and deliver my words unto the children of men...if they will not believe my words, they would not believe you, my servant Joseph, if it were possible that you should show them all these things which I have committed unto you"

I keep returning to a simple revelatory principle of intermediaries hoping to finally be satisfied with an articulation of a truth that seems to elude my expression. God uses intermediaries to speak to us--language mediates His messages, prophets mediate the linguistic expression. It's a faith-promoting mercy-filled practice that grants us fellow relatable humans from which to hear His voice and thereby both gives us His voice and renders us less culpable for rejecting it because we're skeptical not of Him but of His intermediary. But it has a corollary: Trust in Him now also has to mean trust in their words. Not in their persons, but in the fidelity of the speech of a fellow fallible human to the content of a divine message.

And that's a hard thing. We want to believe in ourselves as modern rational humans who can tell true from false, illusion from reality. But there are a lot of ways we aren't actually as rational as we imagine ourselves to be. A lot of our reasons, at bottom, are emotional, subconscious, based on false perceptions, gaps filled in by processing patterns in our brains as they interpret imperfect or incomplete neural signals because we might need fight or flight instincts to kick in before slower cognitive processes can, etc.

Worse, we're prideful by nature. We're resistant to truth just because it comes from a source we don't want to respect. We call "fake news" on stuff we don't know the facts about just because it matches the narrative of our political opponent, for example. We want judging authority, and guard it jealously. But we're biased and we know it even if we won't admit it to ourselves. So when we combine God's methodology of working through proxies with our natural tendency to want to decide for ourselves what's correct and incorrect, we're left with a logical quandary of epistemology: there is only a binary choice, but since we don't know the message's provenance beforehand, we can't evaluate the proposition for its truth value before trusting the messenger who might be false. We have to take a leap of faith and risk being wrong in order to be right and sure of it. Said another way: correct interpretation of truth is a function of attitude. In yet another way of framing it, skeptics produce their own self-fulfilling prophecies--when they refuse to believe until the evidence overwhelms them, they cut themselves off from the evidence before it can penetrate their reason. The obverse of the skeptic's dilemma is the credulous dilemma in which believing everything before evidence opens them up to risking belief in false prophets, not just true ones. The logical problem that ties both of these extremes together is moral relativism--the rampant scourge of our modern condition. Both the skeptic and the naively credulous choose to relieve themselves of the duty of moral judgment, and act merely on their own prejudice for or against claims of authority without regard for the content of the claims or messages. Being agnostic to substance, they mistake avoidance of judgment for wisdom and moral superiority.

And yet, skepticism that is not blind, is actually humility and curiosity combined with reason. We are commanded to try the spirits and to know false prophets by their fruits. We do need to be careful so as not to fall into delusion, or accept false authority. We are responsible for our actions, and basing actions on false beliefs produces immorality, suffering, and decreasing ability to discern truth.

So the binary of a message either being authentically from God or not, and the binary of credulity sets up interpretive barriers according to attitude along a grid:

1. You're a skeptic and it's a false prophet = bravo, you've successfully avoided the message beforehand and saved yourself from delusion because you let no claim of authority penetrate.

2. You're credulous and it's a false prophet = yikes, you've tragically failed to engage your faculties of reason on the message and you just drank toxic kool-aid because you let a fatal claim of authority penetrate.

3. You're a skeptic and it's a true prophet = yikes, you've tragically failed to engage the important message and you missed your eternal salvation because you let no claim of authority penetrate.

4. You're credulous and it's a true prophet = bravo, you've  successfully allowed the important message to penetrate and your eternal salvation is assured because you let a critical claim of authority penetrate.

I suppose that this grid appears somewhat like Pascal's wager, in which just for making the agnostic bet that if God exists you get rewards, but if the bet turns out false, you lose nothing. From the believer's perspective, there's still the risk that a message won't be from God as claimed, but if we adopt the skeptic's attitude, we miss 100% of the shots we don't take.

But the grid itself is flawed. It's a caricature designed to maximize the rhetorical essence of the different positions, but one of the binaries isn't binary: it's a spectrum. Attitude is a vector with both magnitude and direction. God's saving principles aren't arbitrary or mindless. You don't get the winning ticket to heaven by failing to think but picking the right lucky belief numbers. Lines 1-3 on the above grid are more or less accurate, but line 4 flattens not only believers into a caricature, but also God. This is the essential mistake the skeptics make when they criticize believers as blind.

Since credulity is a circular spectrum of openness to messages, the extremes of closed-mindedness arrive at the same conclusion--both the skeptics and the credulous remain ignorant. However, somewhere in the middle, an attitude which accepts the claims with enough curiosity about their goodness to test them stands a chance of rationally allowing truth to penetrate and advance knowledge. The scientific method--systematic, empirical rationality that nevertheless accepts as truth only what experimentation can't disprove--and faith, which systematically hopes that something that might be true is worth experimenting upon to confirm the hope, are essentially the same point on the spectrum of credulity, oriented in opposite directions. In other words we have a moral duty to evaluate truth claims for their content, not just assume their truth by their provenance. God wants us to think for ourselves, and not just accept His will because someone else told us so, but because we are humble enough to align our reason with His superior reason--to learn from Him. His communications have the design of promoting our growth, and so the credulous doing the right things still isn't succeeding because they are perpetual parrots rather than agents growing in truth and righteousness. God doesn't want His children simply to do good, He wants them to choose good.

Evidence doesn't convince, attitude enables persuasion. Rejection of God will invariably also mean rejection of His chosen intermediaries. But acceptance of His intermediaries still requires courage, an orientation to growth, willingness to obey as a test to confirm the provenance of the Providence. And it requires increasing fidelity as increasing confirmations demonstrate the truth of all of God's true messages. Greater light requires greater commitment. This is the principle: grow toward God. Fill your life with confirmed truth, not your own assumptions. Knowledge is power. In fact, eternal life is knowing God through His Son. And our reception of that knowledge depends, almost entirely--because of their respect for our moral agency--on our attitude.