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.