D&C 36: A Partridge and a Pair of Decrees

This section, given for the benefit of soon-to-be-up-and-coming member of the church Edward Partridge, essentially covers two subjects:  a statement of intent for Partridge's immediate fate and a broader commandment for the spreading of the gospel.

The Personal and Specific

God begins by saying some nice things about the future bishop.  Before he decrees that Partridge will be given the gift of the Holy Ghost by Sidney Rigdon, God extends an oddly preemptive calling (verse 1):

Thus saith the Lord God, the Mighty One of Israel: Behold, I say unto you, my servant Edward, that you are blessed, and your sins are forgiven you, and you are called to preach my gospel as with the voice of a trump;

This revelation was given on December 9, 1830.  Edward Partridge was baptized on December 11, 1830.  Can you imagine getting your mission call before you're even baptized?   I guess if anyone has the right to count his chickens before they hatch, it's a god with infinite foreknowledge, but it sure seems like Edward Partridge's conversion was so rushed that the checklist got a little jumbled up.

The Impersonal and Universal

Four verses in, the revelation shifts away from Edward Partridge and speaks much more generally.  There's some key phrasing to take note of, especially in verse 7:

And this commandment shall be given unto the elders of my church, that every man which will embrace it with singleness of heart may be ordained and sent forth, even as I have spoken.

Wow, nobody told Brigham Young.

Every man who embraces the commandment to preach the gospel and cry repentance may be ordained and sent forth.  Right there in scriptural revelation given to Joseph Smith himself, God clearly leaves the door wide open without feeling the need to mandate any restrictions on the basis of race.  And in case verse 7 isn't clear enough for you, verse 4 specifies that this commandment is given "concerning all men."

That should plainly indicate that black people should have been invited to the party all along.  And if you interpret men in this context as a synecdoche for humankind, it's not too hard to see how women shouldn't necessarily be excluded from priesthood ordination.  It helps that verse 5 doesn't even bother using the word men:

That as many as shall come before my servants Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith, Jun., embracing this calling and commandment, shall be ordained and sent forth to preach the everlasting gospel among the nations—

To be fair, this is a continuation of the thought in the previous verse, a thought that does contain the word men, but if that's men as in mankind rather than men as in dudes, then maybe this verse is a basis for admitting women into the priesthood.  Regardless of how it was intended when it was written, I think it's a valid interpretation of this scripture that can't be definitively refuted without the help of later, more overtly misogynistic teachings.

Based on the words God spoke right here, maybe all the fuss about keeping women from being ordained is pointless because God's totally on board with it.

D&C 35: Sundry Sidney Stuff

There's not much in the way of an unifying motif for my criticisms of this section, so rather than shoe-horn in a thematic thesis as a preamble, I'm simply going to use my refusal to shoe-horn in a thematic thesis as a preamble...as a preamble.

Diving right in.

Unnecessary Clauses, Five-Yard Penalty

Remember FAIRMormon's recent video lambasting the CES Letter for its absurd claims that the Book of Mormon is Trinitarian?  Often, the wider we make the context in Mormonism, the more weighted negative information can become.  Take verse 2 for example:   

I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world, even as many as will believe on my name, that they may become the sons of God, even one in me as I am one in the Father, as the Father is one in me, that we may be one.

Now, this isn't in the Book of Mormon, obviously, but it was a revelation given in the same year the Book of Mormon was published.  There is no reason for this revelation to continue past the phrase "even one in me" if 1830 Mormonism were not influenced by Trinitarianism.  You don't need to compare the amorphous, ill-defined unity of your followers to the amorphous, ill-defined unity between you and God the Father if you and God the Father are two completely separate beings whose coalignment can be so handily crystallized within the phrase "one in purpose."

We can debate whether the Book of Mormon is Trinitarian all we want, but when we broaden the playing field to include information from church history or other scripture, it sure does seem like the whole picture of early Mormonism leaned Trinitarian, which makes arguing about the Book of Mormon's Trinitarianism feel kind of moot.

Offsides, We Should Get a Free Kick

In the context of present-day Mormonism, verse 9 feels a bit like they wanted to sneak something past us and then pretend like it's been there legitimately all along:

And whoso shall ask it in my name in faith, they shall cast out devils; they shall heal the sick; they shall cause the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak, and the lame to walk.

[Some exclusions apply.]

Are there any documented modern-day examples of Mormons casting out devils, causing the blind to receive their sight, causing the deaf to hear, causing the dumb to speak, or causing the lame to walk? Healing the sick is probably more likely since sickness is a less permanent condition than, say, deafness or blindness. It's also much easier to see a prayer or a priesthood blessing as having some kind of positive causal impact on the end of an illness than it is to see a prayer or a priesthood blessing as having some kind of positive causal impact on a mute person's continued inability to speak.

This verse makes it all sound so simple and straightforward—ask in faith in Jesus's name and you'll be able to miraculously reattach someone's severed limb.  But I think most believers reading this verse in seminary class or Sunday school implicitly understand that they shouldn't expect anything like this to actually happen to them, kind of in the same way we all know that faith can move mountains but none of us is really going to move any mountains.  But why should this kind of thing be in the scriptures if we know it's not true?

Traveling, Maybe?

Verse 17 has our Father in Heaven's gift for understatement at its full strength:

And I have sent forth the fulness of my gospel by the hand of my servant Joseph; and in weakness have I blessed him;

Or maybe this is God's admission that he picked the wrong person to restore his church.  After all, he doesn't say he blessed Joseph with weakness or weaknesses—he says he blessed Joseph in weakness.  Maybe God's repudiation of Joseph Smith has been hiding out in scripture all along.  It was a moment of weakness when God chose to bestow the mantle of  restoration upon such a crappy guy.  If only God could go back in time, he'd do everything differently on the second go.

This is certainly not proof of anything and it's not really even evidence of anything, but I do find it disappointing that, time and time again, this all-knowing perfected being is so careless with his wording.