D&C 22: Groggy God

This section is surprisingly dense with problems considering it's a whopping four verses.  

Holy Paradox, Batman!

It begins with what should be a blatant self-contradiction from God that might set some kind of a land speed record (verse 1):

Behold, I say unto you that all old covenants have I caused to be done away in this thing; and this is a new and an everlasting covenant, even that which was from the beginning.

Okay, read that back and tell me how it makes sense.  The old covenants are gone.  This is a new covenant, which existed previously, from the beginning.  So...it's not new then?  Or is it?

This is like the nonsense God mumbles when he wakes up in the morning and his consciousness is still struggling to separate reality from the dream it was just inhabiting.  It sounds like him, but he's not actually making sense.

Works Without Works Are Dead

Then we move on to a sideways entry into the old faith-versus-works debate that I'm not sure the current church would fully agree with:

Wherefore, although a man should be baptized an hundred times it availeth him nothing, for you cannot enter in at the strait gate by the law of Moses, neither by your dead works.

For it is because of your dead works that I have caused this last covenant and this church to be built up unto me, even as in days of old.

God refers to dead works twice here.  Nelson and Friends seem to really emphasize works, though, because they want you to keep busy being anxiously engaged—and I do mean anxiously—in a Mormon cause.  If works were really dead, why would they prescribe so many works like doing your ministering, serving in your callings, attending your presidency meetings, teaching your children the Come, Follow Me curriculum, cleaning the church, indexing names from public records, attending the temple, et cetera?  If works were really dead, wouldn't all that constitute an apostolic edict to waste your life doing things that don't really amount to anything? 

But that's not really what bothers me about this passage.  What really bothers me is that this covenant of baptism is being propped up as a solution to the fact that works are dead.  But isn't...isn't baptism just...isn't it just another work?  It's not a state of mind.  It's not a quality of building faith in oneself.  It's an outward expression of faith, sure, but it's a discrete one-time event.  It's a task to be accomplished.  It's a work.

The normal thing to debate about here is whether faith is of greater importance than works.  But God is saying that the things we do aren't going to get us into Heaven, so he's remedying the problem by giving us a required physical action to complete.  He's not saying we should focus on faith because our works are dead.  He's saying we should focus on a specific work because works are dead.

Three verses in and God still hasn't snapped out of his post-sleep stupor.

Who's in Charge Here?

But maybe God is back to his old self for the last verse:

Wherefore, enter ye in at the gate, as I have commanded, and seek not to counsel your God. Amen.

Damn, Elohim just dropped the mic.

Apparently Joseph didn't like the way some of his converts were approaching the concept of baptism.  This isn't like a driver's license, people, you can't just cross denominational lines and keep using what you came with.  You gotta take the driver's test all over again when you join this church.

I suppose counseling God on this issue would have been pretty tempting for the early Saints, though.  It seems reasonable that if you were baptized into Christianity you wouldn't think a Mormon baptism to be necessary.  But this scripture sounds like something Oaks would whip out when confronted with Ordain Women, Any Opposed, or anyone pushing for sincere acceptance of LGBT members.  It is frustrating to be in a position of authority over people who relentlessly challenge your actions.

But it would help if your actions weren't so awful.  People are less likely to question things that aren't awful—which is a lesson Joseph would learn too late, if at all.

D&C 21: All Glory to the HypnoJoe

This section is basically God telling everybody that Joseph Smith is his chosen prophet and will be responsible for some really great gospelly stuff.

There isn't much that jumps out at me here except for the audacity Joseph must have had to pen verses like these (verses 4-5):

Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

He's talking about himself.  He's saying, as God, that everybody needs to do whatever Joseph says.  He's writing himself a blank check and forging God's signature.

So far, a lot of the Doctrine and Covenants has involved God propping up Joseph's legitimacy.  I mean, if you think about it, God has told us that Joseph Smith is his chosen mouthpiece in the scriptures more often than he's told us not to kill and not to bear false witness and more often than he's explained the necessity of eternal marriage or denounced racism.  How strange what he chooses to focus on.

It seems to me that a real God who stresses the principle of faith wouldn't have spent so much time making sure we all knew the founder of the church was beyond reproach and acting under divine aegis.  It  also seems to me that a regular guy who was making this stuff up and was terrified people were going to catch on would be more likely to produce this kind of text.

Prophet of the Protestation

The mouthpiece of the Lord has weighed in on the current social crisis in his native country.  His Facebook post has some nice thoughts in there, but I think more than anything it shows how out of touch Russell Nelson is and how ill-equipped he is to provide any kind of meaningful leadership beyond some warm fuzzy feelings that reassure those who generally don't have a personal stake in these events.

Here's the wisdom he had to share:

Okay, let's get the good things out of the way first.  Yes, it's good that he is denouncing racism, prejudice, and violence.  It's good that he's advocating for building bridges and respecting human life.  But these are things you don't need to be a prophet to say.  These, really, should be a kind of bare minimum response from anyone.  It's the stuff other than the bare minimum that moves into troubling territory.

"Deeply Saddened"

I realize he's trying to express sympathy and all, but "saddened" is such a passive thing to say.  Where's the outrage?  I grew up learning in history classes that racism was a thing because of slavery but that Nelson's generation fixed it when they ended segregation.  Racism has clearly not been fixed.  You're telling me that people are still dying because of a problem that we pat ourselves on the back for resolving sixty years ago and you're not pissed?  

If you're a bystander on the street when someone's sedan gets T-boned by a tractor trailer and the driver is trapped in their own burning car, do you watch them die while remarking to the other bystanders that you're "deeply saddened" by these events?  Call an ambulance, try to pull the person out of the car, help direct traffic or something.

"Recent Evidences"

The use of the word "evidences" makes me think he's trying to delay his use of the word "racism" or trying to water down its severity.  What about about the recently publicized deaths of black people and the surrounding traditional media coverage and the ensuing social media frenzy doesn't scream racism?  Sure, there are plenty of "evidences" of racism, but I'm concerned that he's not necessarily treating them as facts.  He abhors the reality that some would—hypothetically—deny others respect and freedom on the basis of the color of their skin, but what he's not saying is "look what they actually did to George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor and countless others."

That's weak.  This is not something that will benefit from wishy-washy language.  It's a slight consolation, at least, that the next comment about "assaults on human dignity" comes off as much stronger.

"Repent!"

Nelson then moves on to explaining that God doesn't want us to harbor prejudices against any group of his children. That rings kind of hollow considering how church policies, church doctrine, church leaders, and church culture continues to treat LGBTQ people, for example.  Nelson then calls us to repentance if we have any prejudices toward another race.

Notice he doesn't call us to repentance for harboring prejudices toward another gender or another sexual orientation.  I mean, that's really not at issue here anyway, so it would be kind of weird if he brought it up, but that doesn't mean the hypocrisy isn't there.

Somebody needs to call Nelson to repentance for his organization's homophobia and transphobia and misogyny and unabashed past racism while he's calling us to repentance for our current racial prejudices.

"Fairness For All"

While wrapping up a short paragraph containing more of the hypocrisy I cited above, Nelson says that his church believes in freedom, kindness, and fairness for all of God's children.  I don't think it's coincidence that he happened to include the "Fairness for All" catchphrase associated with the church's belief that LGBTQ freedoms threaten religious freedoms.

Remember when I said it would be weird if he brought up LGBTQ issues in a Facebook post about systemic racial injustice?  I guess I spoke to soon.  He did bring it up, albiet obliquely, and it's definitely weird.  Way to have a chip on your shoulder about something, dude.  

There are plenty of crucial causes for the LGBTQ community and I understand why there are also some concerns about religious freedom, but that's not what this is about.  Slipping a slogan for your pet political movement into a post that's about respecting people's rights regardless of their skin color is kind of a sleazy thing to do. 

"Bond And Free"

Okay, so we're talking about some injustices being perpetrated on a group of people who were historically enslaved and the best scripture Nelson can find to support his claim that God wants us to treat each other as equals is a verse that invites "black and white, bond and free, male and female" to come unto Christ?  This is a verse in which the Mormon god specifically mentions slavery and fails to condemn it.  That's not really a great way to reassure people that your god is the good guy.

Nelson is the prophet and he's supposed to have the capability to speak new scripture.  He shouldn't need to cite previous canon like he's writing a term paper.  He should just be able to say, as God's chosen representative, that God invites everyone to come unto him.  I think he was going for something that included the phrase "black and white" so that he could indicate a scripturally prescribed community of racial inclusion, but the "bond and free" comment is troubling because it implies that God doesn't necessarily disapprove of the practice to which today's oppression of African-Americans can trace its genesis.

And even if he had to quote scripture, he could have at least picked a less problematic snippet of that particular passage.  This is the same verse that mentions that God "denieth none that come unto him" and says that "all are alike unto God".

"Spheres of Influence"

Points for unironically using the word "behoove," Rusty.  That took some serious guts.  

While I agree that it does behoove us to encourage positive changes in our spheres of influence, I think he's missing the point again.  The outrage behind these protests and riots—the way I see it, at least—stems from the fact that merely massaging and molding the opinions within our spheres of influence hasn't worked.  If black people are being targeted and incarcerated and killed and oppressed by the justice system around the country, it's because the justice system has not permitted black people's spheres of influence to expand.  You can't use a power that's been withheld from you.

The justice system has its hands over its ears and Nelson is telling us that we should calmly tell them what needs to change.  At the risk of speaking on behalf of people whose suffering I have never experienced, I'm betting the black community is growing tired of speaking calmly and not being listened to.  Nelson is telling them and the people who support them to stop shouting.  But if nobody's shouting, how is the person covering their ears going to hear what desperately needs to be heard?   

"Influence" is another fence-sitting, passive word.  Influencing the people within our spheres is good, but I think the last few centuries of civil rights violations has demonstrated that influencing is not going to get the job done quickly enough.  And this really is not the kind of thing that anyone deserves to sit around waiting for a resolution on.  And people have been waiting for literal generations.

Which brings me to my next point...

"Illegal Acts"

Yes, looting is bad.  Yes, destroying someone else's property is bad.  And I'm sure there are some opportunists in the crowd who are capitalizing on the chaos.  But if you really can't understand why there's so much indignation and frustration and rage and if you really can't understand why those emotions can erupt into violence when they're met with lines of police in riot gear using tear gas and rubber bullets and pepper spray, I worry that you're not really trying hard enough to understand the nature of the struggle.

I get that violence is bad.  But it's not like one guy died and now the country's going berserk.  These latest killings are part of a long string of injustices going back generations.  Sure, maybe these deaths are less brutal than what was done to Emmett Till.  But if the best we can say is that the racially-motivated murders are slightly less horrific than what used to happen 65 years ago, the progress has been glacial.  Glacial progress toward a solution while people are literally dying from the problem is unacceptable.  Of course it is.  And I can't imagine what it must feel like to be someone who has to wait for the progress to inch forward toward a time when they can feel properly safe in their own community.

And that's why I'm trying not to judge people for the anger and the violence and the looting.  The anger is legitimate and repeated calls for these issues to be corrected within our culture have made such little progress over such an extended period of time.  At a certain point, if you're fighting for something this important for this long and you still haven't been heard, I can understand why maybe breaking some windows and setting some fires feels like one of the best of your limited remaining options.

Nelson says these things "cannot be tolerated."  I agree that they're not good things, but his stern wording that's roughly equal to the sternness he used when he described his abhorrence of racism makes me think he's not really trying to understand.  He just wants people to stop rioting so everyone feels safe.  What he doesn't seem to grasp is that people are rioting because of so many who already didn't feel safe under "normal" conditions.

"Moral Compass"

Who is this directed at?  Who is he advising to cultivate a moral compass?  The police?  The protesters?  The counter-protesters?  It's disappointing—though not surprising—how carefully he tries to avoid taking a specific side.  The church, apparently, will muscle in and let everybody knows exactly how it feels and whose side it's on when we're talking about gay marriage, but when we're talking about people of color being killed, I guess the church can't be bothered to say something as straightforward as, for example, "Black Lives Matter" or "we need to eradicate the racism that is embedded in our justice system and in our culture."

Just get yourself a moral compass, everybody, and play nice, okay?

"More Evil"

It just blows my mind that someone who was alive during World War II can make the statement "evil has never been resolved by more evil."  Probably he just hasn't considered this, but the way this statement breaks down for me is that it's only true if Hitler wasn't evil, if World War II didn't resolve Hitler's evils, or if war is not an evil.  

I think war is evil, although I can understand why it is sometimes a tragically necessary evil.  I think the violent resistance to the Axis Powers is perhaps one of the most historically prominent examples of that.  I don't mean to compare the soldiers who stormed Normandy beach with people setting fires in Minneapolis, of course, but I think it's an important example to illustrate that Nelson is wrong in his approach to the situation and that his thoughts on the subject are half-formed.

Plus, there are numerous scriptural examples of evil deeds supposedly resolving evil.  Nephi cut off Laban's head to get the brass plates.  Ammon cut off the arms of the thieves to defend King Lamoni's sheep.  Alma and Amulek allowed the Ammonihahites to burn so their deaths would condemn the chief judge.  And pretty much anything Captain Moroni ever did was evil but was nonetheless portrayed as a positive accomplishment.  With all the noble bloodshed in the Book of Mormon as a contrast, the rioters in present-day America are admirably well-behaved.

"Color, Creed, or Cause"

Here Nelson is working in references to religious discrimination again.  While he's correct that we should foster fundamental respect between everyone regardless of color, creed, or cause, it needs to be pointed out that only colors and causes are really at issue right now.  If Nelson wanted to have a third thing that preserved his alliteration, he should have picked something else that didn't make it sound like he still thinks this is all about his own interests.

And I think that's why his exhortation that we all work tirelessly to build bridges of understanding doesn't actually do much to build those bridges.  He's fundamentally failing to examine these events from anyone's perspective other than his own.  And even though I don't think Nelson is a white supremacist or anything like that, his passivity is helping perpetuate the things he's denouncing.  He probably means well, but he's advocating the same glacial pace of progress that has given way to this bubbling up of anger and frustration and violence.

This is a toothless, sanitized, carefully non-committal statement with plenty of head-nods toward the moral high ground but with an overwhelming emphasis on the warm, mossy valley of the status quo.  I think he means well, but the status quo is the problem.

We should expect more from a prophet.

Even though the church has trailed behind the American zeitgeist in many social issues—interracial marriage, LGBTQ rights, feminism, even polygamy—this seems like an obvious opportunity for a prophet to at least give the appearance of leading the charge.  He could encourage his followers to protest peacefully, to vote for candidates who will combat systemic racism, to donate to charities that support people of color.  He could even call for a special fast for relief from racial violence, or for legislators to be moved upon by the Spirit to enact laws that will provide protections from these tragedies and address the injustices codified in US law, or that the hearts of police officers will be softened so that they will be slow to violence.  But instead, what do we get from the mouthpiece of the Lord in the latter days?    A press release of platitudes.

Mormonism's founding book of scripture is filled with stories of prophets who valiantly stood for what they knew to be right, spoke truth to power, and disregarded their personal comfort and safety in pursuit of a higher moral purpose.  Ammon preached the gospel dauntlessly to King Lamoni, Alma fled an oppressive regime to start the church in secret, Samuel the Lamanite called a city to repentance while they shot arrows at him, and Abinadi risked and lost his life rebuking King Noah and his wicked priests.  And if we need a scriptural precedent for resisting a flawed criminal justice system, even one of the Nephis talked back with some fiery words when he was falsely arrested for murder (Helaman 9).

How many of those bold characteristics are being exhibited by the man who claims to be the modern-day equivalent of those scriptural figures?

We should expect more from a true prophet.

D&C 20: What Is and What Should Never Be

It's shocking how disorganized this section is considering it's all about the organization of the restored church.  First of all, verse 1 calls this the Church of Christ, but I'm sure there's an easy explanation for why the fledgling sect hadn't grown into its full title yet.  But the uncomfortable disconnects between the church outlined in this section and the largest church claiming to have been organized in this section don't stop there.

Prove Me Now Here With What?

Verses 10 and 11 make some fun claims about the Book of Mormon:

Which was given by inspiration, and is confirmed to others by the ministering of angels, and is declared unto the world by them—

Proving to the world that the holy scriptures are true, and that God does inspire men and call them to his holy work in this age and generation, as well as in generations of old;

Honestly, I don't think the word "prove" has much place in discussion of religion because most religions teach the importance of faith.  Proof defeats the purpose of faith.  But all of that aside, does this really prove to the world that the scriptures are true and that God calls men to his work in this age?  I mean...really?

At best it's evidence of that.  Not particularly strong evidence, though, because there are plenty of things about the story that don't check out.  Having three witnesses attest to something that has a compelling countervailing narrative isn't gonna prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

All Means All

Nelson needs a good smack upside the head with verse 37:

And again, by way of commandment to the church concerning the manner of baptism—All those who humble themselves before God, and desire to be baptized, and come forth with broken hearts and contrite spirits, and witness before the church that they have truly repented of all their sins, and are willing to take upon them the name of Jesus Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end, and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church.

I see nothing in here about disavowing any sins that your gay parents haven't repented of.  It's all about the sins of the individual who wishes to be baptized.  And this is probably less important, but I also see nothing here about getting First Presidency approval if you've been excommunicated in the past.

When is an Apostle Not an Apostle?

A lot of people need a good smack upside the head with verse 38:

The duty of the elders, priests, teachers, deacons, and members of the church of Christ—An apostle is an elder, and it is his calling to baptize;

Yes, yes, it goes on to explain that apostles also lead and conduct meetings and teach and expound and exhort and watch over the church.  These are things that apostles do.  But this section really makes it sound like apostles should serve by rubbing shoulders with the members in a much more hands-on capacity.  And, sure, the passage is really about the duties of elders, not necessarily the duties of apostles.  But nowhere does it say that once you become an apostle you can stop mixing with the rabble because you've transcended an elder's middling responsibilities.  If that were the case, why would verse 38 have specified that apostles are elders too?

(But they're really high priests anyway, aren't they?)

When is a Teacher Not a Teacher?

Teachers have a weird job description (verses 53 and 54):

The teacher’s duty is to watch over the church always, and be with and strengthen them;

And see that there is no iniquity in the church, neither hardness with each other, neither lying, backbiting, nor evil speaking;

So the teachers are the church's watchful protectors and the church's enforcers.  They're Batmen.  But seriously, how are 14-year-old boys supposed to make sure there's no lying or evil speaking in the church?  I heard what you said about Sister Barnes in Gospel Doctrine class last week and I'm here to tell you that kind of talk is not permitted in this ward!

My teachers quorum when I was a kid was pretty decent.  Most of us were dutiful believers and we had a few really great quorum advisors.  But none of us ever did anything like what verse 54 says we were supposedly responsible for.

When is a Vote Not a Vote?

Verse 63 starts to get into a crucial issue that the modern church conveniently ignores:

The elders are to receive their licenses from other elders, by vote of the church to which they belong, or from the conferences.

Each priest, teacher, or deacon, who is ordained by a priest, may take a certificate from him at the time, which certificate, when presented to an elder, shall entitle him to a license, which shall authorize him to perform the duties of his calling, or he may receive it from a conference.

No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church;

But the presiding elders, traveling bishops, high councilors, high priests, and elders, may have the privilege of ordaining, where there is no branch of the church that a vote may be called.

Nowhere in here does it say that a new prophet can ascend to his position in secret and inform the church about it after the fact.  Nowhere does it say that if you vote against someone being in a particular calling that the church should keep that person in the calling anyway and direct you to your priesthood leader for a one-on-one attitude adjustment.

 

The footnotes on the word "vote" in verses 63 and 65 point the reader to the Topical Guide entries for "Sustaining Church Leaders" and "Common Consent."  Not for "Vote," though, because that entry is much shorter and we don't want you to think of your scripturally mandated right to vote as a right to engage in an activity that can accurately be described as voting.

To be fair, these guidelines in the Doctrine and Covenants aren't really detailed enough to be useful, though.  What's the threshold at which the church should deny someone a position as an elder?  This section doesn't say the vote has to be unanimous.  It doesn't say it requires a majority.  It just says there has to be a vote in order for someone to be ordained.  Most people would reasonably assume that the decision to ordain a candidate depends on the outcome of the vote, but it doesn't actually say that.

So this is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't kind of situation.  Mormonism looks bad either way.  If there is a threshold of approval before someone serves in the priesthood, then the modern church is ignoring scriptural procedures.  If there isn't be a threshold of approval, then God is terrible at his job for providing such unclear instructions.

When is a Member Not a Member?

Another thing present-day Mormonism doesn't really care about is verse 71:

No one can be received into the church of Christ unless he has arrived unto the years of accountability before God, and is capable of repentance.

Yes, so officially, no one is a member until they've reached the age of accountability and been baptized, but that doesn't stop us from using unbaptized children of record to pad our membership numbers.  There's a pun in here somewhere about being accountable and being counted, but I feel like it's so easy that if I really try to go for it it'll be like hitting an archery target with a bazooka. 

When is a Symbol Not a Symbol?

So the Word of Wisdom hasn't been revealed yet, of course, and it certainly hasn't been reinterpreted and codified into a commandment, but the sacrament prayers here are fun (verses 78-79):

The manner of administering the wine—he shall take the cup also, and say:

O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this wine to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them; that they may witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they do always remember him, that they may have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

Wine is bad.  Ignore the scriptures.

What strikes me is that the wine is supposed to be symbolic.  The bread represents the flesh of Christ because it's sort of soft like human flesh and it's white (and there are brown breads too if we want to be more anthropologically accurate).  The wine represents the blood of Christ because it's liquid and red, like human blood.

Water is not red.  If your tap water is red, you don't drink it. Ever since Mormonism became the Community of Teetotalers, the sacrament symbolism has literally been watered down.  When we drink clear liquid during the sacrament, are we conjuring up images of Christ bleeding colorless blood from every pore?  Are we thinking about the scriptures that discuss being washed in the clear blood of Christ?  For a religion so steeped in symbolism, it sure seems strange that they'd undercut one of their most central and most frequently performed acts of symbolism over something that God proclaimed "not by commandment or constraint"—and which didn't actually ban drinking wine but merely urged that our wine should be pure and of our own making.

It's almost like the leaders of this church are just kind of, y'know, making things up as they go.

D&C 19: What Even Is God?

This section's header explains that Joseph Smith proclaimed this to be “a commandment of God and not of man, to Martin Harris, given by him who is Eternal.”  My inspired translation of that awkward wording is:  "It's from God, not from me, totally from God."  

Perhaps I'm imposing present-day behavioral norms on historical accounts, here, but that really sounds like the phrasing of a man who's worried that he's going to be believed.  Joseph appears desperate to convince Martin that he's not coming up with this stuff himself.  That's a peculiar approach for someone who was hand-picked by miraculous visitation to carry out God's work.  You'd think having God, Jesus, and angels appear to him would have given Joseph the confidence that his divine endeavors are blessed and that he doesn't have to go around telling his followers that the revelations aren't "of man" all the time.

God of Pain

Verse 4 sheds some sunshine on the soul:

And surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless.

...a Joseph Sith, perhaps?

Okay, but seriously, that's such an intimidating thing for a god to say.  It's basically his way or the highway and he makes the rules because he's all-powerful—which really doesn't strike me as an approach that's particularly benevolent.  But that lack of benevolence becomes even more pronounced in verse 5:

Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my left hand.

Is it just me or does God sound kind of...giddy...here?  He seems to relish his opportunity to describe the possibilities of suffering that he can visit upon those who have incurred his disfavor.  Why does he seem to revel in the level of misery he can inflict?  If his work and his glory is to bring to pass our immortality and eternal life, why is he flexing his damning muscles at us?

Three-God Monte

An ongoing theological shell game is showcased in this section (verses 16-19):

For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.

This is clearly Jesus speaking, because he suffered for us all, he bled from every pore, and he refers to the Father as a different person.  Except he also refers to himself as God with a capital G twice.  What I need to know is the point in history at which it became incorrect to refer Jesus as God—because it clearly seemed acceptable for Jesus himself to blur the line between Jesusness and Godness back in the 19th century, but we wouldn't dream of doing that from the Conference Center pulpit today.  If God is the same yesterday, today, and forever and if the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is unchanging, then why does Jesus's identity seem so different in the scriptures of the restoration when compared to the common parlance of the prophets and apostles 200 years later?

All About the Benjamins

This section is, I think, just a way to squeeze the malleable, gullible Martin Harris for more money.  God spends some serious time here talking about how powerful he is and how much he can torment people and damn people, but the intent of all this lead-in starts to become clearer around, say, verse 33:

And misery thou shalt receive if thou wilt slight these counsels, yea, even the destruction of thyself and property.

Impart a portion of thy property, yea, even part of thy lands, and all save the support of thy family.

Pay the debt thou hast contracted with the printer. Release thyself from bondage.

You (and your wealth) will be destroyed if you don't obey me.  By the way, pay my printer and give me everything that you don't absolutely require for your family's basic needs. Nothing coincidental about these two concepts being so close together in the same section.

[Fun fact about my little caption is that Benjamin Franklin was not on the hundred dollar bill in Joseph Smith's lifetime.  The first one hundred dollar bills wouldn't be issued by the US until 1862 anyway.  Oh well.]

Delicious Word Salad

I'm going to go out of order here and jump back to earlier in the section because I wanted to save the best for last.  This is a favorite little weird scriptural moment for me.  I think it's an excellent example of when church doctrine—especially during Joseph Smith's theological evolution—is sort of half-formed.  It desperately wants to be insightful and meaningful, but there's nothing beneath the surface (at least not yet), so it couches its superficiality in language meant to imply depth.  Observe (verses 6-12):

Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.

I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.

For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—

Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.

Endless punishment is God’s punishment.

It's not that there's no end to it, it's just that it's endless?  Okay.  Then it's not that this passage has a lack of sense to it, it's just that it's nonsense.

In verse 8, God says he's going to explain the mystery (which is, apparently, a great mystery), but I don't see where he actually does so. He goes on to talk about the importance of repentance, to reiterate select commandments, and to describe Jesus's sacrifice, but he never explains his baffling delineation between that which has no end and that which is endless.  That's probably because God is focusing on an aspect of this section that I don't find nearly as riveting—God is explaining the mystery of how his punishment can be endless.  That's not what I needed explained, personally.  What I really want to know is why God can't properly use a language invented by mortals.  Because if God really can't tell the difference between not having an end and being endless, then maybe he's not actually omniscient and maybe this isn't actually him speaking.

If you don't pay attention to what this passage is trying to say, this sounds kind of cool.  This is the sort of thing that feels like you can really sink your teeth into it, cross-reference it with Book of Mormon and New Testament verses, and unravel the inscrutable nature of divine justice.  But it's not.  It's Joseph Smith trying to tilt the table and impress us with his meretricious celestial ventriloquism.