Dear Gramps,

I have been reading a book about the Mormon Church and polygamy entitled, Kingdom in the West: Doing the Works of Abraham. In this book it goes into detail about Joseph Smith’s attempts to get polygamy going in the church. I am so disgusted with Joseph Smith that I am having a difficult time understanding the necessity of beginning this practice. Every one of my ancestors in two generations were polygamists, and yet this behavior of Joseph Smith’s is simply outrageous and would make me leave the church if I were a new convert at the time the doctrine was announced. I simply can’t understand the need for the Lord to command the early Saints to take extra wives. The book I have been reading refutes every reason that I’ve heard for practicing polygamy.

Lynne, from United States

Dear Lynne,

By your letter you appear to be a member of the Mormon Church. Thus, you have been baptized and given the gift of the Holy Ghost. One of the functions of this very special gift is to reveal to you the truths of eternity. By that gift you would have a testimony that Joseph Smith and all the presidents of the Mormon Church that followed him were and are prophets of God. These men are called to reveal God’s will to the members of the Church, and to the people of the world. If we live in such a way as to be receptive to the Holy Spirit, the truth of what the prophets say will be ingrained upon our hearts, and we will have gained for ourselves the absolute knowledge of the truths that they speak. Admittedly, the doctrine of polygamy was a very difficult doctrine to accept. But since it came as a revelation from the Lord, it was accepted by those who received from the Lord their own personal testimonies of its truthfulness.

Now in your case, you have read something in a book, written by some unknown author that seemingly refutes the word of God and His revelations to the prophets–not just Joseph Smith, but all the prophets, and you believe the sophistry and supposed logic of this uninspired source that you seem to revere more than the word of God. Your position is so old hat that is does not merit a defense of polygamy. That doctrine was a biblical doctrine practiced by holy men under the command of God as recorded in the Old Testament, and renewed by God in the restoration of all things in the dispensation of the fullness of times. It is the law of God. It is completely foreign to any concept of lust or avarice by those who were commanded by God to practice it. Because a hostile congress ruled polygamy to be unconstitutional, the Church ceased its practice in order to comply with another law of God to be subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law ( Articles of Faith 1:12). Get with it!!!

Gramps

Dear Gramps,

Why did the Lord leave the earth without prophets for almost two thousand years during the great apostasy and the dark ages? In previous ages whenever his people fell away into forbidden paths, he always sent prophets to warn them and scourges when they refused to repent and remember him. Why did he not continue to do so throughout the dark ages? Why withdraw the prophets completely for so long? What was the benefit to leave so many people in darkness for so long? Will, from Gresham, Oregon

Dear Will,

The Lord does not abrogate the free agency of man. He sent prophets to the earth after the great apostasy from the church that was organized by Christ during his mortal ministry just as soon as they had any chance of being successful. Had prophets been sent at any time earlier, they would have been put to death with no chance for success in restoring the gospel of Jesus Christ. Many were so treated for suggesting even minor changes in the prevailing beliefs of the time. Galileo (1546-1642), for instance, was put in prison for the rest of his life for suggesting a heliocentric rather than the prevailing notion of a geocentric universe. The most despicable tortures and murders throughout throughout the dark ages for any deviation from the status quo were common. As a matter of fact, the first prophet of the restoration, Joseph Smith, was also assassinated, but not before he had been able to establish the Church with all its doctrine and authority.

Gramps

Dear Gramps,

What you wrote about depression doesn’t seem to make sense to me. First off we didn’t have medication for depression until our present day. Doesn’t that show you people who existed before this medication dealt with it in another way? Wouldn’t Christ’s atonement and spirit be a better substitute than relying on a chemical daily? If you could please explain that would be great.

Stetson, from Gilbert, Arizona

Dear Stetson,

You are absolutely right. Before our medication approach to depression it was indeed handled in another way. In the first place, depression was not very well understood, and severely depressed persons were diagnosed as being insane, and were placed in insane asylums–usually for the remainder of their lives.

The Savior’s great sacrifice did not atone for illness, but for sin. So relying on the Savior’s atonement to cure one of depression just wouldn’t work. However, having faith in the power of the Savior to heal illness would and does indeed work. Healing the sick by the power of the priesthood is a very common procedure in the Mormon church. But it is always accompanied by the faith the person being healed and the faith of those who administer to the person. From the Doctrine & Covenants we read—

And again, to some it is given to have faith to be healed; And to others it is given to have faith to heal. (Doctrine &Covenants 46:19-20)

Gramps

Dear Gramps,

Sometimes we see things every day and not pay any attention to them. I was reminded today when my brother asked my dad, “Why are there not any cemeteries on the church grounds of Mormon churches?” Down here in the southern US, it is almost a given that every other denomination has a cemetery on their grounds. So Gramps the question is “Why not us?”

Aaron, from Welcome, North Carolina

Dear Aaron,

It was a common practice in the European countries for the church properties to have graveyards associated with them. Who knows the reason? It well may have been an economic reason. It has been a practice in many countries to exhume bodies after a certain period to time, dispose of them and use the same grave site for someone else. In other places, where land has been at a premium, the dead have been buried in crypts above the ground. These crypts also would have been emptied and reused. Two cases in point—

1) In the small town of Las Flores, Argentina, typical of the Argentine towns, the local cemetery consists of above-ground crypts. In an out-of-way corner of the cemetery is the bone pile, where the skeletons of the older deceased are thrown in order to make way for new occupants. This procedure was practiced at least until the 1940s.

2) In 15^th century England, because of the costliness of caskets, after a certain period of time, they would be dug up, the skeletons disposed of, and the caskets re-used. When this was done it was found that in many of the caskets there were scratch marks made by the occupants trying to get out after they were buried. People who drank a bit would sometimes fall down in a drunken stupor and would be taken for dead and buried. When all this came to light, if anyone was suspected of having passed out from drinking rather than being dead, the person would be placed on a table in the house and watched over to see whether he would wake up or not. This was the origin of the “wakes” that were held in England and Ireland after a person had supposedly died. This concern was also expressed by tying a cord to the dead person’s wrist, running the cord out of the casket and up to the surface of the ground where it was tied to a bell. Someone was dispatched to stay at the graveyard for a reasonable time to listen for the bell. His watch was called “the graveyard shift.” If the bell were to ring, the person would be immediately dug up and would have been “saved by the bell.” If someone bore a very close resemblance to someone else, he was termed to be “dead ringer” for the other person–as if he had been exhumed from the grave.

In America in the early days there was not a shortage of land, and such bizarre practices as re-using grave sites were never instituted. However, the practice of having the grave sites on Church property was continued. So the early American settlements, such as those in North Carolina, tend to have church graveyards. As the frontier expanded toward the west they were generally settled by those whose ties with the Old World were removed by two or three generations, and the particular custom of having the graveyards associated with the local churches was lost.

Gramps

Dear Gramps,

I need help understanding two seemingly conflicting scriptures. In Moses Chapter 7 verse 4, Enoch says that, And I saw the Lord; and he stood before my face, and he talked with me, even as a man talketh one with another, face to face. But then hundreds of years later, the Lord said to the Brother of Jared in Ether Chapter 3 verse 15, And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. And so I am confused as to the Lord’s statement here. If earlier Enoch had indeed seen the Lord face to face and spoke with him, then why would the Lord later tell the Brother of Jared that never had he ever shown himself unto man? I’m confused. Your thoughts on this would be most appreciated.

Rob, from Gresham, Oregon

Dear Rob,

Not only did Enoch talk with the Lord face to face, but also did Moses, (Exodus 33:11; Moses 1:2), and Abraham, (Abr. 3:11), and Gideon, (Judges 6:22), and Ezekiel (Ezekiel 20:13). But there is a distinction between all these appearances and the appearance of the Lord to Mahonri Moriancumr. The distinction was that the Lord showed himself to all the above except to Mohonri. It was because of the exceeding faith of Mahonri that he saw through the veil and perceived the finger of the Lord as it was extended to touch the stones that he had brought for the Lord to touch. The interchange from Ether 3:6-15 is as follows—

And it came to pass that when the brother of Jared had said these words, behold, the Lord stretched forth his hand and touched the stones one by one with his finger. And the veil was taken from off the eyes of the brother of Jared, and he saw the finger of the Lord; and it was as the finger of a man, like unto flesh and blood; and the brother of Jared fell down before the Lord, for he was struck with fear. And the Lord saw that the brother of Jared had fallen to the earth; and the Lord said unto him: Arise, why hast thou fallen? And he saith unto the Lord: I saw the finger of the Lord, and I feared lest he should smite me; for I knew not that the Lord had flesh and blood. And the Lord said unto him: Because of thy faith thou hast seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood; and never has man come before me with such exceeding faith as thou hast; for were it not so ye could not have seen my finger. Sawest thou more than this? And he answered: Nay; Lord, show thyself unto me. and the Lord said unto him: Believest thou the words which I shall speak? And he answered: Yea, Lord, I know that thou speakest the truth, for thou art a God of truth, and canst not lie. And when he had said these words, behold, the Lord showed himself unto him, and said: Because thou knowest these things ye are redeemed from the fall; therefore ye are brought back into my presence; therefore I show myself unto you.…. And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.

The Lord had not planned to show himself to the brother of Jared, but he saw Him anyway. For this reason the Lord asked, why hast thou fallen? Then the Lord explained that never had man come before him with such faith that he could not be held from perceiving through the veil to the presence of the Lord. This is different from the Lord taking the initiative to show himself to a person.

Gramps

Dear Gramps,

I have a question about how Christ restored the church during his life. Joseph Smith within a span of 20 years completely restored the church with temples, temple ordinances, plural marriage, work for the dead, etc. Why didn’t Christ restore these same things during his day and organize the people to build temples and do that same work? Christ was far more influential and capable than even Joseph Smith in organizing a people to do that work. Even more so, why did he not teach of plural marriage during his lifetime? It almost seems that Joseph did more in restoring actual and physical ordinances regarding sacred temple work than Jesus Christ himself. Why are none of these things regarding work for the dead, temple sealing, plural marriage, etc, ever instituted by Christ during his life if we claim to have the fully restored gospel exactly the same as in Christ’s day? It would seem at least equally important if not more important that Christ would institute all of those same things in his life to set the example and the foundation. Specifically regarding plural marriage, work for the dead, temple sealing, etc. He should have at least touched on those things in his teachings during his life. Please help me understand this subject better.

Bryce, from West Jordan, Utah

Dear Bryce,

There are several things to consider in responding to your interesting question. First, all that we know about the organization of the church by the Savior was written by the four biographical writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; one historical book (Acts) by Paul plus the fourteen Pauline epistles–mostly letters giving counsel and advise to the various churches and associates of Paul; seven general epistles written by James, Peter, John and Jude; and one prophetical book by John. These books were not directed to an exposition of the organization of the church, but rather mostly exhortations to the members to practice and obey the gospel that they had espoused. From those epistles and narratives we must piece together what we can of the church organization.

Secondly, we must recognize the political and social conditions existing at the time of the organization of the church by the Savior. In his day the Jews were at war with the Romans, and the Romans were in control of the Holy Land. Further, there were no immediate means of communication that we take for granted today. All communication was hand written and carried by messenger from place to place. Further, travel was by foot or by donkey. Horses were generally reserved for the military. Further, Christ’s public ministry lasted for only three years, at the end of which he was crucified. So we could not expect under those conditions a development of the church as occurred in the time of Joseph Smith. In fact, the church that the Savior organized soon went into apostasy and was completely lost. That, of course, was not due to any limitation of the Savior’s organization skills, but entirely due to the conditions of the times. In fact, all that occurred in those days was before revealed in prophecy.

You mention that plural marriage was not taught in the Savior’s time. Christ himself was married, and although it must be deduced from the sketchiest of accounts, it is surmised that he had three wives. B. H. Roberts, in his Defense of the Faith and the Saints, p.272, had this to say on the subject—

“Next let us inquire whether there are any intimations in the Scriptures concerning the wives of Jesus. One thing is certain: that there were several holy women who greatly loved Jesus, such as Mary and Martha, her sister, and Mary Magdalene; Jesus greatly loved them and associated with them much; and when he arose from the dead, instead of first showing himself to his chosen witnesses, the apostles, he appeared first to these women, or at least to one of them, namely, Mary Magdalene. Now it would be very natural for a husband in the resurrection to appear first to his own dear wives, and afterwards show himself to his other friends. If all the acts of Jesus were written, we no doubt should learn that these beloved women were his wives. Indeed, the Psalmist David prophesies in particular concerning the wives of the Son of God. ‘Kings’ daughters were among thine honorable wives; upon thy right hand did stand the Queen in a vesture of gold of Ophir.”-Apostle Orson Pratt in The Seer, page 159.”

And this, from Journal of Discourses, 15:, p.29—

“Both John the Baptist and the Savior denounced all sins with an unsparing hand, and especially adultery, fornication and divorce; and not a sentence is found in the New Testament which prohibits plurality of wives, though the Savior and his Apostles lived in a country where it was practiced; and it is impossible to believe that if it were a sin it would have escaped definite rebuke and absolute condemnation.”

You also mention that there is nothing in the New Testament about work for the dead. However, that also was a doctrine practiced in the early Church. In fact, Paul uses the principal and practice of work for the dead to prove that there is a resurrection. From 1 Cor. 15:22-29, we read—

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

So perhaps you can infer from these examples of the acceptable practices of plural marriage and baptisms for the dead, that indeed the Savior did organize the church in his day as completely and as competently as it was possible to do at that time. After all, it is HIS church, not the church of Joseph Smith or anyone else. He is the Lord and Savior of mankind, and the saving covenants with their accompanying ordinances, were made by him. Whatever He has done was executed with perfection. Fallible men, gifted with free agency, have carried on the divine work, either to its destruction after the time of the Savior, or to its glorification after the time of the restoration.

Gramps

Gramps,

What is the answer to the statement made by detractors of The Church who say that much of the temple ceremonies were stolen from the Masons?

Michael, from Vancouver, Washington

Dear Michael,

You might tell them that they don’t know what they are talking about, and let it go at that. They are only trying to bait you, and they will not listen to logic or historical account. You know that the temple ceremonies have been revealed by God to man. There well may be similarities, but if there are, who do you think copied from whom? It is my understanding that the Lord’s temples predate even the not so ancient Masonic order.

Gramps

Dear Gramps,

What is a tad?

Ken, from Magna, Utah

Dear Ken,

The word, tad, is somewhat of a newcomer to the English lexicon. It does not appear in Noah Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, published in 1828. Word has it that it probably originated from the English dialect around 1877. It was probably derived from the Old English word for toad, which is tade or tadige– before the 12^th century–meaning a contemptible person or thing. The word tad means a a small or insignificant amount or degree. It is also used as the word for a small child, especially a boy, by reason of its signifying something small or insignificant.

Gramps

Dear Gramps,

I’ve always been perplexed as to why we no longer follow the tradition of using wine for the sacrament. The tradition supposedly began with Joseph Smith being told that wine bought from his enemies might be poisoned and that Joseph was free to choose what he would offer in wine’s stead if the saints didn’t provide wine of their own make to be used. Even after the saints arrived in Utah, I’ve read that partaking of wine for the sacrament did continue for a while. My question is why do we not partake of wine any longer? Is it because of the word of wisdom? Is it because it might be contaminated? Or is it simply a tradition handed down that we are afraid to change?

James, from Lexington, Kentucky

Dear James,

I am perplexed about why you are perplexed. The reason that wine is not used for the sacrament is that the prophet Joseph Smith was told by the Lord not to purchase wine from his enemies (Doctrine & Covenants 27:3). He was also told that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament. But the Lord immediately stipulated if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory (Doctrine & Covenants 27:2), signifying that the important thing in partaking the sacrament is the attitude of the person rather than elements used. When this commandment was given the prophet immediately instituted the use of water instead of wine to represent the blood of the Savior. If there were instances from time to time in which emblems other than water were used, it mattereth not..

Gramps

2 For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory‑‑remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins (D&C 27:2).

Gramps,

People can hear about the Gospel and refuse to accept it and may not believe it to be true. They can also decide that they are just not interested. I was curious – will this be the case in the Spirit World? Can people still accept or deny the Gospel there? Is there a bigger effect to refusing the Gospel in the Spirit World than here on Earth?

Kami

Dear Kami,

Read through Doctrine and Covenants, Section 138, and you will learn that the gospel will be preached to both the wicked and the righteous. The principles of the gospel do not change, nor is man’s free agency abrogated. The change we undergo at death is not all that great a change. A very apt analogy would be to taking off a coat. When we remove a coat we do not change who we are; we do not alter our values or our judgments or our way of thinking. These only change by our interpretation of continued experience. When we die, we take off the cloak of mortality. We step out of our bodies much the same as if we were to take off a coat. When we enter the spirit world there will be no change in our mentality. As we gain new experiences and learn new truths we will respond to them much as we would have if we had heard them in mortality. We will have the opportunity to change our minds, to repent of evil doings or not, depending on our disposition. However, one difference we will experience–if we are chained by physical habits, if our intellects are controlled by our physical selves, such as being under the compulsion to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol or take drugs, those physically generated demands will still be with us, but without a physical body we will have no way to satisfy them. So it may be much more difficult to get over an addiction there than here.

Gramps

Dear Gramps,

I desperately want to pay my tithing again. I have £28,000 debt and after paying my debt there is no money left for enough food for me and my children. I am told to pay your tithing first but if I do that then I will get into more debt with penalty charges for missed payments, maybe become homeless. I want to be sensible about the debt and pay my tithing and don’t know what to do. My life style in not extravagant. I have been a single mum for a long time without any child support and have gained debt over the past 20 years. I am now at the breaking point. Should I just stop paying bills and pay what I owe the Lord?

Debbie, from England

Dear Debbie,

Your rather desperate situation is shared by numbers of people. But let’s see if we can sort things out a bit. What are the consequences of not paying your tithing? One who doesn’t pay tithing is not eligible to hold any major calling in the Ward or Stake. A non-tithe payer may not receive a temple recommend. A non-tithe payer is not eligible to receive assistance from the fast offering funds or from the bishop’s storehouse. The windows of heaven tend to be shut to such a person. From the book of Malachi—

Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? in tithes and offerings. Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation. Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it (Malachi 3:8-10).

Now, what is the lot of those who do pay their tithing? This, from Elder Lynn Robbins—

“Because the natural man tends to hoard or consume everything, the Lord wisely commanded ancient Israel to sacrifice not the last and poorest of the flock, but the firstlings, not the leftovers of the field, but the firstfruits (see Deuteronomy 26:2; Mosiah 2:3; Moses 5:5). Genuine sacrifice has been a hallmark of the faithful from the beginning.

“Among those who do not sacrifice there are two extremes: one is the rich, gluttonous man who won’t and the other is the poor, destitute man who believes he can’t. But how can you ask someone who is starving to eat less? Is there a level of poverty so low that sacrifice should not be expected or a family so destitute that paying tithing should cease to be required?

“The Lord often teaches using extreme circumstances to illustrate a principle. The story of the widow of Zarephath is an example of extreme poverty used to teach the doctrine that mercy cannot rob sacrifice any more than it can rob justice. In fact, the truer measure of sacrifice isn’t so much what one gives to sacrifice as what one sacrifices to give (see Mark 12:43). Faith isn’t tested so much when the cupboard is full as when it is bare. In these defining moments, the crisis doesn’t create one’s character, it reveals it. The crisis is the test. (Elder Lynn G. Robbins, Tithing a Commandment Even for the Destitute, Ensign (CR), April 2005)

If one does not pay tithing because of destitute circumstances, one tends to stand alone. But if one obeys the commandments of the Lord in spite of difficulty and hardship, the Lord becomes an active partner in the person’s affairs. We are not talking about abstract concepts here, but about the real, difficult world. Here is what one could do in circumstances such as yours. First, pay your tithing! Make the tithing the very first payment you make from your monthly bills, and be sure that it is a complete, honest tithing. Then prioritize your bills–the most important first, and so on down the line, and pay in order of priority all that you can. Next, get an appointment with your bishop. Bring to the meeting all your financial accounts. Lay them before the bishop, and ask for his advise on how to handle the payments that are due in light of the fact that you don’t have enough income to pay them. The bishop’s advise may not be what you expect or would like to hear. But he is your bishop, and represents the Lord to you. Do what he says! Then have the faith, belief and confidence that if you stay with it, and are willing to obediently suffer through the tough times, the Lord will not leave you alone. He will bless you in marvelous ways, and you will overcome your difficulties.

Gramps

Dear Gramps,

Do you have any advice for a man who has found a girl who meets *all* of his expectations spiritually, intellectually, temperamentally and personality wise, but finds her substantially displeasing in physical appearance? I know that we should try to do as the Lord does, and look upon the heart and not the outward appearance, but I am concerned that should we ever get married, this serious aversion to the physical may become intolerable, or perhaps even revolting, when the intimate dimension comes into play after marriage. Would the Lord condemn a man for rejecting an opportunity with a girl who is practically perfect in every other way, but seriously displeasing in her physical appearance? Your advice would be sincerely appreciated.

Earnest

Dear Earnest,

There once was a young man who had fallen deeply in love with a girl and decided to marry her. So he went to the jewelry store to pick out a diamond engagement ring. He wanted to get the very nicest ring that he could find. He found such a ring but its cost was much more than he could afford. So he got a second job, saved all that he could, and finally borrowed a rather large sum from a friend to make the purchase. When he bought the diamond he charged the clerk to put it in the very most beautiful case that he could find. This was done and he was now prepared to propose to the love of his life. So the big evening came, he made his prepared proposal speech, declared his undying love for the girl and gave her the precious diamond ring. The girl was absolutely thrilled. Looking at the box she couldn’t believe how lovely the ribbon was with which it was tied. She carefully removed the ribbon, folded and pressed it, and then drew her attention to the beautiful paper with which the box was wrapped. She could not get over how lovely it was and was careful to press it and fold it just right. Then she was able to turn her attention to box in which the ring was placed. The box was of a rare wood, with a captivating intricate design. She marveled at how beautiful and unique the box was. So she carefully opened the box and there was the lovely, expensive diamond ring. She glanced at it and said, Oh, a ring, and tossed it on the table but what a marvelous box! I cant believe how beautiful it is! And this wrapping paper and the ribbon!! I’ve never seen anything so beautiful!!

Now, what do you think of such a girl, so captivated by the practically worthless wrapping that she threw away a precious diamond because of the trappings that took her eye.

Life has its ups and downs and values change over time. But I want to tell you that in the long run, character wins out over looks every time. I once knew a man by the name of Wells Bowen who had had cancer of the lip. He had undergone an operation to remove the cancer, but in so doing it was necessary to stitch together about half of his mouth. This drastically altered his appearance and affected his speech. The first time I saw him was in a Sacrament meeting where he was the speaker. I was at first somewhat repulsed by his appearance, but when he began to speak I never saw that disfiguration again! What a marvelous speaker, and what a noble man! We soon became fast friends.

So my belief is that if this girl is all that you say she is, you have been given a beautiful and very valuable diamond. I would suggest that you not discard it because of the wrappings that it comes in.

Gramps

Gramps,

Today our lesson in primary was on the restoration of the church and of Joseph Smith translating the golden plates. After the translations had taken place whatever happened to the Urim and the Thummim? My husband said he learned in seminary , that God has possession of these items with him again, and they are not on this earth. Is this true, or are we uncertain of their whereabouts?

Andie, from South Jordan,

Utah

Dear Andie,

When Joseph Smith had completed the translation of the Book of Mormon, the angel

Moroni appeared to him and took the plates into his possession, along with the Urim and Thummim. Joseph Fielding Smith, in his Doctrines of Salvation, 3:, p.225, says

We have been taught since the days of the Prophet that the Urim and Thummim were returned with the plates to the angel. We have no record of the Prophet having the Urim and Thummim after the organization of the Church.

As you know, part of the plates were sealed so that they could not be opened. When we as a people are prepared to accept the marvelous revelations that are contained in that sealed portion, the Angel Moroni will return with them, and present them to the President of the Mormon Church, who has been called by God and sustained by the people as a Prophet, Seer and Revelator. I assume that when the angel presents the plates to Gods prophet, he will have with him the same Urim and Thummim by which Joseph Smith translated the part that we have as the Book of Mormon. Thus, the Prophet will translate the plates by the gift and power of God, using the Urim and Thummim as did Joseph Smith, and they will then be available to increase the understanding, the faith and testimony of those that receive them.

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland wrote

Those sealed plates constitute the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon, which Joseph Smith did not translate. Furthermore, they will remain sealed, literally as well as figuratively, until future generations shall exercise faith in me, saith the Lord, even as the brother of Jared did, that they may become sanctified in me, then will I manifest unto them the things which the brother of Jared saw, even to the unfolding unto them all my revelations. [Ether 4:7] (Jeffrey R. Holland, Christ and the New Covenant: The Messianic Message of the Book of Mormon, p.25)

Gramps

Dear Gramps,

Could you make any comments on the following: Brigham Young stated: Our father Adam came into the garden of Eden . . . and brought Eve, one of his wives. . . . He is our Father and our God. (Journal of Discourses, Volume I, page 50, 1854 Edition) Does it mean that the Mormons worship Adam as a God, who had several wives, Eve being one of them?

Tiko

Dear Tiko,

Perhaps the best thing to do in this case is to quote from Joseph Fielding Smiths explanation of the same question that was asked to him, as found in Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, p.96‑99

SOURCE OF ADAM‑GOD THEORY. President Brigham Young is quoted‑in all probability the sermon was erroneously transcribed!‑as having said: “Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days, about whom holy men have written and spoken‑He is our father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.”

RELATIONSHIP OF ELOHIM, JEHOVAH, AND MICHAEL. If the enemies of the Church who quote this wished to be honest, they could not help seeing that President Brigham Young definitely declares that Adam is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days, which indicates definitely that Adam is not Elohim, or the God whom we worship, who is the Father of Jesus Christ.

Further, they could see that President Young declared that Adam helped to make the earth. If he helped then he was subordinate to someone who was superior. In another paragraph in that same discourse, President Young said: “It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael.” Here he places Adam, or Michael, third in the list, and hence the least important of the three mentioned, and this President Young understood perfectly. We believe that Adam, known as Michael, had authority in the heavens before the world was framed. He dwelt in the presence of the Father and the Son and was subject to their direction as the scriptures plainly indicate….

ALL EXALTED MEN BECOME GODS. To believe that Adam is a god should not be strange to any person who accepts the Bible. When Jesus was accused of blasphemy because he claimed to be the Son of God, he answered the Jews: “Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?”

Paul said, writing to the members of the Church in Rome: “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” And to the Galatians he said: “And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

Joseph Smith taught a plurality of gods, and that man by obeying the commandments of God and keeping the whole law will eventually reach the power and exaltation by which he also will become a god.

Gramps

Gramps,
Garden of Eden in Missouri? That’s the craziest thing I ever heard. Not disputing that the poles shifted, but where are these four rivers now? There aren’t four rivers in Jackson County. The Euphrates and Tigris aren’t even in the USA. “A river went out of Eden and parted = Red Sea Pison = Nile River Gishon = Tigris Euphrates = Euphrates.”
Lance, from Springfield, Missouri

Dear Lance,
The part of your comment that I put in quotes is exactly as it appeared in the incoming email–undoubtedly garbled in some way that I have not been able to decipher. The scripture from which you evidently took your information is from Genesis 2:10-14, as follows—
And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
The four rivers named above are the Pison, Gihon, Hiddekel and the Euphrates. The Pison is stated to encompass the whole land of Havilah. The second river, Gihon is said to encompass the whole land of Ethiopia. Third, Hiddekel, runs toward the east of Assyria, and the fourth is the Euphrates, with no landmarks stated.
Now we have Lance, from Missouri, who can’t find four rivers in Jackson County and therefore ridicules the prophet of God, who stated that the Garden of Eden was in the place we now call Jackson County, Missouri. This wise Lance even admits to a shifting of the poles, but infers that such a catastrophic event could not account for the Garden of Eden being in Missouri, and he seems to tie the Euphrates in present day Iraq with the Euphrates that is mentioned in Genesis. However, our wise Lance fails to mention the universal flood in the days Noah that took place, according to the Septuagint, in 3246 B.C., according to the Hebrew Bible in 2288 B.C., and according to the English Bible in 2348 B.C. Nor does he mention that, as stated in the English Bible, that during the flood—
And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered (Gen 7:19-20),
which states that at the time of the flood there wasn’t a mountain on the earth higher than about 23 feet above sea level.
Nor does our expert mention that in the days of Peleg, about 150 years after the flood, the earth was divided, whatever that means (see Gen. 10:25).
Among scholars with credentials that I imagine would surpass even those of our expert, Lance, was Elder John A. Widtsoe, of the Quorum of the Twelve of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who graduated from Harvard University with high honors in 1894, was awarded a PhD from the University of Goettingen, Germany in 1899, became the director of the Department of Agriculture at Brigham Young University in 1905, president of the Utah State Agricultural College in 1907 and president of the University of Utah in 1916, who had the following to say about the location of the Garden of Eden—
“Despite the apparently specific descriptions given, this clue [Gen. 2:10-14] has not led to the location of the Garden of Eden. Careful scholars have not been able to identify any of the four rivers with certainty. None of the rivers mentioned fits into the lands now known. Since the historically well-known names of Euphrates, Assyria, and Ethiopia do not fit into the use of them in the Garden of Eden story, it is more than probable that they are ancient names variously applied in later times. Clearly, these rivers and countries belong to early ages of the world’s history, and do not apply to present-day terminology” (John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, p.394).
Therefore, Lance, I would suggest that since the most erudite scholars in the world have not been able to identify the location of the four rivers to which you refer, you may give some deference to the prophet of God, who gave the location of the Garden of Eden as a revelation from God, and not let the high opinion of yourself blind yourself to revealed eternal truth.
Gramps

Gramps,
How can Alma the Younger repent if he remembered his father’s lectures when growing up when he actually murdered and flattered many others (don’t tell me the story, just help me to understand the situation). What if I did the same thing Alma did, will I be able to repent? (I grew up in the Church of Jesus Christ just like Alma the Younger did). I’m sure Alma the Younger had the priesthood when he was in his youth. How about Cain, King David, Saul (Paul)? They were all murders and they gained salvation.
Maryland

Dear Maryland,
First of all, perhaps we need to be a little careful in calling some of these people murderers. The Bible tells us that Saul consented unto the death of Stephen. There is no record that he participated in the stoning. Alma the Younger also persecuted the church, but there is no record of him murdering anyone. It is recorded in Alma 2:31, that he slew the wicked Amlici, but at that time he was the presiding high priest and the chief judge over the people, and he was acting in the office of a judge when he dispatched justice on Amlici.
The repentance of both Saul and Alma was sincere, adequate and acceptable before the Lord. But how can you say that Cain and King David, both of whom were murderers, gained salvation? Neither Cain nor David repented, although each could have done. To Cain the Lord said—
If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door (Gen 4:7).
So Cain had the opportunity to repent and to do well, but he did not. David also was sorrowful, but not repentant. Nor was he saved. Of him the scriptures state—
He hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion (D&C 132:39).
However, the Lord has pled with all sinners to repent and be saved.—
Turn, all ye Gentiles, from your wicked ways; and repent of your evil doings, of your lyings and deceivings, and of your whoredoms, and of your secret abominations, and your idolatries, and of your murders, and your priestcrafts, and your envyings, and your strifes, and from all your wickedness and abominations, and come unto me, and be baptized in my name, that ye may receive a remission of your sins, and be filled with the Holy Ghost, that ye may be numbered with my people who are of the house of Israel (3 Ne 30:2).
You will note that this plea also includes repentance from the sin of murder.
Gramps

Gramps,
If pre-existence is a fact, then why would Paul teach the natural body to be first, then the spiritual? Howbeit that that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual (1 Cor 15:46). Wouldn’t he mention that we were in spiritual body first, then natural, then back to spiritual?
David

Dear David,
In order to understand the scriptures it is essential to know the context in which the passages are given, i.e., what they relate to in the rest of the text. If you read a little before and a little after the text in question it becomes clear that Paul is referring, not to the initial organization of man, but to the sequence of his spiritual growth in mortality. In this chapter Paul is comparing the spiritual man with the natural man. Let’s look first at1 Cor 15:43-45.

43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:

44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Paul compares dishonour changed to glory; weakness changed to power; the natural body changed to a spiritual body; Adam being changed from a mortal man to a resurrected being. Verse 46 follows in the same context—
Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
A person changes from a natural man to a spiritual man as he learns and obeys the gospel of Jesus Christ. This analogy is carried on in the succeeding verses—

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

—a change from the natural man to the spiritual man.

48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

—again, the natural man being compared with the spiritual man.

49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly

—and again, the natural, or earthy, compared to the spiritual, or heavenly.
So you see that Paul in this chapter is not talking about the sequence of the creation of man, born of God as a spirit, and then born on th earth as a physical being, but rather, the progress of man in mortality, first as a worldly person and then as a spiritual person.
Gramps

Dear Gramps,
How do I tell the Mormon missionary that baptized me that I would like to see him when he is off his mission?
Deb, from Texas

Dear Deb,
Don’t even hint about such a subject until you can see the whites of his eyes!! After he has returned home at the end of his mission and has been released by his stake president as a missionary, then you could write to him or visit him as you wish. But if you have any feelings for him or respect for him as a missionary, you will do NOTHING to distract him in any way from the sacred work in which he is engaged. His work in the mission field is highly dependent upon specific direction by the Holy Spirit, and in order for him to reach the people that the Lord has prepared to receive and accept the gospel of Jesus Christ, the missionary must receive specific direction from the Spirit on where he should go, who he should see and what he should say to influence the person to accept the Savior as his Redeemer and to qualify himself for the Savior’s blessings by thoroughly and completely repenting of all his sins, receiving from the Savior the gift of faith so that he may take the necessary steps, specifically baptism by emersion for the remission of his sins, to become a member of the kingdom of God on the earth and enjoy the fellowship of the saints. Anything that would distract the missionary from his sacred assignment could result in extremely severe negative impacts on those who the Lord has prepared to bring into His kingdom.
Gramps

Dear Gramps,
Recently, I’ve been trying to understand other Christian religions. When trying to find differences in their beliefs on the Godhead, I found little difference between us and them. Catholics, for example, also believe that God or the Godhead consists of three distinct persons as do we. Here is a quote from a catholic website: “Catholics believe there is one God consisting of three distinct and equal divine Persons–Father, Son and Holy Spirit–because on numerous occasions God has described Himself thus. The Old Testament gives intimations that there are more than one Person in God. In Genesis 1:26, God says, “Let us make man to our image and likeness.” In Isaiah 9:6-7, God the Father revealed the imminent coming into the world of God the Son. In Psalms 2:7, we read, “The Lord hath said to me: Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.” And in the New Testament, God reveals this doctrine even more clearly. For example, at the baptism of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove, and the voice of God the Father was heard: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Matt. 3:16-17). In Matthew 28:19, God the Son commanded the Apostles to baptize “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” And in 1 Cor. 12:4-6, the Bible refers to God with three names: Spirit, Lord, and God corresponding to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” Does this mean that the position of other churches are aligning themselves to what we believe or has there been a misunderstanding on both sides?
Jame

Dear Jame,
You say that you find little difference between the beliefs of Mormons and other Christians in the concept of Deity. The other Christians would take issue with you. Because of the specific Mormon concept of Jesus Christ, the Mormon Church is not admitted into the Christian Council of Churches, and members of the council proclaim that the Mormon Church is not a Christian church. As an application of this attitude of the sectarian religions, the Presbyterian Church, for instance, believing in the necessity of baptism for salvation, accepts as valid the baptisms of all other Christian churches except the Mormon Church. When anyone converts from another Christian church to the Presbyterian Church, and has been baptized in the other church, he need not be rebaptized in order to be accepted into full fellowship in the Presbyterian Church. However, if a Mormon converts to Presbyterianism, he must be rebaptized by the presbyterian clergy in order to be accepted as a member of the Presbyterian Church.
The official concept of Deity defined by the Catholic Church originated in the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. There have been problems of interpretation of the Nicean Creed since that time. The various catholic factions continue to this day with different interpretations of the original creed. Following is a citation of the difficult history of the interpretation of this creed by the various Catholic factions—
“Seemingly minor difference in the wording of this simple text had a profound impact on European history. The Nicene Creed, or Symbol of Faith, was written by the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in 325 C.E., with additions (the 3rd paragraph and following) by the first Council of Constantinople (381). There is an unresolved controversy over the words ‘and the Son’ (in Latin filioque). This language was added in 587 by the local council of Toledo, Spain, in an attempt to combat the Arian heresy. Pope Leo III (795-816) forbade the use of the filioque version and had it engraved without ‘and the Son’ on the walls of St. Peter’s Basillica. After a failed attempt to unite by marriage Charlemagne’s Frankish holdings with that of the Byzantine Empress, Charlemagne challenged Byzantinium’s claim of universal jurisdiction as the successor to Rome by claiming in 792 that among other things, that the Byzantines had omitted the filioque from the original text. The filioque was finally accepted by the Romans in the year 1014, and the revision has been part of Catholic doctrine ever since. The “filioque,” the significance of Roman primacy, and geo-political conflict led to the Great Schism of 1053. To this day, the Eastern Orthodox Churches do not accept the filioque and raise this as one of many reasons that prevent re-unification with the Roman Catholic Church.
So the other Christian churches are not aligning themselves with the Mormon belief in any sense. The Mormon concept of Deity comes from direct revelation from God, accompanied by various eye witness accounts of the nature of the Father and the Son. All the other churches derive their dogma from interpretation of biblical accounts of Deity. And there are significant differences in the concept of Deity by the various Christian churches.
The Mormon interpretation of the biblical accounts of Deity may be summarized as follows: Eloheim is the name given to God the Father. His Son, Jesus Christ, was the God of the Old Testament, and was known by the name, Jehovah. When born into mortality, He was given the Aramaic name of Jeshua, which in the Hebrew is Joshua and in the Greek is Jesus. So Jesus Christ and Jehovah are the same person–a concept that is almost uniquely Mormon.
Gramps

Dear Gramps,
I’m not upset nor even offended about your comments on one-parent homes. One-parent homes are sometimes even more honorable and loving then two-parent homes. I am a single mother raising a two year old, and yes it is hard , harder then anything I’ve done in my life, and sometimes I even wonder if giving her away would have worked out better. But giving her away would have been the selfish thing to do, not keeping her. I would have been a selfish mother giving her away just because it would have been easier on me, Because I assure you that my little girl will never lack one moment of love or affection. She is loved and will never have to wonder why her mother gave her away or feel like she was not worth keeping. She will always know that she was perfect just the way she was. A one parent home is all she needs. Instead of going around and encouraging young girls to commit a big transgression like having premarital sex and then washing away the consequences by just giving it away, you should teach them at a young age that each of our consequences are our own, for us to deal with everyday. Maybe if the church starts teaching its youth about owning their consequences it might have less unwed mothers.
Martha Soriano
Boise, ID

Dear Martha,
Congratulations to you on the wonderful and responsible way that you are managing your affairs as a single mother. I’m sure that your little daughter will be richly blessed by having a mother such as yourself, and the lack of a father in her home will have much less of an impact than it would have on many, many homes with single mothers.
I certainly hope that I didn’t imply any thought that pre-marital sex is to be encouraged in any way. Nor did I wish to imply that giving a new-born infant away on the part of a single mother was in anyway a selfish thing to do. It is by far the much, much harder thing to do. The selfish thing is to keep the baby and subject it do an extremely difficult environment, that in the vast majority of cases results in such children growing up in an extremely disadvantaged condition because of the much smaller portion of parental care that can be given when the mother, usually in a very low income environment and without much education, has to spend much time away from home trying to earn an acceptable living.
And, believe me, the Mormon Church is perhaps the premier organization to teach moral values and individual responsibility for the consequences of one’s decisions and actions. The fraction of unwed mothers within the Mormon Church is significantly lower than in society in general, rather than the other way around, as you imply.
Gramps