A Collaborative Parent, pt 2

I'm in the process of editing volume 1 of the Hyrum Smith Project. We were going to publish it on Sunday, until we received some feedback from a very competent researcher and proofreader telling us it was not at all ready. On Saturday, I received a proof copy to mark up and make notes in, and the proofreader was right: we have a ways to go.

I view this feedback as a Godsend. Something wise and loving Parents provided to give experience in patience and a chance to improve. 

While the quality of the book is, in many respects, lacking, the content is remarkable. I have an easier time comprehending and retaining information on the printed page, as opposed to on a screen. I don't know why that is, but there's probably some scientific, and more importantly, spiritual reason behind it. I've enjoyed getting to know Hyrum better in print.

One entry I'm working on right now is a revelation we believe Hyrum was present for. The source is Revelation Book 1, Commandment 65. You can find that on the Joseph Smith Papers website or the Church History Library catalog. It's in our T&C as section 49. It's short enough that I'll copy the whole thing below. The context of the revelation is fascinating. The young church has had some remarkable experiences. The Book of Mormon is in print, missionaries are out, gatherings and spiritual outpourings are occurring, the adversary is hard at work attempting to destroy it all, and God is skillfully combating old Scratch through his servants.

Well, we arrive at August 13, 1831, and in a meeting of the elders on the bank of the Missouri River the Lord says through Joseph,

Behold & hearken oh ye Elders of my Church saith the Lord your God even Jesus Christ your advocate who knoweth the weakness of man & how to sucour they that are tempted & verily mine eyes are upon you those who have not as yet gone up unto the Land of Zion wherefore your mission is not yet full nevertheless ye are blessed for the testimony which ye have borne is recorded in heaven for the Angels to look upon & they rejoice over you & your sins are forgiven you & now continue your Journey assemble yourselves upon the land of Zion & hold a meeting & rejoice together & offer a sacrament unto the most high & then you may return to bear record yea even all together or two by two as seemeth you good it mattereth not unto me only be faithfull & declare glad tidings unto the inhabitants of the Earth or among the Congregations of the wicked Behold I the Lord have brought you together that the promise might be fulfilled that the faithfull among you should be preserved & rejoice together in the Land of Missorie I the Lord promised the faithfull, & cannot lie I the Lord am willing if any among you desireth to ride upon horses or upon mules or in chariots shall receive this blessing if he receive it from the hand of the Lord with ​a​ thankfullness hearts in all things these things remain with you to do according to Judgement & the directions of the spirit Behold the kingdom is yours And Behold & lo I am with the faithfull always even so Amen——

What a joyful little revelation. And, what's more, the Lord seems to be in a mood of collaboration. He gives some guidance, but then says "...as seemeth you good it mattereth not unto me", and later gives them a few options about how they might travel, ultimately leaving it up to them. It's a great example, I think, of how little He wants to command us in every particular. He would rather give us material, some parameters, and see how and what we create with it. There isn't a "right" way in the traditional sense, as long as they are "faithful". What is "right" in this instance is higher than the kind of "right" we tend to think of. His ways are higher than our ways, and His thoughts higher than our thoughts. It's more of a principle; an underlying spirit that we act within that is "right".

We get the same collaborative spirit in T&C 157:44-45,

I, the Lord, say to you, with these additions, what you have gathered as scriptures are acceptable to me for this time and contain many plain and precious things. Nevertheless, whoso is enlightened by the spirit shall obtain the greater benefit, because you need not think they contain all my words nor that more will not be given, for there are many things yet to be restored unto my people. It is ordained that some things are only to be given to people who are mine and cannot otherwise be given to mankind on earth. You do not yet understand the glory to be revealed unto my covenant people.

And now I will accept what you have produced and you need not labor further to recover my words, but to complete your labors as you have agreed. You have inquired about the details, including punctuation, and what I say unto one I say unto all: I have given to you my doctrine, and have also revealed teachings, commandments, precepts, and principles to guide you, and it is not meet that I command you in all things — reason together and apply what I have given you, and it will be enough.

So, we were to "complete [our] labors as [we had] agreed", but we're told essentially, "Hey, I've given you some really good tools and materials to accomplish this, go ahead and use those as best as you know how, and that'll be just fine." 

Craaaaaazy, isn't it? God trusted us enough to have *ahem* agency. There are some guidelines, expectations, etc. But I no longer view agency as black and white choices of "right" and "wrong"; there are things that are "right" and "wrong", of course, but those weightier matters often go ignored while we strain at gnats. 

Ok, so we've been told to write a statement of principles, but everyone I've surveyed at this point thinks that was a flop. The women have had the opportunity to work together to decide how to implement the Lord's guidance, and that's been a trainwreck (until recently...). 

There are varying views on what is meant by the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law. I think we can see a clear example in the above scriptures:

God does not want to command us in every particular, but He does give us bounds to work within that He expects us not to go outside of. Within those bounds, we're given tools and materials, as well as some guidance on what kind of project we are to labor on together. 

And that's kind of it. He wants us to build a House. He's given us teachings, commandments, precepts, and principles to guide us. 

Let's reason together, apply what He's given us, and it will be enough. It certainly seems to have been enough this last weekend among men and women alike, and I think we have every reason to rejoice.

A Collaborative Parent

I've been fiddling around with this idea for a little while. It goes like this:

God doesn't want to command us in all things, but He wouldn't mind collaborating.

Seems sort of, I don't know, disrespectful. Right? Thinking we know enough to be able to collaborate with God. HA!

Although, my six-year-old is intelligent enough to collaborate with me on some level. I love seeing the unique manifestation of her heart and mind when we work on stuff together. It's pretty boring for me to just tell her exactly what needs to be done all the time. That isn't really her at all if she's simply my satellite. 

She loves to draw. She loves to draw axolotls. I asked her to draw me an axolotl once because I thought it would make me happy. The picture isn't what would make me happy, though. I don't particularly care for aoxolotls. Rather, it is discovering her interpretation, expression, intention, and design that flowed from the principle of "axolotl" that would delight me. The axolotl drawing is really just a medium. 

Get it? 

Before I had kids, I viewed God as more of a commander, and I was just the drone that needed to know exactly the right thing to do so I didn't screw up the perfection that is God's command with my stupidity. But, anymore, I see God's commands as mediums for growth, expression of beauty, creation, and collaboration with the Divine. 

What if there wasn't a "right" way to do the Statement of Principles document? Or the provisional women's document? Or etc., etc., blah, blah, blah [insert task here]. What if there are just correct principles, and we can choose how to use them to govern ourselves, and the expression of that is as unique as our circumstances in history? What if it isn't "adding to and taking away" when we collaborate with each other and with God on how to best implement those principles for our current circumstances? This may just provide room for structure on the one hand, and freedom on the other. There's room for experimentation, mistakes, learning, growth, change, revisiting... creation!

If God points to a Home Depot and says to me, "See, here, there is material with which to build. I'd like you to build a treehouse." Perhaps that's all the command I need, and He doesn't need to command me in every particular. Perhaps He wants to see what I come up with. What plan I develop, what tools I think are necessary, what constraints I place on the project, whether or not I ask others to help, and if I ask others to help, how we decide we want to interact during the project. Perhaps I work until I get stuck, and then He works the problem with me, visiting from time to time to instruct me further and provide intelligent solutions, here a little, there a little. Perhaps we collaborate. Perhaps...

I dunno. Words fail me. The thought isn't all the way formed. I can also see this idea turning into some weird hippie, morally loose, confused, chaotic, shit-fest. But I feel something true in there somewhere. I mean, what made Christ so awesome was that He embodied the word of God perfectly. But I also wonder if, theoretically, ten saved beings can embody the word of God perfectly... differently. I mean, do we really think Christ and the Father are carbon copies? God forbid. Maybe to be exactly as Christ is has more to do with underlying principles than it does being a mindless drone.

Maybe God would have us build a family that is as delightful and surprising to Him as it would be to us.

Maybe...

Accountability

I posted this comment on a forum in a discussion about Denver's initial interpretation of the Build a House parable.

The parable can be found here.

The initial interpretation can be found here.

My comment:

"Because we are the only people who are laboring to fulfill a new covenant with God, we will grow increasingly unified and also increasingly different from the world. Societies seem unified because they submit to governmental, educational, or religious control. We seem divided because we are led by God and accountable to one another.” (Denver's initial interpretation, p. 6)

My wife and I have been discussing the concept of accountability for a few months. Primarily in the context of discussions that were happening over in the women’s Slack group. Some think we are only accountable to God and have justification for that. Others think that communities can not properly function without some accountability to each other (ie, reviewing past women’s councils for appropriate procedure).

For instance, Denver said this:

Real covenants make each individual directly accountable to God, not to man. If we had everything we claim to possess, God would respond to every covenant violation made by any of us with an immediate judgment. Such will be the case when we have a Zion society. (PTR, p. 261)

And this: 

You are accountable to Him. ... You are accountable only to Him and not to me or any other man. (The Teachings of Denver C. Snuffer Jr., Volume 2 (Reader Edition), page 517)

Considering these comments, how can we square the comment in the interpretation that we are accountable to one another? Because it seems like we have to be accountable to one another at some level if we are going to live in community with one another.

My best attempt at understanding these two comments and the context of each of them is something like this:

- We are accountable to God alone for our relationship with Him and our obedience to Him.

- We are accountable to each other in the same way any community of people is accountable to each other. Do we deal justly with one another? Do we keep our word? Do we follow through with our commitment? If we don’t do these things, then is something lost, whether it’s trust, connection, or something punitive that we agree to abide by?

I know you want my thoughts, not just endlessly quoted scripture, and I’ll give my thoughts, but I’m going to quote a chunk of scripture just for reference, then give my thoughts.

But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession and kept back part of the price — his wife also being privy to it — and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the holy ghost and to keep back part of the price of the land? While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own power? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied unto men, but unto God. And Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and gave up the ghost; and great fear came on all them that heard these things. And the young men arose, wound him up and carried him out, and buried him.

And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether you sold the land for so much. And she said, Yea, for so much. Then Peter said unto her, How is it that you have agreed together to test the spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of them who have buried your husband are at the door and shall carry you out. Then she fell down immediately at his feet and yielded up the ghost, and the young men came in and found her dead, and carrying her forth buried her by her husband. And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon’s porch. And of the rulers dared no man join himself to them [T&C 31:15, anyone?], but the people magnified them. And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women, insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them. There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks and them who were vexed with unclean spirits; and they were healed, every one. (Acts 3:2-4)

See, this seems to describe how we are accountable to others in the community and God at the same time. While Peter says “you haven’t lied to men, but to God” I think this is a situation where abusing our fellows in Zion is an equal offense to God. Peter, being an equal among the group in Acts, discovered the abuse and proclaimed the judgment. He did so by the Spirit of God, making it God’s judgment and not Peter’s, but it seems like when we are all one with God and one with each other, then the offenses we offer each other are offenses toward God. It’s like when Christ says “Truly I say unto you, inasmuch as you have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me.” When we are all one with God and Christ, we seem to be accountable to each other. We see the same type of thing in Malachi,

Wherein shall we return? Will a man rob God? Yet you have robbed me. But you say, Wherein have we robbed you? In tithes and offerings. You are cursed with a curse, for you have robbed me, even this whole nation. (Malachi 1:7)

We all understand that tithes are for the poor among us (meaning individual fellowships). Yet, God claims it is He who was robbed.

Are we accountable to each other? If so, how? To what extent? What is the nature of it, and the practical application? Or are we free to do whatever we want, free of consequence, because we’re just supposed to have mercy and forgiveness? Or is the consequence of offending others the internal torment of a tortured conscience? Or is it some portion of all of these, depending on context? If it depends, what context dictates each consequence? Is there structure and organization to any of this that citizens of Zion, or hopeful citizens of Zion, are privy to? Or do we just try to obey, and if we fail, then God kills us and the youth drag us away for an unceremonious burial?

What does Denver mean by that in his initial interpretation?

Lessons and Studies from This Year and Last

 Here are a couple of lessons and studies I've shared with my fellowship and others this year and one from last year.

Forest Through the Trees:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/19fecY1mHikllAArWjL2mHXhOe3E3t6fopTm2nGTGyMQ/edit?slide=id.g33332222881_0_0#slide=id.g33332222881_0_0

Jesus Answered:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i0UlUyK6DMYjb90ou8D7bc3TwBqrwhsrqyffnrExqXo/edit?usp=sharing

Natural Fruit:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1HEi73LplujGdIUe1COnY6YYwPl3DpoyRx6SDuruRryw/edit?usp=sharing

Enjoy!

Common Ground

“[B]y p[r]oving contrarreties, truth is made manifest,” and a wise man can search out the “old paths,” wherein righteous men held communion with Jehovah, and were exalted. <​through & obedeanc [obedience]” (JS Letter to Israel Daniel Rupp, 5 June 1844)

Proving contraries can mean a couple of things. It can mean testing each option to see which is good and which is bad. It can also mean finding ways to make apparent contradictions agree with one another. Either way, the process is the same. You stand the “contraries” up against one another, and they either agree through “proving” or they disagree through “proving”. They either hold each other up or one knocks the other down.  

At the last women’s conference, Steph began the meeting by including these thoughts among others:

“…it has the potential to reduce disputations if that's uh, if that's your jam. I happen to like disputations. I sort of thrive on conflict. It's the, I think it's the grist for the mill. I mean how in the world am I supposed to become a better person if someone isn't pissed off at me and can't come and tell me. So I have no way of actually working through my stuff if you're not disputing with me. Now I don't want to be disputed with all the time. I don't have that much tolerance, um, but I love, I really do, I love conflict. I'm sorry, I do I think it's great, um, but I would also like to have organized conflict. I don't like chaotic conflict.”

In her recent blog post, she said these things:

“I get emails, text messages, personal proposals, ChatGPT analysis, and chastisements from you about this conference. These communications include quotes from Denver, scripture passages, glossary terms along with explanations and personal analysis about how we “shouldn’t be here” and “it’s wrong.” Many of you have spent a great deal of time in these efforts. I understand that you believe these things deeply. You are kind, gentle, and write and speak with as much of the Spirit as you can muster. All this effort appears to be directed towards the discomfort and fear about the unavoidable experiences of disputing, contention, or conflict.

I have heard you claim “faith over fear.” I get that. However, I still see more fear than faith – probably unconscious.

…

It is entirely naive and overly simplistic to just NOT WANT CONFLICTS OR DISPUTES.
…
To the extent that we think we are “a Zion People/Covenant People/Remnant Group” already, we give ourselves an out and avoid, at all costs, working through our disputes, conflict, and contention (which do exist). We may be dismissing, as evil, insignificant, the lesser law, unimportant, and ungodly, the very opportunities God has, is and will continue to provide to civilize us.
…
You are weary of the conflict. I am weary of the effort being expended in avoiding the conflict.”(Guest post by Stephanie Snuffer, April 4, 2025)

These things taken alone and without context seem oddly incongruous with what Christ said when He presented His Doctrine to the Nephites:

“You must not argue about this as you’ve done before, and you must not argue about the points of My doctrine either, as you’ve done before. In truth I tell you: Anyone who welcomes the spirit of conflict doesn’t follow Me, but is following the accuser, who’s the father of conflict. He incites people to angrily fight with each other. This isn’t My doctrine, to incite angry fighting by people. But this is My doctrine, everything like that should end.” (3 Ne. 5:9)

Let’s add some context and see if we can prove these “contraries”.

Sermon at Bountiful

In 3 Nephi 5:24-26, the Lord teaches,

“All have heard what was said since ancient time, and have also seen it written before you, that you shall not murder, and whoever murders will incur condemnation by God. But I say to you whoever is angry with his brother will be in danger of His judgment. And whoever calls his brother, Worthless, will risk offending the Heavenly Council, and whoever will say, You fool! — risks the fires of hell.”

Point check: Don’t allow anger into your heart. The fruit of anger in the heart is sharp words like “worthless” and “fool”, “For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks…for by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned.” (Matt. 6:4)

• 
  

Therefore if any of you will come to Me, or will start to come to Me, and remembers that your brother or sister holds anything against you, go your way first to your brother or sister to be reconciled with them, and then come to Me with full commitment in your heart and I’ll welcome you.

Point check: “Therefore”, meaning “in the context of what I just said about anger”, if you want to come to the Lord, and remember that someone has not forgiven you for something, go and “reconcile” with them first (Mark 5:35). Only then will the Lord welcome us. 

Accept accountability for your misconduct the instant it’s brought to your attention, to avoid leaving this life unrepentant and risking condemnation.I warn you: You’ll discover no way to escape before paying fully for every sin; and while in prison under condemnation, are you able to redeem yourself? I warn you that you cannot.

Point check: Ah! This is instruction regarding righteous reconciliation. If we wish to reconcile with our brother or sister so we can come to the Lord, we have to repair the harm we caused (Helaman 2:19). If we fail to do so, we will suffer the consequences of leaving this life unrepentant (T&C 4:5).

Denver’s February 25, 2024 blog post titled Monsters… explains,

If someone offends me, it is my responsibility to confront the offender and let them know exactly what they did to offend. I owe it to them. If I have not confronted him and set out clearly his offense then I have done him a disservice and have failed in my duty. “And if your brother offend you, you shall take him between him and you alone, and if he confess, you shall be reconciled.” T&C 27:5.

When offended I need to explain to the offender what they did, why it offended, and explain that the injury or offense has harmed me. If he does something offensive and I fail to directly call him out on it, in time he will become a monster as the misconduct continues and inevitably escalates. If that process is to be interrupted and reversed, it requires me to bring it directly and personally to his attention.

When, instead of confronting the offender, I go about complaining to others, then those others are brought into the sad cycle of gossip and character assassination. This is why the first indispensable step is for me to “take him between him and [me] alone” to address the matter. Then, “if he confesses, [we] shall be reconciled.” This is not optional. This is mandatory. And if followed will reconcile the offender with the offended.”

Parable of the Master’s House

Those who had built the family of God (House) then returned to their fellow laborers gathering stone, and helped them lay down their strongly-held dispute that stone was needed for the House. They did not run from the dispute, but engaged with it (not in, with) and willingly labored alongside their fellow servants to find a use for it. (T&C 176 10:11). “Ah ha!” they must have thought, “These stones can go under our feet, keep the dust off of them, and show the path to the Master’s House!”

It was their compassion for their fellow man that caused them to engage in this labor over former disagreements. If we believe ourselves to be correct and our brother or sister to be wrong, we are guided to “...respect your brothers and sisters and to come together by precept, reason, and persuasion, rather than sharply disputing and wrongly condemning each other, causing anger.” (T&C 157:54). This is the labor of engaging with disputes. We’re also told that “although a man may err in understanding concerning many things, yet he can view his brother with charity and come unto me [after reconciling with others], and through me he can with patience overcome the world. I can bring him to understanding and knowledge. Therefore, if you regard one another with charity, then your brother’s error in understanding will not divide you.” (T&C 157:53).

This is starting to sound like what Steph is explaining...

June 20 Revelation

The June 20 revelation speaks of resolving existing disputes,

There have been disputes among the women about the conduct of women’s councils and disputes about how they are to proceed…

Let the women call a conference at a suitable time and place convenient to allow interested women to attend. Have your wife, Stephanie Snuffer conduct the conference deliberations and let any who want to speak present their concerns. Reason together and draw upon the experiences from those past women’s councils. Let the women learn to come to agreement [sounds like learning to respect, etc. from T&C 157:54] and the voice of that conference decides all matters raised. And I remind you that the majority of those who vote decide the voice of the conference of women. If 100 vote, the vote of 51 decides the matter. And, if another dispute later arises from other women’s councils, and there is a need, call another conference of the women and resolve the dispute by the voice of the women’s conference, as often as need arises.

“As need arises” suggests that as we grow, there will be disputes that arise. The Lord would have us get rid of disputes, but that doesn’t happen through magic; it happens through the process outlined in the above revelation. It could be said that when disputes arise (and they will) that we shouldn’t engage in disputing, but engage with it to help put it down (parable of the Master’s House). This is done first by reconciling with those we’ve offended through our sharp words by accepting accountability for our wrongs to show we’ve repented of our sin against them (See 3 Nephi), then by reasoning together and meekly presenting our dispute before the Lord, or said another way, “coming unto [Him]”. He will then tell us His part (T&C 157:54).

This then shows that the above revelation is not a condemnatory “lesser law”, rather it is a vehicle for practicing the Higher Law delivered by the Lord in Bountiful.

Conclusion

By proving these “contraries”, we see that what Steph is teaching is actually quite harmonious with scripture, and in particular, the Sermon on the Mount and at Bountiful. While she may use language we are unfamiliar and uncomfortable with, and approach these things at a slightly different angle, there is a huge overlap of underlying principles. And we have a great amount of common ground.

Brother Joseph Smith, Jr. said: We have assembled together to do the business of the Lord and it is through the great mercy of our God that we are spared to assemble together, many of us have gone at the command of the Lord in defiance of everything evil, and obtained blessings unspeakable, in consequence of which our names are sealed in the Lamb’s book of life, for the Lord has spoken it. It is the privilege of every Elder to speak of the things of God; and could we all come together with one heart and one mind in perfect faith the veil might as well be rent today as next week, or any other time, and if we will but cleanse ourselves and covenant before God, to serve Him, it is our privilege to have an assurance that God will protect us at all times. (General Conference Minutes, 25–26 October 1831)

Better Together, Part 2

 In an often partially quoted remark by Denver, he said,

"To keep ideas pure, they cannot become subject to a hierarchy, controlled by an institution, or embedded inside any organization in this world.

I will leave no seat for another man to occupy. I will leave no institution for another man to compromise. You will not have another person who says," I sit in his seat." I won't even explain to you what seat it is I occupy. I want you [the group he's talking to] to occupy a seat with God, not as my equal, but **as my better** if I can help you." (Denver Snuffer, 40 Years of Mormonism, Talk 6; emphasis and inserts mine.)

This indicates not that there won't be a continuation of the Holy Order after the millennium, only that there will not be an institution that can be corrupted. There was no "seat" left to Abraham by Melchizedek, but there was an Order passed to him and his enclave.

Denver has said:

"Abraham is the father of the righteous and the prototype of the saved man in his generation because he was able to claw back out of a state of apostasy into a state of faithfulness, communing with God and renewing an order that had fallen into disuse everywhere except for a tiny enclave headed by someone [Melchizedek] who had been an antediluvian and who had the right (because the right continued right up into the flood) to be translated into Heaven, but he stayed behind to fulfill a mission. But having fulfilled the mission (that is, handing it off to Abraham), Melchizedek then likewise ascended and, with him, his city." (Righteousness, pg. 7, Salem, Utah, November 11, 2022; emphasis and inserts mine.)

Joseph Smith said,

"Christ and the resurrected Saints will reign over the earth during the thousand years. They will not probably dwell upon the earth but will visit it when they please, or when it is necessary to govern it [planet hopping, yo!]. There will be wicked men on the earth during the thousand years. The heathen nations who will not come up to worship will be visited with the judgments of God, and must eventually be destroyed from the earth." (Joseph Smith, December 30, 1842; emphasis and inserts mine.)

It's interesting to consider that while all of the antediluvians were taken off the Earth, Melchizedek and his "enclave" stayed behind to maintain a place of holiness on the Earth. People think Christ and the saints will hang around to govern during the millennium, but we know that isn't true. They'll visit when needed, just like they do now. Except the people will have a more sure knowledge of what's going on because there will be a temple at the center of a new society. But it will likely operate the same way it did at the time of Abraham and Melchizedek. Abraham was essentially a new Adam, which means Melchizedek essentially "reigned" (taught) during a sort of millennium until he could pass the creation off to someone else who was willing to stick around. Christ and the saints continued to govern through Abraham by visiting to give instruction as needed. It appears that's how it always works. 

One of the main things I find interesting is that Melchizedek's people stayed with him. Abraham's people stayed with him. The Holy Order is a family, and that family will continue into the millennium awaiting further instruction as needed from Christ and those who have been translated until another worthy people rise up to relieve that group, who will then "reign" until another worthy group rises up, etc. 

We are called to be "better" by continuing the government of God on earth as a family, rather than as some corruptible institution with rules and regulations, until we can be relieved by another future righteous group, and be taken to the heavens.

Yeah, we'll look at them stars when we're together.

Better Together

I've been contemplating some admittedly frightening ideas. My initial reaction to the thoughts is "how arrogant" but, then, the thoughts really originated with the Lord. So they can't be arrogant, can they?

The thought is basically this: can we be better than the prophets who went before us? What about the fathers?

Oof. It's as uncomfortable to write down as it is to think.

Could Nephi have been gentler with Laman and Lemuel?

Was there a better way for Jacob to interact with Sherem?

Could Peter and Paul have done better in their interactions?

The answer to this last example is obvious: yes. The Lord Himself not only suggested they could have, He told us we must do better than they. (T&C 157:3)

So were they disobedient to the Lord? Yes and no... I think. The Lord stated that "I love them, and they both love me". He also said that "If you love me you will keep my commandments". The Lord also said, "Jesus said unto him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

So they were obedient, and they loved the Lord, yet, they could have done better by loving and respecting one another. We're told we have to do better. (Ibid.)

Man, the concept really opens us from there. What other things are we dogmatic about because the prophets did something a certain way?

Oof, there's the uncomfortable feeling again. Merky waters. I'll keep asking questions though...

If they could have done something better, and we could also, how would we know which things they did poorly?

There was an unbroken line of fathers from Adam all the way down to Joseph of Egypt. Yet, only Enoch and Melchizedek brought Zion. Was it because they did "better" than the others? 

It's hard for this to not sound like a judgment. It isn't intended to be a judgment, just lessons to learn from and improve upon.

Another interesting example to consider might be Joseph and Hyrum Smith. They were clearly Sons of God sent to minister among us. Yet the structure they established turned into a corruptible hierarchical organization, even before they died. This isn't to fault them. They were obedient to God, accepted of God, and delivered such light to the world so as to change the course of history for the better. Nevertheless, we have to do better. So we ditched D&C 20 and made our own governing principles.

What of Abraham and Sarah? They are known as the father and mother of the righteous. Nevertheless, several people have wondered if Abraham fathering children with Sara's concubines was errant, since the Lord caused Sara's womb to open in her late age, and the promised son was given. So can we be better? Do we need to learn life-long patience? 

Moses is another very interesting example to consider. Exodus 2:67 reveals that Moses placed limits on what he was willing to do, and the Lord worked with and around those limits. We read:

"And Moses answered and said, But behold, they will not believe me nor listen unto my voice, for they will say, The Lord has not appeared unto you. And the Lord said unto him, What is that in your hand? And he said, A rod. And he said, Cast it on the ground. And he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from before it. And the Lord said unto Moses, Put forth your hand and take it by the tail (and he put forth his hand and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand), that they may believe that the Lord God of their fathers — the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob — has appeared unto you. And the Lord said furthermore unto him, Put now your hand into your bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom, and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous as snow. And he said, Put your hand into your bosom again. And he put his hand into his bosom again, and plucked it out of his bosom, and behold, it was turned again as his other flesh. And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe you, neither listen to the voice of the first sign, that they will believe the voice of the latter sign. And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe also these two signs, neither listen unto your voice, that you shall take of the water of the river and pour it upon the dry land, and the water which you take out of the river shall become blood upon the dry land.

And Moses said unto the Lord, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither before now nor since you have spoken unto your servant, but I am slow of speech and of a slow tongue. And the Lord said unto him, Who has made man’s mouth? Or who makes the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? Have not I the Lord? Now therefore go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall say. And he said, O my Lord, send, I ask you, by the hand of him whom you will send. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses, and he said, Is not Aaron the Levite your brother? I know that he can speak well. And also behold, he comes forth to meet you; and when he sees you, he will be glad in his heart. And you shall speak unto him and put words in his mouth, and I will be with your mouth and with his mouth, and will teach you what you shall do. And he shall be your spokesman unto the people, and he shall be, even he shall be to you in stead of a mouth, and you shall be to him in stead of God. And you shall take this rod in your hand, with which you shall do signs."

While it may have been "better" for Moses to fully trust the Lord and obey, he was still accepted of the Lord and brought to pass much righteousness. 

Enoch found himself in a similar situation, but trusted in the Lord and brought Zion. (Gen. 4:2)

Perhaps one hallmark of a righteous person is leaving an honest record of the missteps they made so that their children can learn and do better. It's certainly a mark of humility.

Well, there are many examples to explore, and I'm left to conclude that not only can we be "better" than those who went before, but both they and God expect us to be if we're serious about Zion.

But hey, we're not supposed to compare ourselves to each other. It breeds envy, judgment, insecurity, and competition. Or does it? After all, the Lord pointed out that, "These two facts do exist — that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they. I am the Lord, your God; I am more intelligent than they all."

Maybe comparing ourselves to those who went before us could be viewed through the lens of gratitude for their examples, mistakes, and honesty. Without their courage in coming down here to engage, learn, and leave a record of what works and what doesn't, we wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell.

One thought that keeps coming to mind as I contemplate these ideas is this:

"They without us could not be made perfect, and we without them could not be made perfect." (T&C 151:14) Perfect means complete, but perhaps we can not be complete without learning from one another.

Mmm, it's always better when we're together.