D&C 71
Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith are to go and preach to counteract the damaging work of Ezra Booth, the first apostate from the church.[1]Smith, History of the Church, 1:175-221. They will do this from the time of this revelation (December 1, 1831) until January 10, 1832 (section 73).
71.1-4 Open your mouths in proclaiming my gospel
The most effective way to defend the gospel is to declare it. Truth stands on its own and carries within itself the evidence of its own authenticity. As Christ will have the victory over Satan, so every truth will ultimately triumph over its counterpart, whatever its source may be. Knowing that falsehood cannot hold its own against the truth in open display, the ministers of darkness of necessity must first shade or distort the light of heaven. Only then do they dare attack it…
…did not the apostle Paul counsel us to “prove all things” and hold fast to “that which is good”? (1 Thessalonians 5.21). And again we would ask, should we not hold in suspicion the merchant who will not allow his weights to be inspected?[2]McConkie and Ostler, Revelations of the Restoration: A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants and Other Modern Revelations, Deseret Book, 2000, p. 497.
Joseph Smith recorded that “from this time [4 December 1831] until the 8th or 10th of January, 1832, myself and Elder Rigdon continued to preach in Shalersville, Ravenna, and other places, setting forth the truth, vindicating the cause of our Redeemer; showing that the day of vengeance was coming upon this generation like a thief in the night; that prejudice, blindness and darkness filled the minds of many, and caused them to persecute the true Church, and reject the true light; by which means we did much towards allaying the excited feelings which were growing out of the scandalous letters then being published in the Ohio Star, at Ravenna, by the before-mentioned apostate, Ezra Booth.” [3]History of the Church, 1:241.
71.7 Confound your enemies
As the experience of tens of thousands of missionaries attests, little, if any, gospel teaching is accomplished when we engage in debate or in “scripture bashing.” Nevertheless, in some situations a confrontation may be unavoidable. The circumstances which called forth this revelation are one such instance. The directions given in this verse are understood to be confined to such instances and are not the standard way of presenting the gospel. In his instruction to the Nephites, Christ said: “There shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been… For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away” (3 Nephi 11:28-30).
When we forthrightly declare the truths of salvation as restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith, it will generally have a much greater effect on the hearts of men than if we place our focus on refuting the many falsehoods that have been perpetuated against the Latter-day Saints or against our doctrines.[4]McConkie and Ostler, Revelations of the Restoration.
No Time for Contention
A few months ago word reached some of our missionaries in a remote South Pacific island that I would soon be visiting there for two or three days. When I arrived, the missionaries were waiting anxiously to share with me some anti-Mormon literature that was being circulated in their area. They were disturbed by the accusations and were eager to plan retaliation.
The elders sat on the edge of their chairs as I read the slander and false declarations issued by a minister who apparently felt threatened by their presence and successes. As I read the pamphlet containing the malicious and ridiculous statements, I actually smiled, much to the surprise of my young associates. When I finished, they asked, “What do we do now? How can we best counteract such lies?”
I answered, “To the author of these words, we do nothing. We have no time for contention. We only have time to be about our Father’s business. Contend with no man. Conduct yourselves as gentlemen with calmness and conviction and I promise you success.”[5]Elder Marvin J. Ashton, No Time for Contention, General Conference, April, 1978.
Take a Stand, Remain Firm, Be Wise
There never has been a time when it is more important for us as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to take a stand, remain firm in our convictions, and conduct ourselves wisely under all circumstances. We must not be manipulated or enraged by those who subtly foster contention over issues of the day. When issues are in contradiction to the laws of God, the Church must take a stand and state its position. We have done this in the past and will continue to do so in the future when basic moral principles are attacked. There are those in our society who would promote misconduct and immoral programs for financial gain and popularity. When others disagree with our stand we should not argue, retaliate in kind, or contend with them. We can maintain proper relationships and avoid the frustrations of strife if we wisely apply our time and energies. Ours is to conscientiously avoid being abrasive in our presentations and declarations. We need constantly to remind ourselves that when we are unable to change the conduct of others, we will go about the task of properly governing ourselves. Certain people and organizations are trying to provoke us into contention with slander, innuendos, and improper classifications. How unwise we are in today’s society to allow ourselves to become irritated, dismayed, or offended because others seem to enjoy the role of misstating our position or involvement. Our principles or standards will not be less than they are because of the statements of the contentious. Ours is to explain our position through reason, friendly persuasion, and accurate facts. Ours is to stand firm and unyielding on the moral issues of the day and the eternal principles of the gospel, but to contend with no man or organization. Contention builds walls and puts up barriers. Love opens doors. Ours is to be heard and teach. Ours is not only to avoid contention, but to see that such things are done away.[6]Ibid., see also: Ensign, May 1978, 7-8, emphasis added.
71.9 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper – The Promise of Invulnerability
John Tvedtnes had this to say about Joseph Smith, prophecy, and this verse in particular:
While some have taken Joseph Smith to task over biblical quotes in his revelations, others, ignorant that they are dealing with Bible passages, have termed some of these quotes “false prophecies.” One critic noted that the Word of Wisdom (D&C 89) is not from God because it makes false promises. It says that those who adhere to its principles “shall run, and not be weary, and they shall walk and not faint,” and that they shall have “health in the navel, and marrow in their bones” (D&C 89:18-21). Since not all Latter-day Saints who keep the Word of Wisdom are endowed with such perfect health, this is taken as evidence of a false prophecy. But the same could be said of the Jews to whom the words were originally addressed in Isaiah 40:31 and Proverbs 3:7-8, whence these promises are drawn. Again, we encounter a situation where critics apply a different standard to Joseph Smith’s revelations than they do to the Bible.
Another example is the Lord’s promise to Joseph Smith, found in D&C 71:9 and 109:25, that “no weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper.” Since Joseph Smith was shot and killed, some say, isn’t this evidence of a false prophecy? The passage is actually a quote from Isaiah 54:17 (cited in 3 Nephi 22:17). Isaiah’s statement was addressed to the kingdom of Judah, which was defeated by Babylon in 586 B.C., when its capital, Jerusalem, was destroyed. Either Isaiah uttered a false prophecy, or he had reference to the latter end of Judah. How would today’s critics have reacted to Isaiah’s words a century and a half after the prophet had uttered them? I believe they would have treated him as a false prophet, just as they treat Joseph Smith. If Isaiah’s prophecy refers to events yet future, with intervening periods of hardship for the Jews, then why cannot promises made to Joseph Smith and the Latter-day Saints be future? Why should we apply different standards to Joseph Smith than those applied to Isaiah and other biblical prophets?[7]John A. Tvedtnes, The Nature of Prophets and Prophecy, SHIELDS. Accessed 6.6.2021.
John Tvedtnes had a broad education, with advanced training in anthropology, archaeology, and history to go … Continue reading
This promise (and others like it) are related to the temple promises of invulnerability that were given to the kings and queens of the ancient world[8]Assyrian ideology placed great emphasis on the universal lordship of the god Assur and the invincibility of his representative, the Assyrian king. See: Shawn Zelig Aster, Reflections of Empire … Continue reading as well as the promises associated in the temple today given to the Saints of God.[9]In his blessing to the king, the Father promised that when all these conditions are met (And in thy majesty [sacred garments] ride prosperously [in the presence of the Lord] because of truth and … Continue reading These promises come to the recipient from God, who is speaking from the Holy of Holies, so in one way of examining these promises, they are outside of time.[10] Indeed, as Margaret Barker has stated, “Everything beyond the veil corresponded to Day One, beyond the visible world and beyond time… The rituals of the holy of holies were thus taking … Continue reading
These promises, being outside of time, are fulfilled from God’s perspective, meaning that they are eternal in nature. Though Israel did historically have a sword formed against it that prospered, from an eternal perspective, Isaiah’s message is still true: Israel will be victorious.
D&C 72
In February 1831 Edward Partridge was called to serve as a bishop in Kirtland (D&C 41:9) and given responsibility to operate a storehouse to help the poor (D&C 42:30-39) and to administer property transactions connected with the law of consecration (D&C 51). When Missouri was identified as the place for the gathering of the Saints, Bishop Partridge was appointed to labor there (D&C 58:14). This created the need for someone to fill the responsibilities that had been his in the Kirtland area. In August 1831 Newel K. Whitney was called to serve as an agent for the Church (D&C 63:42-45). Now, in this revelation, he is called to the office of bishop. Thus, these two men served as regional or traveling bishops (D&C 20:66), Bishop Whitney in Ohio and the eastern states, and Bishop Partridge in Missouri.[11]McConkie and Ostler, Revelations of the Restoration.
72.7 The voice of the conference
This refers to the consent of those present, indicated by a sustaining vote. The vote itself— which is given by raising the right hand— is a form of covenant with two parts: first, the sustaining assures acceptance of those whose names are being presented for approval, and second, it includes the promise of help and support as necessary for them to magnify the office to which they are being called.
Illustrating these principles, John Taylor observed, “We hold up our right hand when voting in token before God that we will sustain those for whom we vote. And if we cannot feel to sustain them, we ought not to hold up our hands, because to do this would be to act the part of hypocrites, And the question naturally arises, how far shall we sustain them? Or in other words, how far are we at liberty to depart from this covenant which we make before each other and before our God? For when we lift up our hands in this way, it is in token to God that we are sincere in what we do, and that we will sustain the parties we vote for. This is the way I look at these things. How far then should we sustain them, and how far should we not? This is a matter of serious importance to us. If we agree to do a thing and do not do it, we become covenant-breakers and violators of our obligations, which are, perhaps, as solemn and binding as anything we can enter into.”[12]John Taylor, Gospel Kingdom, 174-75; Doctrine and Covenants 28:10). See commentary on Doctrine and Covenants 26:2.
72.9-23 The duties of these bishops
The duties of the bishop in Kirtland are spelled out in these verses. The bishops concerned here were not the bishops of wards like bishops are today in 2021. The members of the Church were not split into the divisions we know as wards until the Nauvoo period. Bishop Newel K. Whitney and Edward Partridge were traveling or area bishops. As provided in this section, the duties of Bishop Newel K. Whitney involved maintaining the Lord’s storehouse and accepting the donations of the Saints in his territory of stewardship. He was to look after the needy and be responsible for the Church’s temporal concerns. He was also duty-bound to see that those who gathered with the Church in Missouri took with them a certificate or recommend declaring their loyalty and faith as well as their right to lay claim upon an inheritance in Zion.
Newel K. Whitney is called as a bishop, with new duties explained.
Every steward renders an account – verse 3
The worthy inherit mansions – verse 4
Things are had on record and handed over to the bishop – verse 6
The bishop is to keep the Lord’s storehouse – verse 10
To administer to their wants – verse 11
To assist the poor and needy – verse 12
Every man must lay all things before the bishop in Zion – verse 15
The judge or bishop sends elders out with a certificate that “answereth all things, for an inheritance…”
The literary committee is to have claim upon the bishop for financial assistance in all things – verse 20
Members are to have a certificate from three elders of the Church or from a bishop in order to receive stewardships – verses 24-26
A Personal Stewardship Council with the Savior
In June of 1965, a group of brethren in the Physical Facilities Department of the Church was doing some work outside the Hotel Utah apartment of President David O. McKay. As President McKay stopped to explain to them the importance of the work in which they were engaged, he paused and told them the following:
Let me assure you, Brethren, that some day you will have a personal Priesthood interview with the Savior, Himself. If you are interested, I will tell you the order in which He will ask you to account for your earthly responsibilities:
First, He will request an accountability report about your relationship with your wife. Have you actively been engaged in making her happy and ensuring that her needs have been met as an individual?
Second, He will want an accountability report about each of your children individually. He will not attempt to have this for simply a family stewardship but will request information about your relationship to each and every child.
Third, He will want to know what you personally have done with the talents you were given in the pre-existence.
Fourth, He will want a summary of your activity in your Church assignments. He will not be necessarily interested in what assignments you have had, for in his eyes the home teacher and a mission president are equals, but He will request a summary of how you have been of service to your fellowmen in your Church assignments.
Fifth, He will have no interest in how you earned your living, but if you were honest in all your doings.
Sixth, He will ask for an accountability on what you have done to contribute in a positive manner to your community, state, country, and the world.[13]This was shared by Robert D. Hales of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who was the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at the time of this devotional on March 15, … Continue reading
D&C 73
Joseph and Sidney are to resume their work of Bible translation again after pausing for 40 days (December 1, 1831 – January 10, 1832).
Joseph Smith wrote the following:
From this time (early December) until the 8th or 10th of January, 1832, myself and Elder Rigdon continued to preach in Shalersville, Ravenna, and other places, setting forth the truth, vindicating the cause of our Redeemer; showing that the day of vengeance was coming upon this generation like a thief in the night; that prejudice, blindness and darkness filled the minds of many, and caused them to persecute the true Church, and reject the true light; by which means we did much towards allaying the excited feelings which were growing out of the scandalous letters then being published in the Ohio Star, at Ravenna, by the before-mentioned apostate, Ezra Booth. On the 10th of January, I received the following revelation (Section 73) making known the will of the Lord concerning the Elders of the Church until the convening of the next conference.[14]History of the Church, 1:241-242.
Resuming the Joseph Smith Translation
During the summer and fall of 1830, Joseph launched this new translation project, an undertaking that would require his focus from June 1830 until July 1833, with some breaks during the course of translation.[15]Robert J. Matthews explained, “The Prophet Joseph Smith began translating the Bible in June of 1830. He worked steadily, with some breaks in between, from June of 1830 to July 1833. So it took just … Continue reading Of the translation venture, Joseph viewed his translation as an inspired revision that included restoration by revelation of many of the things that were missing from the early accounts of events in the Book of Genesis. It also included grammatical and linguistic changes, and in other places elaborations or clarifications on doctrine. Joseph made the most extensive changes to the Book of Genesis, but the work was a massive undertaking. By the time the first cycle of translation was finished in 1833, he had revised more than three thousand verses, adding phrases, verses, and even new chapters to the Bible.[16]See “Historical Introduction,” Visions of Moses, June 1830 [Moses 1], fn 5, JSP. We read the following: The translation was not a Bible translation in the conventional sense; … Continue readingFrom many of the sources I have analyzed, it seems apparent that Joseph Smith never considered the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible to have been completed.[17] Indeed, even the concept of a “completed” work may be a misnomer. From many sources like Brigham Young, George Q. Cannon, George A. Smith, and Dr. John Milton Bernhisel, we can see that … Continue reading
D&C 74
The Lord explains 1 Corinthians 7.14, that little children are holy before the Lord.
1 Corinthians 7.14, as well as other scriptures in the New Testament were used to justify the practice of baptism of the dead.[18]As one Catholic website has explained, “The apostolic Church baptized whole “households” (Acts 16:33; 1 Cor. 1:16), a term encompassing children and infants as well as servants. While these … Continue readingThe context of 1 Corinthians 7 relates to spouses of believers that are not of the faith. The question arose, should believing spouses leave their non-believing spouses and dissolve their marriages? Paul’s answer was that the Saints of his day should stay married, for through this union, the unbelieving spouse would be sanctified, or influenced positively through the marriage ties of the believer. The passage reads as follows:
But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy… For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? (1 Corinthians 7.12-14, 16)
From my reading of this passage, Paul is extending the hope to those who trust Jesus that their trust and faith will be extended to those of their household, that they will be blessed through their association with them. I do not see this passage as a justification to baptize infants.
Other Christian believers disagree. One stated the following:
Baptism is the Christian equivalent of circumcision, or “the circumcision of Christ”: “In him you were also circumcised with . . . the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead” (Col. 2:11–12). Thus, like circumcision, baptism can be given to children as well as adults. The difference is that circumcision was powerless to save (Gal. 5:6, 6:15), but “[b]aptism . . . now saves you” (1 Pet. 3:21).[19]Catholic.com. This site also writes the following: “The first explicit evidence of children of believing households being baptized comes from the early Church—where infant baptism … Continue reading
Infant Baptism: Historical Evidence
One of the earliest extra-biblical Christian texts that spoke of baptism was The Didache, (Koine Greek: διδαχή), also known as “The Teaching,” or, “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” is an enigmatic primitive Church document describing early Christian ethics, and practices that was probably written around 100 A.D.[20]The document was located inside of the Codex Hierosolymitanus, has no date itself, and lacks any mention of external events that could indicate a timeframe. Additionally, there are no prescribed … Continue reading This text was lost to the modern world until its discovery in a monastery in Turkey in 1873. Early Christians considered this text to be authoritative.
In the Didache, it states the following:
7.1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize.
7.2 Having first recited all these things, baptize {in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit} in living (running) water.
7.3 But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water;
7.4 and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.
7.5 But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
7.6 But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able;
7.7 and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.[21]Didache, 7.1-7.7, Lightfoot translation.
Essentially this teaching is focusing on the importance of the baptismal candidate to fast a day or two before being baptized, demonstrating that this was something that was probably entered into by those old enough to consciously make the decision to fast.
Infant baptism is taught in the early church, however. Modern proponents of this practice generally cite Irenaeus, a Christian thinker from the second century. Irenaeus was a Greek bishop who had heard the preaching of Polycarp, a disciple of John, wrote a refutation of gnostic ideas entitled Against Heresies. In this text Irenaeus wrote the following:
Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master, He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged by all as a Master. For He did not seem one thing while He was another, as those affirm who describe Him as being man only in appearance; but what He was, that He also appeared to be. Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law which He had appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself-all, I say, who through Him are born again to God -infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be “the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence,” the Prince of life, existing before all, and going before all.[22]Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]. I would note that Irenaeus does not state that infants are to be baptized, rather, he states that the Lord came to save all, and that the Lord passed … Continue reading
Another text that has been cited to defend this practice is The Apostolic Tradition by Hippolytus of Rome, dated to around 235 A.D.[23]This was the date when Hippolytus is believed to have been martyred. According to Prudentius’ account, he was martyred by being dragged by wild horsed until he died. This text reads as follows:
“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them.”[24]The Apostolic Tradition 21:16. Another translation reads as follows: “At cockcrow prayer shall be made over the water. The stream shall flow through the baptismal tank or pour into it from … Continue reading
Origen of Alexandria (184-253 A.D.)[25]Origen wrote of the pre-existence of souls, logos theology, and universal reconciliation, views that have much in common with some teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, yet he also held to views … Continue reading wrote of infant baptism as well:
“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous.”[26]Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]. See: ChurchFathers.org
“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.”[27]Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]. See: ChurchFathers.org
D&C 74 as it relates to Tradition
Byrce discussed another approach to this section: the role that tradition plays in our conduct, as well as our approach to religious ideas. He shared the following quote by President Hinckley:
Now we have an interesting custom in the Church. Departing missionaries are accorded a farewell. In some wards this has become a problem. Between outgoing missionaries and returning missionaries, most sacrament meetings are devoted to farewells and homecomings. No one else in the Church has a farewell when entering a particular service. We never have a special farewell-type meeting for a newly called bishop, for a stake president, for a Relief Society president, for a General Authority, or anyone else of whom I can think. Why should we have missionary farewells? The First Presidency and the Twelve, after most prayerful and careful consideration, have reached the decision that the present program of missionary farewells should be modified. The departing missionary will be given opportunity to speak in a sacrament meeting for 15 or 20 minutes. But parents and siblings will not be invited to do so. There might be two or more departing missionaries who speak in the same service. The meeting will be entirely in the hands of the bishop and will not be arranged by the family. There will not be special music or anything of that kind. We know this will be a great disappointment to many families. Mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, and friends have participated in the past. We ask that you accept this decision. Where a farewell has already been arranged, it may go forward. But none in the traditional sense should be planned for the future. We are convinced that when all aspects of the situation are considered, this is a wise decision. Please accept it, my dear brethren. I extend this plea also to the sisters, particularly the mothers. We hope also that holding elaborate open houses after the sacrament meeting at which the missionary speaks will not prevail. Members of the family may wish to get together. We have no objection to this. However, we ask that there be no public reception to which large numbers are invited. Missionary service is such a wonderful experience that it brings with it its own generous reward. And when a missionary returns to his family and his ward, he may again be given opportunity to speak in a sacrament meeting.[28]Gordon B. Hinckley, “To Men of the Priesthood,” Ensign, Nov. 2002.
D&C 75
This revelation, received at a conference in Ohio on January 25, 1832, has to do with missionary work. Elders are called to preach the gospel and promised sheaves, to be crowned with honor, and glory, and immortality, and eternal life (D&C 75.5).
The individuals mentioned in this revelation are as follows:
William E. McLellin (6)[29]McLellin leaves the church, never to return. For his reasons, see: William E. McLellin’s statements near the end of his life regarding his faith
Luke Johnson (9)[30] Luke Johnson was 24 when D&C 75 was received in 1831. He was ordained to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in February 1835, but he fell from the church in 1837. In 1846, Luke Johnson … Continue reading
Orson Hyde (13)
Samuel H. Smith (13)[31]Samuel Harrison Smith was just 23 when D&C 75 was received in 1831. He was one of the eight witnesses to the Book of Mormon and one of the six original members of the church. He served his … Continue reading
Lyman Johnson (14)[32]Professor Susan Easton Black relates: Lyman Johnson was called to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles on 14 February 1835. He was the first Apostle chosen in this dispensation but did not become … Continue reading
Orson Pratt (14)
Asa Dodds (15)[33]Susan Easton Black supplies the following information about Asa Dodds: Asa Dodds Birth: 1793, New York. Soon after joining the Church in the 1830s, Asa Dodds accepted a call to … Continue reading
Calves Wilson (15)[34]Calves Wilson, mentioned in D&C 75.15 Birth and Death: unknown Calves Wilson was baptized before 25 October 1831 and ordained a priest on that date in Orange County, Ohio, by Oliver … Continue reading
Major N. Ashley (17)[35]Major Noble Ashley, mentioned in D&C 75.17 Birth: 3 March 1798, Sheffield, Berkshire County, Massachusetts. Son of Oliver Ashley and Tabitha Baker. In the early 1800s parents often named … Continue reading
Burr Riggs (17)[36]Burr Riggs, born April 17, 1811, was called to serve a mission with Major Ashley in the “south country” (D&C 75.17). It appears that this mission assignment was not fulfilled. On 13 February … Continue reading
Simeon Carter (30)[37]Simeon Carter, 37 years old at the time D&C 75 was received in 1831, had been blessed with the gift of healing and preaching the word. When Simeon met Parley P. Pratt, the following … Continue reading
Emer Harris (30)[38]Emer Harris, older brother (by two years) to Martin Harris, was 50 years old in 1831 at the time D&C 75 was received. Emer read the Book of Mormon and was baptized on 10 February 1831 by Hyrum … Continue reading
Ezra Thayre (31)
Thomas B. Marsh (31)
Hyrum Smith
Reynolds Cahoon
Daniel Stanton
Seymour Brunson (32-33)[39]Seymour Brunson, a veteran of the war of 1812, was 32 when D&C 75 was received in 1831. In Ohio he was baptized by Solomon Hancock in January 1831 and ordained an elder by John Whitmer that same … Continue reading
Sylvester Smith[40]Sylvester Smith was 26 years old at the time D&C 75 was received in 1831 (D&C 75.34). He reported, “I have traveled about five hundred miles in about six weeks, and held fifteen … Continue reading
Gideon Carter (34)
Ruggles Eames
Stephen Burnett (35)
Micah B. Welton
Eden Smith (36)[41]Eden Smith was just 25 years old in 1831 when D&C 75 was received. He worked to fulfill the missionary assignment given him in this section and later served a mission with Stephen Burnett … Continue reading
References
| ↑1 | Smith, History of the Church, 1:175-221. |
|---|---|
| ↑2 | McConkie and Ostler, Revelations of the Restoration: A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants and Other Modern Revelations, Deseret Book, 2000, p. 497. |
| ↑3 | History of the Church, 1:241. |
| ↑4, ↑11 | McConkie and Ostler, Revelations of the Restoration. |
| ↑5 | Elder Marvin J. Ashton, No Time for Contention, General Conference, April, 1978. |
| ↑6 | Ibid., see also: Ensign, May 1978, 7-8, emphasis added. |
| ↑7 | John A. Tvedtnes, The Nature of Prophets and Prophecy, SHIELDS. Accessed 6.6.2021.
John Tvedtnes had a broad education, with advanced training in anthropology, archaeology, and history to go along with background in several languages, including French, Arabic, Hebrew, and Egyptian. He earned degrees in anthropology (BA), linguistics (MA), Middle East Studies (MA), and did further graduate work in Egyptian and Semitic languages. The early part of Tvedtnes’ career was spent teaching Hebrew, linguistics, anthropology, archaeology, and historical geography at the University of Utah, BYU Salt Lake Center, and BYU Jerusalem Center. Eventually he became a resident scholar at FARMS, later renamed the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship. See: A Great Book of Mormon Scholar Passes Away, Book of Mormon Central, June 18, 2018. |
| ↑8 | Assyrian ideology placed great emphasis on the universal lordship of the god Assur and the invincibility of his representative, the Assyrian king. See: Shawn Zelig Aster, Reflections of Empire in Isaiah 1-39: Responses to Assyrian Ideology, Society of Biblical Literature, 2017, p. 9. Later (p.13) he states, “Although the king of Assyria is nowhere seen as a god, his power and special abilities are consistently seen as deriving from those of his master, Assur, the head of the pantheon. This identification between king and god leads to what Hayim Tadmor called ‘the heroic principle of royal omnipotence.’ In inscriptions, in art, and in ritual, the king is consistently portrayed as all-powerful and therefore invincible. His invincibility, and the recognition of this invincibility, are seen in the inscriptions as resulting from the link between god and king.” |
| ↑9 | In his blessing to the king, the Father promised that when all these conditions are met (And in thy majesty [sacred garments] ride prosperously [in the presence of the Lord] because of truth and meekness and righteousness) thy right hand shall teach thee awesome things.
Elohim concluded his blessings of priesthood and kingship to the future king with this final promise: “Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the king’s enemies; whereby the people fall under thee” (Psalm 45:5). Many of the psalms that contain blessings, conclude with similar promises of military invulnerability. Some important examples are Psalms 2, 21, 110. Psalm 21 is the king standing before the veil of the temple. It concludes with a promise of invulnerability… Not all “war psalms” are that kind of concluding blessing. John Eaton identifies several psalms “that reflect warfare: 7; 11; 17; 27; 3 1; 35; 40; 42-3; 44; 54; 55; 56; 59; 60; 62; 63; 66; 69; 70; 108; 109; 140; 141; in several others the military aspect is not brought out but can reasonably be assumed: 5; 16; 2.8; 142; 143.” See John Eaton, Kingship and the Psalms,130. There were two kinds of enemies in their world. One challenged the earthly concerns of kingship’s responsibility for personal and national peace and security. The other (a holdover from the previous world) challenges the powers of one’s righteousness and priesthood. The contexts of the seeming military blessings in this and other psalms suggest that the intent of the blessing was to give the assurance that the Lord guaranteed that no power on earth or in hell could prevent one from keeping one’s premortal covenants, and from enjoying the blessings derived therefrom. It was a promise that even though the king (who was dressed in sacred clothing; empowered by truth, meekness and righteousness) might find himself surrounded by enemies whose intent was to destroy him, he would remain invincible to their ultimate power until his covenants were fulfilled and his mission accomplished. These promises of invulnerability are usually found in those psalms that speak of the king’s approaching God. They are a reminder of the promise received in the Council that God is the guarantor that one will have the power to fulfill one’s eternal covenants. That promise of invulnerability is important because, as is always so in the cosmic myth, the assignment is impossible and only the intercession of the heavens can make a path through the obstacles that would prevent its fulfillment. The obstacles and the impossibility of the task are ever-present but then so is the guarantee that the Father will fulfill his part of the covenant. It is the same guarantee as the prayer that concludes the first chapter of Ephesians, after Paul reminded his readers of their premortal relationship with their Father in Heaven, and of the covenants and instructions they received before they left home… At the conclusion of Paul’s discussion of the covenants we made with God in the premortal world (Ephesians 1:1-14), Paul prays that his readers may know three things: First, “what is the hope of his calling.” Calling is a verb, thus it is God’s calling—his premortal assignment—to the Saints. Second, “and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints.” That is, what great blessings await those who keep their covenants. Third, “And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead.” (v. 18-20 and on to v. 23) In other words, Paul’s prayer concludes with the hope that we will know that the Father has also promised us that he will enable us to fulfill our covenants if we are faithful to the instructions of the Holy Ghost. LeGrand Baker and Stephen Ricks, Who Shall Ascend to the Hill of the Lord?: The Psalms in Israel’s Temple Worship In the Old Testament and in the Book of Mormon, Eborn Books, p. 201-203. |
| ↑10 | Indeed, as Margaret Barker has stated, “Everything beyond the veil corresponded to Day One, beyond the visible world and beyond time… The rituals of the holy of holies were thus taking place outside time and matter, in the realm of the angels and the heavenly throne, and those who functioned in the holy of holies were more than human, being and seeing beyond time. See: Margaret Barker, The Temple Roots of the Liturgy, p. 7-8. Another time she elaborated on this concept as follows:
The holy of holies was also beyond time. To enter was to enter eternity. Philo says that the veil ‘separated the changeable parts of the world… from the heavenly region which is without transient events and is unchanging (Questions on Exodus 2.91). The best known example of a timeless experience is the vision of Jesus in the wilderness when he was taken to a high place and saw ‘all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time’ (Luke 4.5). In the Apocalypse of Abraham the patriarch was taken up to heaven where he saw the stars far below him (Ap.Abr.20.3). The Eternal One then said to him: ‘Look now beneath your feet at the firmament and understand the creation that was depicted of old on this expanse…’ (Ap.Abr.21.1). Abraham sees the firmament as a screen on which the history of his people is revealed to him. The detail which links this experience of the firmament to the holy of holies is to be found in 3 Enoch, an undateable text which describes how R.Ishmael the high priest ascended to heaven. Now Rabbi Ishmael lived after the temple had been destroyed and cannot have been a high priest, and the versions of 3 Enoch which we have were compiled long after that. Nevertheless, the association of ascent, high priesthood and the sanctuary experience persisted, and thus we find here in 3 Enoch the explanation of the vision described in the Apocalypse of Abraham. The firmament on which Abraham saw the history of his people was the veil.
|
| ↑12 | John Taylor, Gospel Kingdom, 174-75; Doctrine and Covenants 28:10). See commentary on Doctrine and Covenants 26:2. |
| ↑13 | This was shared by Robert D. Hales of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who was the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at the time of this devotional on March 15, 1988. Elder Hales was sustained as an apostle on April 2, 1994 and served in that capacity until October 1, 2017. See: Robert D. Hales, Understandings of the Heart, March 15, 1988 Devotional, BYU Speeches. David O. McKay, Notes of Fred Baker, Managing Director, Department of Physical Facilities. |
| ↑14 | History of the Church, 1:241-242. |
| ↑15 | Robert J. Matthews explained, “The Prophet Joseph Smith began translating the Bible in June of 1830. He worked steadily, with some breaks in between, from June of 1830 to July 1833. So it took just over three years. During that time, he went all the way through the Old Testament and all the way through the New Testament, but not in that order. He began in Genesis 1 and translated through Genesis 24:41, and the Lord told him to begin translating the New Testament (D&C 45:60–62). He then went to Matthew and translated all of the New Testament sequentially and then went back to Genesis and did the rest of the Old Testament. He finished the Old Testament on July 2, 1833.” See: Huntington and Hauglid, Robert J. Matthews and His Work with the Joseph Smith Translation. A note on whether Joseph finished the work- I would suggest that this work was never finished, nor was it intended to “be finished.” I would suggest that in one sense, Joseph is showing all of us how to read scripture. Joseph is reading the written word and receiving revelation as to its meaning, as well as receiving revelation on to things that were not in the text. He is offering inspired midrash, or commentary on the text. He is also helping readers to see some of the ambiguities in the text with a greater focus. In a meeting held on June 20, 1868, several of Joseph Smith’s friends discussed the Joseph Smith Translation, relating their reminiscences of Joseph telling them that the translation was not complete. Dr. Bernhisel testified that Joseph Smith told him that he (Joseph) wished to revise the Joseph Smith Translation. In 1845 Emma Smith let Dr. Bernhisel have the document for three months while Bernhisel was living in Nauvoo, during which time Dr. Bernhisel copied much of the text. According to John Nutall, Bernhisel did not copy all of the translation, but did copy much of it. (See: John Nuttall, “Diary,” Vol. 1, Brigham Young University Library, Provo, Utah, entry for September 10, 1879.) George A. Smith testified that he had heard Joseph say before his death, that the translation was not complete, that he had not been able to prepare it, and that is was probably providentially so. See: Journal History of the Church, April-June, 1868, Church Historian’s Library, Salt Lake City, entry for June 20, 1868, p. 1. These statements from Bernhisel and Smith agree with the statement of George Q. Cannon when he wrote, “George Q. Cannon wherein he wrote, “We have heard President Brigham Young state that the Prophet, before his death, had spoken to him about going through the translation of the Scriptures again and perfecting it upon points of doctrine which the Lord had restrained him from giving in plainness and fulness at the time of which we write [February 2, 1833].”—Life of Joseph Smith the Prophet, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1958, p. 148n. |
| ↑16 | See “Historical Introduction,” Visions of Moses, June 1830 [Moses 1], fn 5, JSP. We read the following: The translation was not a Bible translation in the conventional sense; rather, it was seen as an inspired revision that included the restoration by revelation of missing texts. In some instances, grammatical or other linguistic changes were made, but in other places modifications elaborated or clarified doctrine. By the time JS stopped working on the translation manuscripts in July 1833, he had revised more than three thousand verses and added phrases, verses, and occasionally even whole chapters to the Bible. He made his most extensive textual changes to Genesis. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints included the revelation featured here as “Visions of Moses” in its Pearl of Great Price, which was canonized in 1880. [Letter to Church Leaders in Jackson County, Missouri, 2 July 1833; see also Matthews, Plainer Translation, chap. 3; Howard, Restoration Scriptures, chaps. 4–6; and Faulring et al., Joseph Smith’s New Translation of the Bible.] |
| ↑17 | Indeed, even the concept of a “completed” work may be a misnomer. From many sources like Brigham Young, George Q. Cannon, George A. Smith, and Dr. John Milton Bernhisel, we can see that they spoke of Joseph not having had completed the work. Indeed, when Emma let Dr. Bernhisel borrow the translation for three months while he lived in Nauvoo in 1845, he reported that Emma requested Bernhisel “it was not prepared for the press, as Joseph had designed to go through it again.” Robert J. Matthews, The Bernhisel Manuscript Copy of Joseph Smith’s Inspired Version of the Bible, BYU Studies 11, no. 3, 1971, p. 2. |
| ↑18 | As one Catholic website has explained, “The apostolic Church baptized whole “households” (Acts 16:33; 1 Cor. 1:16), a term encompassing children and infants as well as servants. While these texts do not specifically mention—nor exclude—infants, the very use of the term “households” indicates an understanding of the family as a unit. Even one believing parent in a household makes the children and even the unbelieving spouse “holy” (1 Cor. 7:14).” See: Catholic.com Accessed 6.6.2021. |
| ↑19 | Catholic.com. This site also writes the following: “The first explicit evidence of children of believing households being baptized comes from the early Church—where infant baptism was uniformly upheld and regarded as apostolic. In fact, the only reported controversy on the subject was a third-century debate whether or not to delay baptism until the eighth day after birth, like its Old Testament equivalent, circumcision!” |
| ↑20 | The document was located inside of the Codex Hierosolymitanus, has no date itself, and lacks any mention of external events that could indicate a timeframe. Additionally, there are no prescribed authors. Therefore, the dating of the Didache is difficult, and since its emergence has caused controversy. Jonathan Draper writes, “Athanasius (296-373 A.D.) describes it as ‘appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of goodness’ [Festal Letter 39:7]. He also includes the Shepherd of Hermas, along with other extrabiblical texts. Hence a date for the Didache in its present form later than the second century must be considered unlikely, and a date before the end of the first century probable.” |
| ↑21 | Didache, 7.1-7.7, Lightfoot translation. |
| ↑22 | Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]. I would note that Irenaeus does not state that infants are to be baptized, rather, he states that the Lord came to save all, and that the Lord passed “through every age, becoming infant for infants”… this could be a passage that relates to the Savior’s ability to relate with the condition of mortal man, similar in a sense to Alma 7.11-12. |
| ↑23 | This was the date when Hippolytus is believed to have been martyred. According to Prudentius’ account, he was martyred by being dragged by wild horsed until he died. |
| ↑24 | The Apostolic Tradition 21:16. Another translation reads as follows: “At cockcrow prayer shall be made over the water. The stream shall flow through the baptismal tank or pour into it from above when there is no scarcity of water; but if there is a scarcity, whether constant or sudden, then use whatever water you can find. They shall remove their clothing. And first baptize the little ones; if they can speak for themselves, they shall do so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for them. Then baptize the men, and last of all the women; they must first loosen their hair and put aside any gold or silver ornaments that they were wearing: let no one take any alien thing down to the water with them. See: The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, by Burton Scott Easton, online version. |
| ↑25 | Origen wrote of the pre-existence of souls, logos theology, and universal reconciliation, views that have much in common with some teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, yet he also held to views such as the incorporeality of God that do not square with our (LDS) theology. See: Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity, 1999, Cornerstone Publishing. See also: Joseph W. Trigg, Origen, University of Durham, Routledge, 1998, edited by Carol Harrison. See also: Tom Greggs, Barth, Origen, and Universal Salvation: Restoring Particularity, Oxford University Press, 2009. |
| ↑26 | Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]. See: ChurchFathers.org |
| ↑27 | Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]. See: ChurchFathers.org |
| ↑28 | Gordon B. Hinckley, “To Men of the Priesthood,” Ensign, Nov. 2002. |
| ↑29 | McLellin leaves the church, never to return. For his reasons, see: William E. McLellin’s statements near the end of his life regarding his faith |
| ↑30 | Luke Johnson was 24 when D&C 75 was received in 1831. He was ordained to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in February 1835, but he fell from the church in 1837. In 1846, Luke Johnson returned to the church and was baptized by his brother-in-law Orson Hyde (Orson was married to Luke’s sister Miranda Nancy Johnson) on March 8, 1846, after Joseph Smith’s martyrdom. After the Saints moved west, Luke eventually settled in Tooele County (the town of St. John in Tooele County was named after him). He died at the home of Orson Hyde on December 9, 1861 at the age of 54. President Brigham Young wrote of him: “Since his return to the church he has lived up to the truth to the best of his ability, and he died in the faith.” [See: B. H. Roberts, A Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1965), 5:143. See also Keith Perkins, “A House Divided,” Ensign, February 1979, 56–57. See also: Lawrence R. Flake, Prophets and Apostles of the Last Dispensation.] |
| ↑31 | Samuel Harrison Smith was just 23 when D&C 75 was received in 1831. He was one of the eight witnesses to the Book of Mormon and one of the six original members of the church.
He served his most challenging mission with Orson Hyde (D&C 75.13). This eastern mission lasted eleven months and included meetings and baptisms from Ohio to Maine. “This was one of the most arduous and toilsome missions ever performed in the Church,” Orson wrote. “To travel two thousand miles on foot… often sleeping in school houses after preaching-in barns, in sheds, by the way side… was something of a task.” Samuel wrote, “Went from House to House and many during that day rejected us we shook off the dust from our feet as a testimony against them.” [Events in the Life of Samuel Harrison Smith Including His Missionary Journal for the Year 1832,” Archives Division, Church Historical Department, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah.] Samuel moved to Missouri with his family, only to be driven from the state in 1838, eventually settling down in Nauvoo. In Nauvoo his responsibilities increased. He was an alderman; chairman of the committee of improvement, formed to construct and repair roads; associate justice of the municipal court; captain in the Nauvoo Legion; and a regent of the University of Nauvoo. In January 1841 he was called to be a counselor to Vinson Knight, Presiding Bishop of the Church (D&C 124.141). He was later called as bishop of the Nauvoo Ward. In 1844 the events that led to the martyrdom of Samuel’s brothers impacted his own life. When he learned of the imprisonment of his brothers in Carthage, he attempted to aid them. He was met by a mob who intercepted him and prevented his traveling to Carthage. He returned home and purchased a horse noted for its speed, and rode toward Carthage again. As he neared the town the second time, he learned that his brothers were dead. His daughter, Mrs. M. B. S. Norman, wrote, “The terrible shock was too much for him, and for an instant he reeled in his saddle and they expected him to fall… He steadied himself, saying, ‘God help me! I must go to them.’”[Journal History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Church Historical Department, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah., 25 July 1844.] The mob hid in a thicket, and as they saw him approach they gave chase. Samuel managed to stay out of the range of their bullets and arrived in Carthage. [Journal History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Church Historical Department, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah., 25 July 1844.] The next day he escorted the bodies of his brothers back to Nauvoo. After Mother Smith had viewed the bodies and retired to her room, Samuel said to her, “Mother, I have had a dreadful distress in my side ever since I was chased by the mob, and I think I have received some injury which is going to make me sick.” He suffered from bilious fever until his death on 30 July 1844. His obituary stated, “If ever there lived a good man upon the earth, Samuel H. Smith was that person.” See: Black, p. 295-297. |
| ↑32 | Professor Susan Easton Black relates:
Lyman Johnson was called to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles on 14 February 1835. He was the first Apostle chosen in this dispensation but did not become President of the Quorum, because age rather than ordination determined seniority. Since Lyman was only twenty-three years old and the youngest member called to the Twelve, he served in the twelfth position. In his apostolic blessing he was promised that “he should bear the tidings of salvation to nations, tongues, and people, until the utmost corners of the earth shall hear the tidings.” [History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ed. B. H. Roberts, 7 vols. (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1932-51), 2:188.] The promise began to be fulfilled when he labored with his brethren in New Brunswick and along the eastern seaboard. Lyman’s apostasy began in 1837 over a merchandising venture in Kirtland. He claimed his loss of six thousand dollars was the fault of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He and Orson Pratt preferred charges against the Prophet “for lying and misrepresentation-also for extortion-and for speaking disrespectfully, against his brethren behind their backs.” These charges were dismissed; however, Lyman was charged with misrepresentation and disfellowshipped on 3 September 1837. One week later he confessed his wrongdoings and was reinstated. Over time he became disaffected from the church. Susan Easton Black continues: On 13 April 1838 Lyman was excommunicated for bringing distress to the innocent, assaulting Phineas Young, not attending Church meetings, failing to observe the Word of Wisdom, and unrighteous conduct. Although no longer adhering to the Mormon faith, Lyman remained friendly to the Saints and often lamented with them about his spiritual downfall. He stated: “I would suffer my right hand to be cut off, if I could believe it again. Then I was full of joy and gladness. My dreams were pleasant. When I awoke in the morning my spirit was cheerful. I was happy by day and by night, full of peace and joy and thanksgiving. But now it is darkness, pain, sorrow, misery in the extreme. I have never since seen a happy moment.” He was an attorney in Davenport and Keokuk, Iowa, in the 1840s and 1850s. He died in a sleighing accident in 1856 at the age of forty-five. An obituary notice detailed the tragedy: “He was in a sleigh with others, when it went through an air-hole in the ice, of the Mississippi” near Prairie Du Chien, Wisconsin. See: Black, Who’s Who in the Doctrine and Covenants, Deseret Book, 1997, p. 158-159. |
| ↑33 | Susan Easton Black supplies the following information about Asa Dodds:
Asa Dodds Birth: 1793, New York. Soon after joining the Church in the 1830s, Asa Dodds accepted a call to preach the gospel from Ohio to Missouri with Orson Pratt. Orson wrote, “About the first of October [1831]… I started on foot for Ohio, in company with Asa Dodds, preaching by the way, as commanded of the Lord through the Prophet. Brother Dodds stopped in Indiana, but I continued my journey, although suffering much from the ague.” [Orson Pratt, The Orson Pratt Journals, comp. Elden J. Watson (Salt Lake City: Elden Jay Watson, 1975), p. 11.] Asa later returned to Ohio and by January 1832 was appointed by revelation to journey “unto the western countries”: “And again, I say unto my servant Asa Dodds, and unto my servant Calves Wilson, that they also shall take their journey unto the western countries, and proclaim my gospel, even as I have commanded them” (D&C 75.15). It is not known if this mission was fulfilled by either man. Eight days after the January 1832 revelation Asa was ordained a high priest by Hyrum Smith. Little is known of his whereabouts following the ordination. However, in 1850 he was residing in Farmington, Ohio, and working as a stonemason. [According to the Ohio federal census.] See Black, p. 85. |
| ↑34 | Calves Wilson, mentioned in D&C 75.15
Birth and Death: unknown Calves Wilson was baptized before 25 October 1831 and ordained a priest on that date in Orange County, Ohio, by Oliver Cowdery. Three months later he was called by revelation to proclaim the gospel: “And again, I say unto my servant Asa Dodds, and unto my servant Calves Wilson, that they also shall take their journey unto the western countries, and proclaim my gospel, even as I have commanded them” (D&C 75.15). It is not known whether the mission was fulfilled by either man. In the spring of 1832 Calves accompanied Lyman Wight on a mission to Cincinnati, Ohio. According to a biographer,[“[Lyman] delivered a series of lectures and built up a branch of the Church, and baptized upwards of one hundred.” It is assumed that Calves participated in the successful preaching in the Cincinnati area. See: Black, p. 350. See also: Andrew Jenson, comp., Latter-day Saint Biographical Encyclopedia, 4 vols. (1901-36; reprint, Salt Lake City: Western Epics, 1971), 1:93. |
| ↑35 | Major Noble Ashley, mentioned in D&C 75.17
Birth: 3 March 1798, Sheffield, Berkshire County, Massachusetts. Son of Oliver Ashley and Tabitha Baker. In the early 1800s parents often named their sons ennobling, honorific titles. Major was such a title and does not signify military status. Just as King Follett was never a king, neither was Major a major in the military. Little is known of Majors’s early years as he grew to manhood in Massachusetts. By 1831 he had joined the Church and been ordained a high priest. Pleased with his ordination, he pronounced that “it was by the help of the Lord that he had been preserved, yet his greatest fear was for those who were weak in the faith.” Confident in his faithfulness, Major submitted his name to the Prophet Joseph Smith, seeking to know the will of the Lord concerning him (D&C 75.23). The Lord revealed on 25 January 1832, “And again, I say unto my servant Major N. Ashley, and my servant Burr Riggs, let them take their journey also into the south country” (D&C 75.17). Major, as well as other elders present when Joseph received the revelation, was promised that if faithful he would be “laden with many sheaves [meaning many baptisms], and crowned with honor, and glory, and immortality, and eternal life” (D&C 75.5). Whether he journeyed to the “south country” is not known. Less than six months later, on 3 July 1832, he was present at the home of Edward Partridge in Independence, Missouri, and was laboring as a tanner. He denied the faith after the expulsion of the Saints from Jackson County. When early minutes of the June 1831 general conference were copied into the Far West Record, the scribe inserted “cut off” next to his’s name, indicating a breach of Church fellowship. [Donald Q. Cannon and Lyndon W. Cook, eds., Far West Record: Minutes of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1830-1844 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1983), pp. 7-8.] The Ohio federal census of 1840 reported that Major was living in Tallmadge, Summit County, with two females, one between fifty to sixty years of age and the other between eighty to ninety years. In the census his trade was listed as a miner-a “learned professional and engineer.” Although recognized by worldly standards for his profession, Major forfeited his testimony and quickly became one of those for whom he had once feared: “those who were weak in the faith.” See: Black, p. 1-2. |
| ↑36 | Burr Riggs, born April 17, 1811, was called to serve a mission with Major Ashley in the “south country” (D&C 75.17). It appears that this mission assignment was not fulfilled. On 13 February 1833 a council of high priests in Kirtland investigated charges against Burr Riggs. On 26 February they excommunicated him for not magnifying his calling…
He repented and marched with the faithful in Zion’s Camp to Missouri. He returned to Kirtland after the encampment and married Lovina Williams, the daughter of Frederick G. Williams, and began his practice as a medical doctor. By 1836 he had moved with his family to Far West, Missouri, and purchased two hundred acres and a “Lot on which I erected a dwelling home Stable &c and commencd improving my land and had at the time I was drove away about forty acres of Corn vegetable &c.” [As cited in Clark V. Johnson, ed., Mormon Redress Petitions: Documents of the 1833-1838 Missouri Conflict (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1992), p. 330.] He signed a redress petition seeking compensation for atrocities he suffered in Missouri: “In the year of 1836 when moving to the State of Missouri… was met in Ray County in Said State by a Mob of 114 armed men and commanded us not to proced any fur ther but to return or they would take our lives and the Leader Stepped forward and kocked his peace at the Same time we turned around with our team and the mob followed us about Six miles and Left us.” [Redress Petitions] By 1839 Burr Riggs had lost faith in Mormonism and was numbered among the apostates. [See Anson Call, “Autobiography of Anson Call,” typescript, p. 16, Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University.] Little is known of his life from 1840 to 1850 except that he was residing in Adams County, Illinois. He died in 1860 at Mt. Pleasant, Iowa, at the age of forty-nine. See: Susan Easton Black, Who’s Who, p. 248-249. |
| ↑37 | Simeon Carter, 37 years old at the time D&C 75 was received in 1831, had been blessed with the gift of healing and preaching the word. When Simeon met Parley P. Pratt, the following occurred:
We were in the act of reading to [Simeon] and explaining the Book of Mormon, when there came a knock at the door, and an officer entered with a warrant from a magistrate… to arrest me on a very frivolous charge. I dropped the Book of Mormon inCarter’s house… He read it with attention. It wrought deeply upon his mind, and he went fifty miles to the church we had left in Kirtland, and was there baptized and ordained an Elder. He then returned to his home and commenced to preach and baptize. A church of about sixty members was soon organized. [Parley P. Pratt, Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, ed. Parley P. Pratt Jr., Deseret Book, 1985, pp. 36, 39.] One very notable individual that Simeon affected over the course of his missionary experiences was John Tanner. John Tanner was a Bible-reading Baptist who, hearing rumors of Mormons in the neighborhood, went to the meeting so he could protect his Baptist brethren. For some months, his leg had been afflicted with open sores, a condition apparently without remedy. Propping himself up in his cart, he drove to the meeting, listened to the preaching of two redoubtable elders, Simeon and Jared Carter, and brought a Book of Mormon home after warning his Baptist friends that “they had better not fight against [the truth].” A few days later, Jared Carter (Simeon’s brother) visited the home, administered to John, and commanded him to rise and walk in the name of the Lord. He never used his crutches again. John and Elizabeth were baptized on 17 September 1832. [See: Arrington, The John Tanner Family, Ensign, March, 1979.] Over the course of time Simeon was forced to flee from Jackson to Clay County and then to Kirtland, where he joined Zion’s Camp in 1834. After the march on 7 July 1834 he was appointed to the Clay high council. He and John Corrill, Parley P. Pratt, and Orson Pratt were assigned “to teach the disciples how to escape the indignation of their enemies, and keep in favor with those who were friendly disposed.” [History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ed. B. H. Roberts, 7 vols. (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1932-51), 2:137.] Simeon moved to Far West in 1836, where he again served on a high council. He was wounded at the Battle of Crooked River while defending the Saints. Despite his personal sufferings, he said in December 1838 that “he did not think that Joseph was a fallen Prophet, but he believed in every revelation that had come through him… He did not think that Joseph would be removed and another planted in his stead… He was still determined to persevere and act in righteousness in all things, so that he might at last gain a crown of glory, and reign in the kingdom of God.” [History of the Church, 3:225.] Simeon remained true to the gospel throughout his life. From 1846 to 1849 he served a mission in England. In 1850 he migrated with English converts in Orson Hyde’s company to the Salt Lake Valley. In 1851 he was called by Brigham Young to settle at Box Elder Creek, about fourteen miles north of Ogden. Family tradition purports that he “plowed with a hand plow and cleared some land, hiding his plow as they expected to return to Salt Lake City… because of the hostility of the Indians.” He died in 1869 at the age of seventy-four in the settlement he helped found-Brigham City. See: Black, p. 57-60. |
| ↑38 | Emer Harris, older brother (by two years) to Martin Harris, was 50 years old in 1831 at the time D&C 75 was received. Emer read the Book of Mormon and was baptized on 10 February 1831 by Hyrum Smith. He soon rented his property in Pennsylvania and moved to Ohio to be with the Saints. He was ordained a high priest on 25 October 1831 by the Prophet and said on that occasion that “he was determined to be for God & none else & with his assistance to do his will.” [Far West Record: Minutes of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1830-1844 (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1983), p. 21.] Two days later he was appointed “scribe for Joseph Smith, while they are employed writing and copying the fullness of the scriptures.”
On 25 January 1832 he was called to preach the gospel with Simeon Carter (see D&C 75:30). It appears that the two men initially left together but that Simeon later joined Jared Carter while Emer went with his brother Martin. Of this mission he penned, “Brother Martin is with me & has been the grater part of the time since we left Kirtland. We have traveled mutch & Preached mutch. Eighty two have been baptised and many more have believed. We find no end to the call for our labours.” The Evening and Morning Star reported that “brothers Martin and Emer Harris have baptized 100 persons at Chenango point, New York [south of Oneida Lake], within a few weeks.” They also organized a branch of the Church with seventy members in Springville, Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. [See: Madge Harris Tuckett and Belle Harris Wilson, The Martin Harris Story with Biographies of Emer Harris and Dennison Lott Harris, Vintage Books, 1983, p. 120-121.] After his mission Emer moved to Missouri, only to be expelled from the state in 1838. He then moved to Nauvoo and bought 40 acres, then worked on the construction of the Nauvoo temple, and is credited with building the winding stairway in that temple. He migrated west in 1850 with the Wilford Woodruff company. He settled first in Ogden and then in Provo in 1855. Among his Church callings was that of patriarch. He also gave many healing blessings. One of the young men he blessed was John Henry Smith, who said, “When old Father Emer Harris came to bless me as a child, no matter what the ailment might be, I never had the least doubt but that health would be my portion.” [John Henry Smith, “Unquestioned Integrity,” in Brian H. Stuy, comp., Collected Discourses (Burbank, Calif., and Woodland Hills, Utah: B.H.S. Publishers, 1987-92), p. 183.]… He resided with his children in southern Utah but preferred to live in Logan. In 1867 he returned to northern Utah, where he died in 1869 at the home of his son Alma Harris at the age of eighty-eight. See: Black, p. 119-122. |
| ↑39 | Seymour Brunson, a veteran of the war of 1812, was 32 when D&C 75 was received in 1831. In Ohio he was baptized by Solomon Hancock in January 1831 and ordained an elder by John Whitmer that same month. His first mission assignment followed in 1832 (D&C 75.33). With companions Daniel Stanton and Luke Johnson he shared the gospel with new acquaintances in Virginia, Ohio, and Kentucky.
In Kirtland, where he became the first elder in the Church to solemnize a marriage, his struggles were heightened when he submitted charges against Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer that led to the excommunication of both men. In 1838 he was physically attacked and captured by mobbers and only narrowly escaped by putting his shoes on backward to mislead his pursuers and treading lightly through the snow. [Arlene Bishop Hecker, History of Seymour Brunson, p. 2] As he and other men were being chased from Missouri by other mobbers seeking their lives they journeyed through the wilderness and were “five days lost” before finding safety in Illinois. Seymour suffered in the Missouri conflict of 1838. Seymour lived for only two years following the persecution he experienced in Missouri. During those years he resided in Nauvoo and served on the high council (D&C 124.132), as lieutenant-colonel in the Nauvoo Legion, as colonel in the Hancock County militia, and, more important, as a bodyguard for the Prophet Joseph Smith. In July 1840 he became overly chilled after herding cattle. According to family tradition, “for awhile he desired to live and help put over the work of the Lord but gave up and did not want to live. After calling his family together, blessing them and bidding them farewell” on 10 August, he died at the Prophet’s home at the age of 40. [Hecker, p. 4] Heber C. Kimball descriptively wrote of his death: “Semer Bronson is gon. David Paten came after him. the[R[o]om was full of Angels that came after him to waft him home.” [The Words of Joseph Smith, comp. Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1980), p. 49 n.1.] On 15 August 1840 the Prophet, while speaking at Seymour’s funeral, declared, “He has always been a lively stone in the building of God and was much respected by his friends and acquaintances. He died in the triumph of faith, and in his dying moments bore testimony to the Gospel that he had embraced.” [History of the Church, 4:231.] He then introduced the doctrine of baptism for the dead. See: Black, p. 36-38. See also: H. David Burton, Baptism for the Dead, as found in Latter-day Saint Essentials: Readings from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, edited by John Welch and Devan Jensen, 2002, BYU Studies. |
| ↑40 | Sylvester Smith was 26 years old at the time D&C 75 was received in 1831 (D&C 75.34). He reported, “I have traveled about five hundred miles in about six weeks, and held fifteen meetings,” he wrote, “and I trust that I shall continue to receive the grace of God to support me even to the end.” [History of the Church, 1:388]. He is remembered for his fighting with others on the trip to Missouri that is historically known as Zion’s Camp. After the experiences on the travel to and from Missouri, his contention with Joseph Smith continued. According to the Messenger and Advocate, he “admitted his error and confessed his faults.” [Messenger and Advocate (October 1834): 10-11.]
In the weeks preceding the Kirtland Temple dedication he received a remarkable manifestation of the power of the Lord. Joseph Smith wrote, “The heavens were opened unto Elder Sylvester Smith, and he, leaping up, exclaimed, ‘The horsemen of Israel and the chariots thereof.’” [History of the Church, 2:383]. According to George A. Smith, “In his exertion and excitement it seemed as though he would jump through the ceiling.” [JD 11:10] Several days later in a meeting with Church leaders he “saw a pillar of fire rest down and abide upon the heads of the quorum [of the Seventy].” [History of the Church, 2:386]. He was released from the Presidency of the Seventy on 6 April 1837. He had withdrawn from Church affiliation by 1838. He remained in Kirtland until 1853, afterwhich he moved to Council Bluffs, Iowa. He died in Council Bluffs at the age of 73. See: Black, p. 298-299. |
| ↑41 | Eden Smith was just 25 years old in 1831 when D&C 75 was received. He worked to fulfill the missionary assignment given him in this section and later served a mission with Stephen Burnett (D&C 80.1-2). According to his journal, he served in eastern Ohio on a number of missionary trips during the following months into the surrounding country; and held many meetings and baptized a few. He later joined Charles C. Rich in preaching near Eugene, Ohio, and served as the president of the branch there.
He was disfellowshipped on 2 July 1833. He repented and was restored to fellowship, and later he joined the Saints in Missouri. A few years later in Nauvoo he was a lieutenant in the Nauvoo Legion. He served a mission with Benjamin Leland to Erie County, Pennsylvania, in April 1843. By 1846 he was residing in Kanesville, Iowa. According to one source Eden journeyed from Kanesville to the Salt Lake Valley but returned to Kanesville by 1848. By 1850 he was residing in Pottawattamie County, Iowa. 7 He died on 7 December 1851 at the age of forty-five. See: Black, p. 271-273. |
1 Comment
Comments are closed.