D&C 84 Quotes and Notes

D&C 84 September 22-23, 1832

Historical Background

Garrett and Robinson give the following insightful commentary to set up the historical background of this section:

After spending two weeks in Missouri “sitting in council with the Saints,” organizing the Missouri branch of the united firm, and providing for the establishment of bishops’ storehouses in Independence and Kirtland as commanded by the Lord, Joseph Smith and his companions, except for Jesse Gause (who remained in Missouri at least until June), returned to Ohio. On the return journey, Bishop Newel K. Whitney’s leg and foot were broken in a coach accident, and Joseph stayed with him in Greenville, Indiana, until the bishop could travel. After staying at an inn for nearly a month, Joseph was poisoned one night at dinner but recovered through a priesthood blessing. He and Bishop Whitney left the inn promptly the following day, arriving in Kirtland in late June. They had been away from their families for almost three months.^[1]H. Dean Garrett and Stephen E. Robinson, Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants, Volume 3. See also: History of the Church, 1:271–72.

In September 1832, the Prophet moved from the Johnson home in Hiram, Ohio, into quarters above Bishop Whitney’s store in Kirtland, with a kitchen downstairs. During the time Joseph had been in Missouri, Emma, pregnant again and still grieving for the death of her adopted son, Joseph, had been required to live with three different families in Kirtland under cramped and difficult circumstances.^[2]Ibid., see also: Anderson, Joseph Smith’s Kirtland, 34–36.

During 1832 certain difficulties involving Sidney Rigdon began. Sidney had suffered from depression from time to time but for the most part had been able to keep it under control. During the mobbing of 24 March 1832, Sidney was also dragged by his heels along the ground, so that his head suffered severe blows. Following this physical abuse, in addition to his emotional trauma, his depression apparently worsened. After returning to Kirtland from Missouri, Sidney claimed on 5 July 1832 to have had a revelation and “was telling the people that the kingdom was rent from them, and they might as well all go home for they were rejected.”^[3]Ibid., see also: Times and Seasons 5 (1 Oct. 1844): 660; see also Whitney, Times and Seasons 5 (15 Oct. 1844): 686. Reportedly, he also bemoaned that “it was useless to pray or do anything.”^[4]Ibid., see also: Charles C. Rich Papers, as cited in Cook, Revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 174. His emotional distress is particularly apparent in this last statement.

In response to Sidney’s claims, Joseph went immediately from Hiram to Kirtland and relieved Sidney of his priesthood calling and of his license to preach, but three weeks later a repentant Sidney Rigdon was reinstated in the Presidency of the High Priesthood. Joseph Smith, ever kindhearted, explained these events in a letter to W. W. Phelps: “When Brother Sidney learned the feelings of the Brethren [in Missouri] in whom he had placed so much confidence, for whom he had endured so much fatigue and suffering, and whom he loved with so much love, his heart was grieved, his spirits failed, and for a moment he became frantic, and the adversary taking the advantage, he spake unadvisedly with his lips. . . . [B]ut [he] has since repented like Peter of old, and after a little suffering by the buffeting of Satan, has been restored to his high standing in the church of God.”^[5]Ibid., see also: Dean Jessee, Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, 272–73; spelling, punctuation, and grammar standardized. It should perhaps be noted that Sidney did not need to repent of his … Continue reading Nevertheless, President Rigdon was never quite the same man after the mobbing and beating in March 1832 and the difficult journey to Missouri immediately thereafter.^[6]See: Van Wagoner, Sidney Rigdon, 116–18. Sidney had already moved from Hiram, so when Joseph returned with Bishop Whitney in late June, he spent the rest of that summer in Hiram working on the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible with Frederick G. Williams as scribe rather than Sidney. In August 1832, Joseph received Doctrine and Covenants 99 at Hiram.

Several months before, in January 1832, the Lord had called at least twenty-four elders on missions, mostly to the eastern states (D&C 75). By September 1832, these missionaries began returning to Ohio with accounts of their many successes. Joseph Smith, by then relocated in Kirtland, recorded this joyful news as follows: “The Elders during the month of September began to return from their missions to the Eastern States, and present the histories of their several stewardships in the Lord’s vineyard; and while together in these seasons of joy, I inquired of the Lord, and received on the 22nd and 23rd of September, the following revelation on Priesthood [D&C 84].”^[7]Smith, History of the Church, 1:286–87.

Mount Zion – D&C 84.2

“Mount Zion” is synonymous with Jerusalem or, more specifically, with the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. However, in scripture, the term sometimes refers to Old Jerusalem (see Psalm 78:68–69; Isaiah 10:12), but more usually to New Jerusalem, the Zion to be built upon the American continent (see for example, Isaiah 24:23; Obadiah 1:21; Micah 4:7; Articles of Faith 1:10). Mount Zion is the dwelling place of God (see Isaiah 4:5), and thus the term refers specifically to the temple and by extension to the land and society centered around the temple, which have become sanctified like the temple itself.

The Mount Zion referred to here is the New Jerusalem which, by the time this revelation was received, the Saints had been commanded to build in Independence, Missouri (se  D&C 57:1–3). Joseph Smith once observed: “I shall say with brevity, that there is a New Jerusalem to be established on this continent, and also Jerusalem shall be rebuilt on the eastern continent.”^[8]See: History of the Church, 2:262; Ether 13:1–12.

I would add that Mount Zion is also a symbol for anywhere God can “sit” or “dwell.”^[9]These terms are interchangeable in the Hebrew language, as yashav יָשַׁב can mean either “to sit,” or “to dwell,” or “to remain.” It is also connected with the idea of a … Continue reading In the words of James Kugel, “Logically, God could have continued to dwell on Mount Sinai and later, moved to Mount Zion without any need of a mishkan or temple. Indeed, He could have followed the wandering Israelites from within a cloud or some other feature of the natural (or supernatural) world, accepting their offerings from within such a dwelling. There is thus some significance in the fact that the mishkan was to be built by human hands…”^[10]James Kugel, Parshat Terumah (February 21): God’s Return to Earth. Accessed 7.7.2021.

Kugel continues his point, stating:

In considering the matter, our rabbis (that is, the religious authorities of the Mishnah and Talmud) depicted the building of the mishkan as the last step in a kind of great circle. They pointed out that when God created the first human beings, He put them in the Garden of Eden, where He Himself dwelled. After all, the rabbis pointed out, Adam and Eve are said to have heard “the sound of the Lord God walking about in the midst of the Garden” (Gen. 3:8), so He must have been right there…^[11]Ibid.

Later, as man passed through sin, a way was made whereby mankind could come back into God’s presence. A solution was found. Through the obedience of the patriarchs, and eventually down through the stories come the account of Moses, one sent from God to reclaim Israel as God’s covenant people. A mishkan, or temple was created.

Kugel continues:

Our rabbis associated this great return with a particular verse in the Song of Songs: “I have come into My garden, My sister, My bride.” The bride, of course, represents the people of Israel, and the “garden” in question is no other than the mishkan. But why call it a garden? The mishkan was a tent, fashioned by human hands. In view of the foregoing, however, it was indeed like the Garden of Eden; it was a place where God might again dwell in the midst of humanity, just as He had done in the time of Adam and Eve. In this sense, the building of the mishkan was indeed a kind of return to what had once been—but different, since this garden was made by humans. In fact, one might pronounce the words of that verse, “I have come into My garden, My sister, My bride” slightly differently, not ahoti kallah (“My sister, My bride”) but ahoti killah (“which My sister—the people of Israel—has completed”). If so, this reading would stress (albeit with some grammatical leniency) that the second garden, unlike the first, was made possible through human agency (and that’s the way it has been ever since).^[12]Ibid. I appreciate Kugel’s point. This garden, this temple, was made possible through the connection between God and his people. In Kugel’s words, it “was made possible through human agency.”

Which city shall be built… in this generation – D&C 84.3-4

How can we read this passage of scripture? If we take this literally as a prophecy, it can lead to many difficulties. Zion, the city the Lord wanted to establish among the Saints, did not come to pass. The temple was not built in Jackson County, and still has not been constructed as of today (July 2021). So how can we read these passages?

McConkie and Ostler give this commentary:

It is through the faith of the Latter-day Saints that these words will yet find a literal fulfillment. “The Latter- day Saints have as firm faith and rely upon this promise,” stated Orson Pratt, “as much as they rely upon the promise of forgiveness of sins when they comply with the first principles of the Gospel. We just as much expect that a city will be built, called Zion, in the place and on the land which has been appointed by the Lord our God, and that a temple will be reared on the spot that has been selected, and the corner- stone of which has been laid, in the generation when this revelation was given; we just as much expect this as we expect the sun to rise in the morning and set in the evening; or as much as we expect to see the fulfillment of any of the purposes of the Lord our God, pertaining to the works of his hands.”^[13]Journal of Discourses, 14:275.

Confusion, however, has centered on the meaning of the word generation, as used in these verses. Speaking to Joseph Smith, the Lord said, “This generation shall have my word through you” (D&C 5:10). In this instance, as in the present, the word generation is being used as a synonym for the word dispensation. Similarly, when the Lord said that it is “a wicked and adulterous generation” that seeks after signs (Matthew 16:4), he was not confining the principle to the period of time between parents’ births and the birth of their children. In the case of the temple in Jackson County, generation means dispensation.

To explain why the Saints were unable to build the temple in Missouri during Joseph Smith’s lifetime, the Lord said: “When I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings. And the iniquity and transgression of my holy laws and commandments I will visit upon the heads of those who hindered my work, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord God. Therefore, for this cause have I accepted the offerings of those whom I commanded to build up a city and a house unto my name, in Jackson county, Missouri, and were hindered by their enemies, saith the Lord your God. And I will answer judgment, wrath, and indignation, wailing, and anguish, and gnashing of teeth upon their heads, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord your God. And this I make an example unto you, for your consolation concerning all those who have been commanded to do a work and have been hindered by the hands of their enemies, and by oppression, saith the Lord your God” (D&C 124:49-53).^[14]McConkie and Ostler, Revelations of the Restoration, p. 588-589.

Garrett and Robinson take the approach that this passage is a commandment rather than a prophecy. They reason:

This passage can be understood to constitute a commandment rather than a prophecy, as indicated in Doctrine and Covenants 124:51. Even though the Lord said, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” it does not make God incorrect every time someone commits this sin, because that statement also is a commandment rather than a prophecy. When God says “thou shalt,” and then we fail to obey, the contradiction is to the commandment, not to the omniscience of God (see D&C 124:49–51). In the case of the temple in Zion, the failure to obey the commandment to build a temple in Zion appears to be due in part to the opposition of enemies as well as to collective unfaithfulness of the Saints (see D&C 101:2, 6–8; 124:49–51).^[15]See Garrett and Robinson, Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants, volume 3.

A house shall be built… a cloud shall rest upon it – D&C 84.5

This description in this passage is suggestive of the Old Testament references to the Lord’s house (see, for example, 1 Kings 8:10–11; 2 Chronicles 5:13–14), particularly to the tabernacle in the wilderness when the glory of the Lord descended in a pillar of cloud by day and fire by night and filled the tabernacle. It is provocative that the word for cloud, awnawn is עָנָן, a word that appears over 80 times in the Hebrew Bible. This word almost identical to the word awnan עָנַן, a word that means to make appear, or to produce, and is associated with enchanting or bringing by magical means.

Two commentators give us the following, “The Lord manifested Himself in ancient Israel in a cloud, shaped as a pillar, which became luminous at night. It guided the people on the journey to Canaan. It stood at the entrance to the Sanctuary, and in it God spoke to Moses. It rested on the Sanctuary and filled it, when that sacred tent was set up. It was the visible sign of God’s guiding and protecting care over his people.”^[16]Smith and Sjodahl, Doctrine and Covenants Commentary, 497.

This glory of the Lord is sometimes known or discussed as the Shekinah.^[17]The word shekhinah is not present in the Bible, and is first encountered in the Rabbinic literature. The word shekinah comes from the Hebrew verb שָׁכַן š-k-n, means “to … Continue reading When the first temple was dedicated, it filled the house (II. Chron. 7:1–3), and the people bowed down and worshiped. The Shekinah departed when the Temple was profaned (Ez. 10:19; 11:22), but Ezekiel, in his vision of the Temple in the latter days, saw the glory of the Lord returning (Ez. 43:2–3). The presence of the Lord will be manifested in this Temple of the Latter-day Zion.^[18]Garrett and Robinson. It is noteworthy that in the Jewish Targums it was argued that the Shekinah did not rest upon the second temple, created after the Babylonian captivity.^[19]From The Jewish Encyclopedia we read: The Shekinah was one of the five things lacking in the Second Temple (Targ. to Hag. i. 8; Yer. Ta’an. 65a, and parallel passages). Shunning … Continue reading

The prophet Esaias – D&C 84.12-13

The prophet Esaias is someone other than the prophet Isaiah, although Isaiah’s name is uniformly rendered Esaias in the King James Version of the New Testament. The prophet referred to here and in Doctrine and Covenants 76:100 lived in the days of Abraham and is otherwise unknown to us.^[20]Garrett and Robinson, Doctrinal Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants, volume 3.

Melchizedek received it through the lineage of his fathers, even till Noah – D&C 84.14

It has frequently been taught that Melchizedek and Shem are one and the same. The argument traces back to Jewish traditions, more particularly to those who could not countenance the idea that Abraham, the father of the Semitic race, would bow down to or be subservient to someone not of that lineage. Melchizedek is an enigma to the scholars of the world who often think that he is a Canaanite priest. These verses lay that tradition to rest with the revelation that Melchizedek traced his priesthood through the “fathers even till Noah,” the father of Shem. If it is reasoned that Melchizedek is the son of Noah, it would also follow, by such a reading of these verses, that Noah was the son of Enoch (v. 15).^[21]McConkie and Ostler, Revelations of the Restoration, p. 590.

The key of the mysteries of the kingdom – D&C 84.19

In the context of theology, “mysteries” are those singular truths that can be known only by revelation, or those doctrines revealed only to the initiated. They are, in a way, knowledge obtained through participation in sacred rites. Thus we are told that the priesthood holds the “key of the mysteries,” meaning the authority to unlock to our understanding truths that cannot be known in any other way.

Even the key of the knowledge of God. It is the purpose of the high or holy priesthood to bring the children of God back into his presence both in this life and in the world to come. The ordinances (rites or rituals) of the priesthood are designed to prepare both men and women to stand in the presence of God.^[22]McConkie and Ostler, p. 591.

I find the word mystery to be a theologically loaded word. Jesus continually told his followers that some were to know the mysteries, for example, he said, “Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables” (Mark 4.11). The word for mystery in the Greek is μυστήριον, mustayrion, a word that is associated with being initiated (μύστης – an initiated one), and μυέω – “I initiate,” and μύω, I close or shut, to close the mouth (or any opening).^[23]See: Henry George Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon.

In the ordinances thereof, the power of Godliness is manifest – D&C 84.20

In the broad and general sense, an ordinance is a law or statute of God. In a more particular and specific sense, an ordinance may be a ritual or rite, something designed to establish a union between heaven and earth. Godliness is God-like-ness. The power of godliness is the power of becoming like God. Among the ordinances that allow us, his children, to become like him are baptism (to become clean as he is clean), receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost (to become holy as he is holy and to know his mind), eternal marriage (to become one as our heavenly parents are one and to create as they create), and making temple covenants (to learn to behave as they behave).

Kindliness is the state of being kind; loneliness is the state of being alone; holiness is the state of being holy; saintliness is the state of being saintly; yet the world refuses to understand that the scriptural word “godliness” means being like God. Because the power of becoming like God is in the ordinances of the holy priesthood, Doctrine and Covenants 84 continues to teach the Saints the ancient Christian doctrine of deification. This doctrine, first alluded to in modern revelation (see D&C 76:58), is that through the grace of God his children can become as he is (see 2 Peter 1:3–4).^[24]Garrett and Robinson. See also Robinson, Are Mormons Christians?, pages 60-70. See also: Deification, Divinization, Theosis.

Moses plainly taught (this) to the children of Israel… that they might behold the face of God – D&C 84.23-26

McConkie and Ostler explain the following:

The Lord did not send Moses to Pharaoh simply to liberate the children of Israel from their Egyptian bondage. They were not to be taken to the beautiful beaches of the Mediterranean for a much-deserved rest; rather, Moses was directed to take them to the refining furnace of a desert. There it was that they were to meet their God and become a covenant and chosen people. Sinai, “the holy mountain,” was the place where their nation was to be forged. Here it was that a covenant would be made that would distinguish them from all other nations and peoples. Here it was that the Lord said to them, “If ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.” For this reason Moses was directed to sanctify his people that they might stand in the presence of their God (Exodus 19:5-6, 10-11).

Joseph Smith’s situation constitutes a striking parallel to that of Moses. Moses liberated his people from their Egyptian bondage. Because of Joseph Smith and the restoration of the gospel, all who will listen are liberated from the bondage of ignorance and priestcraft. Moses took his people out of Egypt to a wilderness temple, where it was the purpose of God to make of them a “kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.” Joseph Smith worked to gather liberated Israel to the wilderness of Jackson County, Missouri, where they were to build a temple to their God. The Lord invited ancient Israel to receive the fulness of the gospel and the blessings of the priesthood as known to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Those same blessings and promises would be granted to those who gathered under the direction of Joseph Smith, the modern Moses (D&C 28:2; 103:15-18; 105:16, 27; 107:91-92).

Moses did not seek to establish an Aaronic order of things, for that order would not bring his people into the presence of God. The Aaronic order came only after the children of Israel had rejected the invitation to stand in God’s presence. The “kingdom of priests,” to which reference is made, is clearly a kingdom of high priests. What the Lord sought to institute through Moses was a nation of men who had been ordained both “priests and kings” (D&C 76:56).

As we are told in this revelation, the children of Israel hardened their hearts and refused the privileges that were offered to them. This, combined with their foolish rebellion when Moses ascended the holy mount, resulted in having these promised blessings taken from them. In the Joseph Smith Translation we read, “And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two other tables of stone, like unto the first, and I will write upon them also, the words of the law, according as they were written at the first on the tables which thou brakest; but it shall not be according to the first, for I will take away the priesthood out of their midst; there fore my holy order, and the ordinances thereof, shall not go before them; for my presence shall not go up in their midst, lest I destroy them. But I will give unto them the law as at the first, but it shall be after the law of a carnal commandment; for I have sworn in my wrath, that they shall not enter into my presence, into my rest, in the days of their pilgrimage” (JST Exodus 34:1-2).^[25]Revelations of the Restoration, p. 593-594.

He took Moses out of their midst – D&C 84.25

The Book of Alma gives us the following regarding Moses:

And when Alma had done this he departed out of the land of Zarahemla, as if to go into the land of Melek. And it came to pass that he was never heard of more; as to his death or burial we know not of. Behold, this we know, that he was a righteous man; and the saying went abroad in the church that he was taken up by the Spirit, or buried by the hand of the Lord, even as Moses. But behold, the scriptures saith the Lord took Moses unto himself; and we suppose that he has also received Alma in the spirit, unto himself; therefore, for this cause we know nothing concerning his death and burial (Alma 45.18-19).

There is some evidence outside of D&C 84.25 and the Book of Mormon that God took Moses unto himself. For example, in 2 Esdras 6.26 we read of a tradition in Judaism that there were certain individuals who were taken up who, from their birth, “had not tasted death.” Josephus also mentions that Moses was taken up into heaven when he says the following:

Now as he went thence to the place where he was to vanish out of their sight, they all followed after him weeping; but Moses beckoned with his hand to those that were remote from him, and bade them stay behind in quiet, while he exhorted those that were near to him that they would not render his departure so lamentable. Whereupon they thought they ought to grant him that favor, to let him depart according as he himself desired; so they restrained themselves, though weeping still towards one another. All those who accompanied him were the senate, and Eleazar the high priest, and Joshua their commander. Now as soon as they were come to the mountain called Abarim, (which is a very high mountain, situate over against Jericho, and one that affords, to such as are upon it, a prospect of the greatest part of the excellent land of Canaan,) he dismissed the senate; and as he was going to embrace Eleazar and Joshua, and was still discoursing with them, a cloud stood over him on the sudden, and he disappeared in a certain valley, although he wrote in the holy books that he died, which was done out of fear, lest they should venture to say that, because of his extraordinary virtue, he went to God.^[26]Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, book 4, 326.

One Jewish commentator^[27]Rabbi Eric Grossman, Head of School at Akiva School in Montreal, Quebec. He is the author of numerous articles on Bible and Bible education, as well as a grammar of biblical Hebrew. explains this idea of Moses’ ascension into heaven (instead of dying as mortals) in this way:

“Some pre-rabbinic and rabbinic sources struggle with the idea of Moses dying and have the problematic nature of the idea expressed by characters in their stories. For instance, in the Assumptio Mosis—a Second Temple (or post-Second Temple) apocalyptic work that retells the story of Moses’ death—Joshua reacts with shock and horror when Moses tells him of his (Moses’) imminent death (chapter 11):

What place will receive you, or what will be the monument on your grave or who, being human, will dare to carry your body from one place to another? For all who die when their time has come have a grave in the earth. But your grave extends from the East to the West and from the North to the extreme South. The entire world is your grave.^[28]Another translation of the chapter 11 of The Assumption of Moses can be read here.  

Joshua’s reaction implies that he thought Moses’ death to be an impossibility. In the rabbinic work (of unknown date), Midrash Petirat Moshe, a similar thought is put in the mouths of angels:

Once he (Moses) made his peace with dying, the Holy One said to Michael and Gabriel: “Go and bring me Moses’ soul.” Gabriel said: “How can I take the soul of a man who is equal to 600,000 men, and be found wanton in his eyes?” Afterwards he said this to Michael, and Michael cried. He said this to Zangaziel, and he said: “Master of the universe, I was his teacher and he was my student, how can I take his soul?”

Again, we see bewilderment when confronted with the possibility of Moses dying. Thus, I suggest that even if the details of the story of Moses’ ascension were left out of the Torah and eventually lost, the idea of Moses’ dying remained problematic to many Jews, and the possibility that he never really died remained in the popular consciousness if not in the canonical texts.^[29]Rabbi Eric Grossman, Moshe Rabbeinu Never Died: The Hidden Ending. Accessed 7.7.2021.

Grossman posits that perhaps the story of Moses’ ascension into heaven was taken out of the Biblical text for a specific reason. He turns to a medieval commentator, Ralbag, Rabbi Levi ben Gerson, to assert this possibility:

…Hashem,^[30]Hashem, in this context, literally means “The Name,” and is used to refer to God, as an epithet for the Tetragrammaton, יְהוָה in order to avoid using the name of God. Usually Jews … Continue reading may He be exalted, determined that no one would ever know [Moses’] place of burial, and Hashem, may he be exalted, did this lest if the place be known, later generations might [turn the tomb into a shrine and] and worship him [there] as a god…

Ralbag intuited the Torah’s fear of the deification and worship of Moses and the veneration of his grave.  The deeper fear was the potential to worship him as a member of the heavenly court.^[31]See: Grossman.

The House of Aaron among the children of Israel until John… ordained unto this power – D&C 84.27-28

John was the rightful heir to the office once held by Aaron and traced his authority to him (D&C 68:15-18; 107:16, 70, 76). The word ordain has a broader range of meanings than we may sometimes recognize. According to Elder Bruce R. McConkie, the ministration described here was not an ordination to the priesthood but was what might now be more technically called a “setting apart” for a specific mission and receiving all the rights and powers pertaining to that mission. “Naming of children and circumcision of male members of the house of Israel took place on [the eighth] day. In the case of John, he ‘was ordained by the angel of God at the time he was eight days old’—not to the Aaronic Priesthood, for such would come later, after his baptism and other preparation but—’unto this power, to overthrow the kingdom of the Jews, and to make straight the way of the Lord before the face of his people, to prepare them for the coming of the Lord, in whose hand is given all power’ (D&C 84:28). That is, at this solemn eighth day ceremony, an angel, presumably Gabriel, gave the Lord’s Elias the divine commission to serve as the greatest forerunner of all the ages.”^[32]McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 1:89. It is also good to state that at least according to the text of Numbers, the priesthood of Aaron was given to those that were over thirty years old (Numbers 4:1-3).^[33]The text states that “from thirty years old and upward even until fifty years old.”

To Overthrow the Kingdom of the Jews – D&C 84.28

McConkie and Ostler give the following commentary:

The kingdom of the Jews centered in the temple priesthood and the great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. When he came on the scene, John “was the only legal administrator in the affairs of the kingdom there was then on the earth.”^[34]Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 276. By rejecting him and his authority, the leaders of the Jews closed salvation’s door to themselves. In their rejection of Christ, they sealed their own doom and that of their nation. “Because of priestcrafts and iniquities,” Jacob said, “they at Jerusalem will stiffen their necks against him, that he be crucified. Wherefore, because of their iniquities, destructions, famines, pestilences, and bloodshed shall come upon them; and they who shall not be destroyed shall be scattered among all nations” (2 Nephi 10:5-6).^[35]Revelations of the Restoration, p. 596-597.

I would add that the first Christians were Jews. They were the Jews that rejected the authority of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem and longed for a time when the shekinah, or God’s glory, would abide in the temple. They longed for a day when the Messiah would come to deliver them. And these Jews recognized Jesus as the long promised Messiah who would make their deliverance from death and hell possible.

What does this section teach us about priesthood?

President Nelson spoke to the Church about the importance of understanding the priesthood when he said, “Now, may I voice a concern? It is this: Too many of our brothers and sisters do not fully understand the concept of priesthood power and authority. They act as though they would rather satisfy their own selfish desires and appetites than use the power of God to bless His children. I fear that too many of our brothers and sisters do not grasp the privileges that could be theirs. Some of our brethren, for example, act like they do not understand what the priesthood is and what it enables them to do.”^[36]President Russell M. Nelson, April 2018, Priesthood Session.

It speaks of “two priesthoods” (D&C 84.33), a “lesser,” (D&C 84.26), and a “greater” (D&C 84.19).

It tells us that the priesthood administers the gospel and also “holdeth the keys of the mysteries of the kingdom” (D&C 84.19).

It tells us that the offices of the priesthood are appendages to the priesthood. (D&C 84.29).

It defines a lesser and greater priesthood (D&C 84.26, 29, 30), with the offices of teacher and deacon belonging to the lesser priesthood (D&C 84.30), and the offices of elder and bishop being associated with the high priesthood (D&C 84.29).^[37]McConkie and Ostler maintain that “in the present text, we are being told that the offices of “elder” and “bishop” are appendages to the office of high priest. It would be redundant to say … Continue reading

Through the receipt^[38]“Receive” may have a double meaning here.46 It is true that males “receive the priesthood” by receiving ordination, but in another sense, all humans “receive the priesthood” by … Continue reading or acceptance of the priesthood, recipients become “the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham” (D&C 84.34).^[39]Garrett and Robinson explain it this way: When this term is used in a singular sense, it refers to Jesus Christ (see Galatians 3:16). In a collective sense, however, it refers to all who, like … Continue reading

The Sons of Moses and Aaron will “offer an acceptable offering” to the Lord, in a temple that will be built in the location designated in D&C 57.3, in what was called Independence, Missouri. This offering is discussed later in the revelations of the Doctrine and Covenants. The Prophet Joseph Smith identifies the “acceptable offering” to be made by the sons of Moses—those holding the greater priesthood—as “a book containing the records of our dead” (D&C 128.24). That book will contain the list of those of our progenitors for whom we have stood as proxies in the performance of the ordinances of salvation. This is done that they might accept those labors performed in their behalf and obtain all the promises associated with them. 

Those who “receive” this priesthood receive all that Heavenly Father has (D&C 84.38).

These things are associated with an “oath” and a “covenant,” meaning that by swearing an oath of allegiance to God, mankind is bound to God and his promises will to man will be fulfilled (D&C 84.39-40).^[40]Garrett and Robinson discuss this idea further in their commentary: One difficulty in dealing with the subject of the “oath and covenant” of the priesthood is that the principles involved have … Continue reading

This priesthood is given for the whole world, or “for the sake of the whole world” (D&C 84.48).

Light, Truth, and Spirit – D&C 84.45-46

The source of all spiritual and physical energy on all levels of existence in this creation, from the subatomic to the intergalactic, is Jesus Christ, the creator of heaven and earth. Heat, light, energy, truth, glory, and spirit (all symbolized by the power of the sun) characterize the works and the forces of God in the universe. All of these come from the creative force of the light or Spirit of Christ (see D&C 88:6–13; 93:23–40).55 On the other hand, entropy (loss of energy), falsehood, cold, and darkness beyond the sphere of God’s influence all characterize the nature, works, and destiny of Satan and perdition.^[41]Garrett and Robinson.

This text affirms that the path of salvation is the same for all. Those who love light and truth will be led to greater light and greater truth. All such will, in the course of time, be brought to the knowledge of the Fatherhood of God and the covenant of salvation. By contrast, those who refuse such a course place themselves in bondage to both sin and darkness. Teaching this principle, Alma said: “It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him. And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full. And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell” (Alma 12:9-11).^[42]McConkie and Ostler, p. 606.

Go and Find Him! – D&C 84.76

D&C 84.76 states, “But, verily I say unto all those to whom the kingdom has been given—from you it must be preached unto them…”

This brought to mind the following story:

Whenever I’m in South America, and that seems to be very often, I’m always looking for someone. I saw him first fourteen years ago. Brother Tuttle and I were in Cuzco at a meeting of the branch. The meeting was held in a little room, and a door opened onto the street. At Cuzco, at an elevation of thirteen thousand feet, it is bitterly cold at night. The room was packed and the door was open to let a little air in. Brother Tuttle was speaking…Against the wall was a little sacrament table. As Brother Tuttle was speaking, I saw a little…boy, perhaps six years old, come in the back door, perhaps for the warmth. He had on a ragged shirt and that was all. His little feet were so calloused that it was hard to tell that he had toes that were separated from one another. Then he saw the sacrament table and the bread. He was inching along the wall and was almost to the sacrament table when a…woman, sitting in about the third row, saw him from the corner of her eye. Without saying a word, but with just a look, and a shake of her head, she conveyed the message: “Get out of here! You don’t belong here!” That little fellow turned and ran out into the night. Before Brother Tuttle had finished, the little boy appeared again at the door, and again, I suppose driven by that same hunger, he edged along the wall. He was almost to the place where that…woman would see him again. He was studying us very carefully. I held out my arms to him, and he came willingly. I picked him up and held him. And then, to teach our Lamanite members in Cuzco a lesson, I sat him in the chair that had been reserved for Brother Tuttle. When the meeting closed, the little boy darted out into the night before I could talk to him or do anything for him. So every time I’m in South America I am looking for him. He’s old enough now, I’m sure, to be married. When I am in a missionary meeting I look for him and wonder, could it be, could this elder be that boy, or could that one? I watch for him in the market place as we travel. I look for him in the streets. And some say that it is a futile search, that I will never find him. But in this Church we will find him, if we have to sift through every soul in South America. Some will say, “Perhaps he has died; you will never find him.” To them we say, “We will find him. We will gather the names of every soul who ever lived and bring them to the temple. Perhaps his son will bring his name. We will find him.” Others will say, “Perhaps no record was kept.” In that case we will depend on revelation. We’re looking for him with all the resources we can find. We send tens of missionaries, and hundreds of missionaries, and thousands of missionaries to find him. You must look for him.^[43]Elder Boyd K. Packer, The Holy Temple, 219-220.

The Apocalyptic Nature of this Revelation

This revelation is rooted in its historical setting. Shortly after this revelation was received, Joseph went to the cities of New York, Albany, and Boston with Bishop Newel K. Whitney.^[44]Joseph Smith wrote a letter to his wife Emma when during his travels to these places. He penned the following: “My Dear Wife “This day I have been walking through the most splendid part of … Continue reading

From the text we read, “let the bishop go unto the city of New York, also to the city of Albany, and also to the city of Boston, and warn the people of those cities with the sound of the gospel, with a loud voice, of the desolation and utter abolishment which await them if they do reject these things. For if they do reject these things the hour of their judgment is nigh, and their house shall be left unto them desolate (D&C 84.114-115). Later it says, “verily I say unto you, the rest of my servants, go ye forth as your circumstances shall permit, in your several callings, unto the great and notable cities and villages, reproving the world in righteousness of all their unrighteous and ungodly deeds, setting forth clearly and understandingly the desolation of abomination in the last days. For, with you saith the Lord Almighty, I will rend their kingdoms; I will not only shake the earth, but the starry heavens shall tremble. For I, the Lord, have put forth my hand to exert the powers of heaven; ye cannot see it now, yet a little while and ye shall see it, and know that I am, and that I will come and reign with my people. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. Amen” (D&C 84.117-120).

From my reading of history, as of the date of this podcast, no such desolating scourge has affected the cities of New York, Albany, or Boston. President Wilford Woodruff once stated that these three cities would be destroyed by earthquake (New York), fire (Albany), and tidal wave (Boston).^[45]See Deseret News, 12 Nov. 1884, 679; see also Cook, Revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 177. Wilford Woodruff prophesied that New York would be destroyed by an earthquake, … Continue reading The ravages of the Civil War, which are prophesied after this revelation in December 1832,^[46]See Doctrine and Covenants 87. just a few months after this revelation was given, did not destroy any of these three cities.^[47]Many U.S. cities witnessed incredible devastation as a result of the Civil War, such as Charleston, South Carolina, Richmond, Virginia, and Atlanta, Georgia. According to one source, the Confederacy … Continue reading Since these cities are specifically mentioned by name in this revelation, and also specifically called out by Wilford Woodruff years later, this can be problematic to say the least. Statements by Wilford Woodruff and instruction to Bishop Whitney to warn people living in the 19^th century of destruction that did not come causes problems for some Saints who read these statements, wondering what to do with them.

What is a believing Latter-day Saint to take away from these verses? How can they be read in light of history? What is the Lord telling Joseph Smith by mentioning these specific locations in their setting in this revelation?

One way to read these apocalyptic passages in D&C 84 is to see them as visions that were not necessarily explained in great detail to the seer receiving them. In other words, perhaps these cities were seen in vision in a state of destruction, and interpreted by the seer as happening soon, when that was not necessarily the case. We know of visionaries who see things that they do not know how to interpret, for example, a close reading of Nephi’s vision shows that he had a tough time knowing what exactly he was seeing, and needed a guide to help him contextualize the experience.

Perhaps Joseph saw something in a vision regarding these or other northern U.S. cities, and though his vision was something he experienced, his interpretation of the vision was not perfect, or perhaps the timing was misinterpreted as he had the experience. The reason I say this is that Newel K. Whitney was instructed to warn these people that “their house shall be left unto them desolate” (D&C 84.115). If this desolation was to happen much later, even hundreds of years later, it would negate the purpose of Bishop Whitney’s warning voice. What would be the purpose of warning someone of an event that their great-grand children would not even experience?

Another way to view this is in the vein of the visions of future destructions as seen by Isaiah and Ezekiel. Isaiah describes the destruction of Egypt and the Nile River (Isaiah 19). Later, the prophet Ezekiel speaks of the devastation of the island port city of Tyre (Ezekiel 26). Ezekiel lived during the time of the Jewish captivity, when many Jews lived in Babylon after the first temple was destroyed (586 BC). Ezekiel even moves to high specificity, as he boldly names King Nebuchadrezzar (Ezk. 26.7) as the one who will come with his siege engines to break down Tyre’s walls (“he shall break down thy towers” Ezk. 26.9), which historically does not happen.^[48]The prophecy is that Tyre’s destruction at the hand of Nebuchadnezzar would be a full military conquest followed by destruction. Not only were the inhabitants of the mainland villages doomed, but … Continue reading Of course, events unfold over two hundred years after Ezekiel (332 BCE) which prove that Tyre is eventually taken by outside forces, though not by Babylon, but Alexander the Great.^[49]Alexander the Great, king of ancient Greece and Macedon, made a request of the port city of Tyre. His appeal to the city consisted of his wish to sacrifice to Heracles within their city. (The … Continue reading

The unsuccessful prophecy of Ezekiel is later revised or explained in a new light in Ezekiel 29. In this passage we read the following:

And it came to pass in the seven and twentieth year, in the first month, in the first day of the month, the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Son of man, Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon caused his army to serve a great service against Tyrus: every head was made bald, and every shoulder was peeled: yet had he no wages, nor his army, for Tyrus, for the service that he had served against it: Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon; and he shall take her multitude, and take her spoil, and take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army. I have given him the land of Egypt for his labour wherewith he served against it, because they wrought for me, saith the Lord God (Ezekiel 29.17-20).

Here in this text we have Ezekiel acknowledging that the predicted takeover of Tyre did not happen. Through Ezekiel, the Lord specifically tells the king of Babylon that as wages for his efforts, he has granted unto him the spoil of Egypt. These passages are a fascinating look into the nature of Biblical prophecy and expectations. It can be argued that after the ending of the siege of Tyre, that this city became a vassal to Babylon and paid her tribute. Some have argued that Tyre never would recover her previous glory, though Tyre would continue to be an important port city vital to the economic trade that took place in the ancient world. As one scholar concluded, Ezekiel’s prophecy achieved partial fulfilment in this sense.^[50]See: Udd, p. 32. Udd notes Thomas Renz, ‘Proclaiming the Future: History and Theology in Prophecies against Tyre,’ TynBul 51 (2000): 17-58, shows that a similar prophecy against Tyre by … Continue reading

Perhaps these prophecies can be read with a view looking for God’s purposes rather than a rigid expectation of exact historical expectations. This kind of flexibility gives room for other interpretations of difficult passages like those in Ezekiel, Isaiah, and section 84 of the Doctrine and Covenants. As Kris Udd explained regarding the difficult issues with Ezekiel’s claims, “It may not be necessary (or possible) to point out the exact and complete fulfilment of each prophecy. If God was content in this case with only a partial fulfilment, it is conceivable that this could be true in other cases as well.”^[51]Kris J. Udd, Prediction and Foreknowledge in Ezekiel’s Prophecy Against Tyre, Tyndale Bulletin 56.1 (2005), p. 40.

In the case of Isaiah’s burden against Egypt, perhaps this can be read as a vision against the worldliness and decadence of Egypt, rather than a specific prophecy set in history making historical claims. As Isaiah 19.5 proclaims, “The waters shall fail from the sea, and the river shall be wasted and dried up.” Reading these passages through an apocalyptic lens, seeing the images laid out in Isaiah 19 in a symbolic fashion, can relieve much of the tension that literalists reading the text may place upon passages such as these. Seeing the image of a dried up Nile River as a symbol for the lack of fertility in following the ways of the world opens up new vistas in Biblical interpretation and understanding. Reading Isaiah 19.21 where Isaiah says that “The Lord shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know the Lord in that day, and shall do sacrifice and oblation…” can be read in such a way as to see the Lord’s message being taken to the children of Adam and Eve throughout the world, rather than reading this passage through an inerrant, literalists lens.

By seeing these passages in this manner, the warning that Bishop Newel K. Whitney is to give the residents of these cities that “their house shall be left desolate” (D&C 84.115), and that “utter destruction and utter abolishment” await them if “they do reject these things” (D&C 84.114) can be read spiritually rather than through a rigid historical lens. If we think about it, with Jesus Christ and his Atonement, without repentance and all that the Gospel message of Jesus Christ entails, all of us will be left in desolation (see 2 Nephi 9). While I appreciate this interpretation of the text, I certainly see and understand from my reading of historical sources that those living in the 1800’s that believe the message of Joseph Smith and the restoration did not view these passages this way. They took them literally.

Which leads us to my last possible way of reading the text. Perhaps it is as simple as understanding that we are dealing with the Lord’s timetable. Perhaps all of these things lie in the future, and like the Jews living in Ezekiel’s day, wondering (like even Ezekiel did!) why his prophecy did not come to pass, both the ancient Jews and the Saints of 1832 simply were both at a disadvantage. Both groups simply did not live long enough to see that eventually these things would come to pass. Of course, this interpretation once again leaves us with the issues stressed above, regarding questioning the relevance of giving a warning to people living in 1832 of something that wouldn’t happen for hundreds of years. And so it goes.

Why Asking these Questions is Important

If our religion is something objective, then we must never avert our eyes from those elements in it which seem puzzling or repellent; for it will be precisely the puzzling or the repellent which conceals what we do not yet know and need to know…The…truth which you do not know and which you need must, in the very nature of things, be hidden precisely in the doctrine you least like and least understand. It is just the same here as in science. The phenomenon which is troublesome, which doesn’t fit in with the current scientific theories, is the phenomenon which compels reconsideration and thus leads to new knowledge. Science progresses because scientists, instead of running away from such troublesome phenomena or hushing them up, are constantly seeking them out. In the same way, there will be progress in Christian knowledge only as long as we accept the challenge of the difficult or repellent doctrines.^[52]C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory, 31 & Christian Apologetics, 91.

---