Endnotes

1. See, e.g., J. Smith, Jr., Papers 2008–; R. Skousen, Analysis; S. H. Faulring et al., Original Manuscripts; B. M. Hauglid, Textual History; M. D. Rhodes, Hor; M. D. Rhodes, Books of the Dead; J. Smith, Jr., Words; J. W. Welch et al., Book of Mormon Central.
2. G. de Santillana et al., Hamlet’s Mill, p. 120.
3. Perhaps the most significant publication of its time in this regard is J. Smith, Jr., Words. The in-depth notes and indexes prepared by editors Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook brilliantly illuminate the accounts of Joseph Smith’s Nauvoo discourses and go a long way toward providing the basic context for understanding the Prophet’s words. The volumes published by the Joseph Smith Papers project make a similar contribution though, understandably, they are more conservative in their use of interpretive and secondary sources as an aid to the reader. See, e.g., J. Smith, Jr. et al., Journals, 1843–1844, p. xxxiii for a description of the annotation conventions used in all the volumes.
   Of course, the task of understanding the words of Joseph Smith and his successors is only the beginning of what is required of us. I am fully conscious of the fact that an understanding of “the doctrine of the kingdom” (D&C 88:77) does not come by mere “study” alone, but “also by faith” (D&C 88:118. See also D. A. Bednar, Seek) as we are asked to give loving and whole-hearted expression in our lives of what we feel and believe. I concur with Elder Marion G. Romney that: “One cannot fully learn the gospel without living it” (M. G. Romney, Oath, p. 19; M. K. Jensen, Anchors, p. 59. See also J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, Endnotes P–18 and P–19, pp. xxxiv–xxxv). Indeed, as Elder Dallin H. Oaks has said about the most common way that we receive spiritual understanding: “revelation comes most often when we are on the move” (D. H. Oaks, Sharing, p. 7). See also B. C. Hafen, Anchored, pp. 3–5). Such learning “by faith” is the supreme test — and among the sweetest rewards — of discipleship during this mortal “season of unanswered questions” (L. B. Wickman, But If Not, p. 30).
   Commenting on James’ comparison of the Word of God to a mirror (James 1:23–24), S. Kierkegaard, Self–Examination, pp. 25-29 compares scholarship that is concerned only with the preliminary, technical aspects of the process of interpretation of scripture and not with wholehearted reading and personal implementation of its message to a lover who meticulously reconstructs the meaning of a letter from his beloved in a foreign language with a dictionary at his side and then, once the meaning is clear, casts the letter aside without regard to what it means for himself (D. R. Law, Cheap Grace, pp. 106–107):

   Only when the translation is finished, does the lover begin truly to read the letter.
   Reading the letter mans more, however, than merely extracting its “objective” meaning. To illustrate this point, Kierkegaard asks us to imagine that this letter “contained a wish, something the beloved wished her lover to do. It was, let us assume, much that was required of him, very much” (S. Kierkegaard, Self–Examination, p. 27). Having at last translated the letter, the lover does not hesitate but immediately rushes off to fulfill his beloved’s wish.

   Thus, for each of us who love to study the scriptures, there is both encouragement and a warning in the wise words of Kierkegaard (ibid., 12:318, pp. 28-29):

   When you read God’s word eruditely — we do not disparage erudition, far from it — but remember that when you read God’s word eruditely, with a dictionary, etc., you are not reading God’s Word … If you are a learned man, then take care lest with all your erudite reading (which is not reading God’s Word) you forget perchance to read God’s Word. If you are not learned — ah, envy the other man not, rejoice that you can at once get to the point of reading God’s Word! And if there is a desire, a commandment, an order [that you read], … then be off at once to do accordingly. “But,” you perhaps would say, “there are so many obscure passages in the Holy Scriptures, whole books which are almost riddles.” To this I would reply, “I see no need of considering this objection unless it comes from one whose life gives expression to the fact that he has punctually complied with all the passages which are easy to understand.” Is this the case with you? [Thus a godly man must act:] if there were obscure passages, but also clearly expressed desires, he would say, “I must at once comply with the desire, then I will see what can be made of the obscure passages. Oh, but how could I sit down to puzzle over the obscure passages and leave the desire unfulfilled, the desire which I clearly understood?” That is to say: When you read God’s Word, it is not the obscure passages which impose a duty upon you, but that which you understand and with that you must instantly comply. If there were only a single passage you did understand in Holy Scripture — well, the first thing is to do that; but you do not first have to sit down and puzzle over the obscure passages. God’s Word is given in order that you shall act in accordance with it, not in order that you shall practice the art of interpreting obscure passages.

4. H. W. Nibley, Message 2005, p. 52. Nibley illustrates his point as follows (ibid., pp. 51–52. Cf. S. B. Morrow, The Dawning Moon, pp. 271–274):
   

   The hardest question of all for the Egyptologist, according to Gundlach and Schenkel, is whether Egyptian writings can really be understood by anyone but an Egyptian. Go up to the man in the car (it used to be the man in the street) when he stops at a red light and deliver this sober message to him: “Osiris shall be towed toward the interior of the great pool of Khonsu,” which is the first line of Joseph Smith Papyrus XI. If the man gives you a blank look or starts an ominous muttering, explain to him that the great lake of Khonsu is “probably a liturgical designation of the portion of the Nile that has to be crossed in order to reach the Theban cemetery on the west bank” and that Khonsu, or Khons, is a youthful moon-god. When the light changes, your new friend may proceed on his way knowing as much about the first line of our Book of Breathings as anybody else does — namely, nothing at all. Though as correct and literal as we can make it, the translation … is not a translation. It is nonsense.

   Though superficial students of Joseph Smith may disagree, acquiring even a rudimentary understanding of some of the Prophet’s writings and teachings may be no less challenging — and, frankly, no less error prone — than rendering a competent translation of the Book of Breathings for an untrained modern reader.

5. Revelation 14:6. Cf. D&C 133:36–37.
6. J. C. Alleman, Problems in Translating the Language of Joseph Smith, pp. 22, 26, 28.
7. Continuing with ibid., p. 22:
   

   Some of the problems encountered in understanding Joseph Smith’s writings can be anticipated from what we know of his life and the conditions under which his words were recorded and have come down to us.In the first place, Joseph Smith wrote and spoke more than a hundred years ago, and, while a hundred years is not a long time in the history of a language, it is sufficient for noticeable changes to occur. Second, the Prophet was almost entirely self-educated, a circumstance which is reflected in his writing by a style which is a combination of the most elevated rhetoric, with complicated, yet often beautiful constructions and images, interspersed with common expressions from the language of the people he grew up with, and not altogether free from what we would call outright grammatical errors. Third, he was above all a religious leader, and in speaking of religious subjects consciously or unconsciously used a type of language which the people of his day associated with prophets and apostles, namely the language of the King James version of the Bible.

   Ben McGuire comments (B. L. McGuire, 29 March 2016):

   I am always reminded in these sorts of discussions about understanding that scene in Star Trek after Spock has come back from the dead, where Bones wants to talk about it with Spock, and Spock essentially tells him that until they have a common point of reference, they can’t discuss it, to which Bones responds by asking: “So, I have to die before you can discuss it with me?”
   [The issue is in] having access to the texts as opposed to understanding them. … [W]e have the original papers, we have a history of interpretation — and even with all of this, we still have difficulty getting to the mind of Joseph Smith, because of course, neither later interpretation or the original texts convey that to us.

8. J. Smith, Jr., Documentary History, 20 March 1839, 3:295; J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 20 March 1839, p. 137. For a typescript of the original letter, see J. Smith, Jr., Writings 2002, Letter to the Church at Quincy, Illinois, 20 March 1839, p. 436.
9. Cf. Hymns (1985), Praise to the Man, #27: “Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah!”
10. See examples of culture-related imagery in J. C. Alleman, Problems in Translating the Language of Joseph Smith, pp. 23, 25–26 such as: “closely whispered by the bear” (J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, p. 140), “flat as a pancake” (ibid., p. 292), “stuffed me like a cock-turkey” (ibid., p. 294), “hunt … as Pat did for the woodchuck” (ibid., p. 310), and “splitting hemlock knots with a corn-dodger for a wedge, and a pumpkin for a beetle” (ibid., p. 331).With respect to scriptural allusions by Joseph Smith, Alleman concludes that “quoting from the Bible came as naturally to [the Prophet] as speaking itself.” However he notes that the occurrence of scriptures in the writings of Joseph Smith can be a problem for translators because “frequently, whether intentionally, or by oversight, the quotation differs from the original. The example … shows an extreme case in which eight different passages are worded into a single sentence. Some are quoted accurately but others are not. In one case … the difference is so great that one cannot really speak of a quotation; rather we give the translator a reference to the scripture which contains similar words, so that he can have a source for selecting the vocabulary items he will use, but he will have to put them into a completely different structure to translate the sense of the original” (J. C. Alleman, Problems in Translating the Language of Joseph Smith, p. 26).
11. “By definition,” writes Ben McGuire, “an allusion is recognizable only by someone who is familiar with the text to which it alludes. This awareness of the source text is often referred to as the ‘competence’ of the reader. … A reader who is familiar with the referent text is considered competent while a reader who is unfamiliar with the referent text (and by extension unable to recognize the reference or allusion) is not” (B. L. McGuire, Nephi and Goliath, p. 17 and p. 29 n. 7)
12. See, e.g., Richard C. Galbraith’s introductory essay in J. Smith, Jr., Scriptural Teachings, pp. 1–11. Galbraith writes (ibid., pp. 1–2, 3):
    

    Ironically, of all Joseph Smith’s great accomplishments in the work of the Restoration, the one perhaps least appreciated was his immense knowledge of the scriptures. The scriptures were the brick and mortar of all his sermons, writings, and other personal communications; he quoted them, he alluded to them, he adapted them in all his speaking and writing.
    The Prophet’s extensive use of the scriptures may not be obvious to the casual reader. In the book Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, for example, the Prophet appears to cite fewer than one passage of scripture every other page. … But that figure misses the mark. A more careful reading of this book reveals some twenty scriptures for every one actually cited. When I discovered that, I began to ask, not “When is the Prophet quoting scripture,” but rather “What might he be quoting that is not scripture?”

    Of course, as Ben McGuire observes, we have to be cautious when we draw parallels using a computer-aided search (B. L. McGuire, 7 March 2016):

    Finding scriptural phrases in a text is not the same thing as finding scriptural citations. A citation is an intentional movement of text, and computer algorithms are, for the most part, not capable of distinguishing between such an intentional borrowing and coincidental usage or echoes. This is particularly true in the time of Joseph Smith, where the King James Bible was arguably the most influential literary work available. And because of this, the use of King James language cannot be automatically considered to be a citation of the biblical text. I am not sure that this needs much clarification in the chapter, but it is a problematic issue. The problem is that it tends to create an opposite swing (and perhaps one just as great) as the original identified problem. If we weren’t identifying all of the citations before, we may be identifying too many now. And reading allusion where none was intended may well provide us with deep insight, it certainly doesn’t represent the message intended by the author (Joseph Smith in this case). At best computer assisted search only helps us identify potential citations which then need to be eyeballed by a human being with a solid method.

13. M. Rich, Literacy Debate.
14. Citing U. Eco, Kant, pp. 280ff., Ben McGuire describes the problem as follows: “when we refer to things (and these things are the sorts of things that Joseph Smith is referring to in his sermons … ) … the meaning of these expressions that make these references should come with … general directions about their use. And the problem is that for us, as modern readers, we have simply lost those general directions.”
15. Studies of “new literacies” explore the nature of youths’ modern, digital reading practices (M. Knobel et al., A New Literacies Sampler). M. Rich, Literacy Debate gives a brief summary of some of the issues involved:
    

    Clearly, reading in print and on the Internet are different. On paper, text has a predetermined beginning, middle and end, where readers focus for a sustained period on one author’s vision. On the Internet, readers skate through cyberspace at will and, in effect, compose their own beginnings, middles and ends. …
    Critics of reading on the Internet say they see no evidence that increased Web activity improves reading achievement. “What we are losing in this country and presumably around the world is the sustained, focused, linear attention developed by reading,” said Mr. Gioia of the N.E.A. “I would believe people who tell me that the Internet develops reading if I did not see such a universal decline in reading ability and reading comprehension on virtually all tests.”
    Nicholas Carr sounded a similar note in “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” in the current issue of the Atlantic magazine (N. Carr, Is Google. See also, e.g., N. Carr, Shallows; N. Carr, Glass Cage; N. Carr, Juggler’s Brain; N. Romeo, Is Google). Warning that the Web was changing the way he — and others — think, he suggested that the effects of Internet reading extended beyond the falling test scores of adolescence. “What the Net seems to be doing is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation,” he wrote, confessing that he now found it difficult to read long books. …
    Neurological studies show that learning to read changes the brain’s circuitry. Scientists speculate that reading on the Internet may also affect the brain’s hard wiring in a way that is different from book reading.
    “The question is, does it change your brain in some beneficial way?” said Guinevere F. Eden, director of the Center for the Study of Learning at Georgetown University. “The brain is malleable and adapts to its environment. Whatever the pressures are on us to succeed, our brain will try and deal with it.”
    Some scientists worry that the fractured experience typical of the Internet could rob developing readers of crucial skills. “Reading a book, and taking the time to ruminate and make inferences and engage the imaginational processing, is more cognitively enriching, without doubt, than the short little bits that you might get if you’re into the 30-second digital mode,” said Ken Pugh, a cognitive neuroscientist at Yale who has studied brain scans of children reading.

    Eric Rackley takes issue with some of the views summarized by Rich, and proffers a more hopeful view based on efforts to gain a better understanding of what motivates youth to read in the first place (E. D. Rackley, 25 April 2016):

    [P]urpose matters. And motivation too. Show me a youth who can’t read scripture for more than two minutes and I’ll give her something to read that’s important to her and probably pretty complex and we’ll sit back and watch her read for hours. … [Those who say that reading ability and comprehension are declining are mistaken.] Adolescents’ reading comprehension as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress shows that youths’ reading abilities have actually improved a little since 1992 (http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/). More pressing issues include the reading gap between white and black students, and the relatively stable 2/3 of students who don’t read proficiently. The NEAP data suggest that reading skill isn’t declining, it’s just not increasing as quickly as it could and for all of our young people equally. … A digital text can be as enriching as any other text or as mind-numbing. The issue may not be the nature of the texts, but how we engage with them. Pugh talks about “taking the time to ruminate and make inferences and engage the imaginational processing.” That happens with digital texts. It’s not isolated to books. For me, teaching youth is the key. We must teach them how to do what Pugh suggest with any text, even the boring and complex ones. We must also give them opportunities to practice doing this with various kinds of text for a variety of purposes. One of the affordances of nonlinear digital texts is that they give readers a chance to develop different parts of their “reading” brains.

    Consistent with Rackley’s views, M. P. Lynch, Teaching asks whether higher education will become obsolete in the face of ubiquitous, immediate access to the world’s knowledge through technology. He points out what makes what he calls “Google knowing” both useful and problematic: “The Internet is at one and the same time the most glorious fact-checker and the most effective bias-affirmer ever invented.” Because of the “epistemic overconfidence that Google knowing encourages,” “teaching critical, reflective thinking matters more than ever.” Critical thinking, he argues, is one means to achieve one of the enduring ideals of higher education, namely, helping people “gain understanding,” “to comprehend hidden relationships among different pieces of understanding” through facilitating “the creative abilities that understanding requires.”
    Although concerns about differences between reading on paper and reading from a screen are probably overdone, there is no doubt that, in general, different media exploit different sensory and cognitive strengths and weaknesses. Already in 1937, the prescient Paul Valéry ruminated on the various consequences of “broadcasting and the gramophone” on literature (P. Valéry, Our Destiny, pp. 148–150, 152. See also J. Mander, Four Arguments; J. Mander et al., Nancho Consults Jerry Mander):

    We can already begin wondering whether a purely spoken and auditive literature will not fairly soon replace written literature. That would be a return to the most primitive times, and the technical consequences would be immense. What would happen if writing died out? First of all — and this would be an advantage — the voice and the needs of the ear would regain, in matters of form, the capital importance which whose conditions of the senses had until a few hundred years ago. Immediately, the structure and dimensions of literary works would be strongly affected; but the author’s work would be much less easy to reconsider. Certain poets would no longer be able to remain so complicated as they are made out to be, and readers, transformed into listeners, would hardly be able to return to a passage, read it over, go more deeply into it through enjoyment or criticism as they can do with a text they can hold in their hands.
    There is another point. Suppose television develops (and I admit I do not welcome it), then immediately the entire descriptive parts of works could be replaced by visual representation; landscapes and portraits would no longer be the province of men of letters, and they would elude the means of language. One can go further. The sentimental parts would also be reduced, if not entirely abolished, thanks to the intervention of tender pictures and appropriate music released at the psychological moment. …
    And there is, finally, another possible and perhaps more serious consequence of the introduction of all these new methods: What happens to abstract literature? So long as it is a question of amusing, touching, or seducing men’s minds one might agree, at a pinch, that broadcasting would be adequate. But science and philosophy demand quite another rhythm of thought than reading aloud could allow, or rather, they impose an absence of rhythm. Reflection stops or breaks its impulsion every second, it introduces uneven tempos, returns, and detours which demand the physical presence of a text and the possibility of handling it at leisure. All this is cut out by audition. Listening is inadequate for the transmission of abstract works. …
    But all this is rather clumsily derived from our present physical potentialities. We must go a little farther. To think of the destiny of letters is to think at the same time and above all of the destiny of the mind. At this point everyone is at a loss. We can only too freely imagine this future as we wish, and we can arbitrarily suppose either that things will continue to be fairly like those we know, or that in the age to come there will be a depression of intellectual values, a lowering or decadence comparable to what happened at the close of classical antiquity; culture almost abandoned, works becoming incomprehensible and being destroyed, production abolished, all of which is unfortunately quite possible and even possible by two methods we already know: either through the use of powerful weapons of destruction, decimating the populations of the most cultured regions of the globe, ruining monuments, libraries, laboratories, and archives, and reducing the survivors to a misery exceeding their intelligence and suppressing all the elevates the mind of man; or else that not these means of destruction but those of possession and enjoyment, the incoherence imposed by the frequency and facility of impressions, the rapid vulgarization and application of industrial techniques to the productions, evaluations, and consumption of the mind’s fruits, will end in impairing the highest and most important intellectual virtues — concentration, meditative and critical powers, and what one may call thought in the grand style, thorough research directed towards the most exact and most powerful expression of its object.
    We are living under the perpetual régime of intellectual disturbance. Intensity and novelty have in our time become good qualities, which is a rather remarkable symptom. I cannot believe that this system is good for culture. Its first result will be to make unintelligible or insupportable all the works of the past which were g composed in quite different conditions and which were meant for minds that were formed entirely differently.

16. Cited M. Fishbane, Spirituality, p. 12. Buber goes on to describe this as:
    

    … a disease of the spirit that can lead us to imagine that we already know what we are reading, causing us to blithely and triumphantly read past the text… The spiritual task of interpretation … is to affect or alter the pace of reading so that one’s eye and ear can be addressed by the text’s words and sounds — and thus reveal an expanded or new sense of life and its dynamics. The pace of technology and the patterns of modernity pervert this vital task. The rhythm of reading must, therefore, be restored to the rhythm of breathing, to the cadence of the cantillation marks of the sacred text. Only then will the individual absorb the texts with his or her life breath and begin to read liturgically, as a rite of passage to a different level of meaning. And only then may the contemporary idolization of technique and information be transformed, and the sacred text restored as a living teaching and instruction, for the constant renewal of the self.

17. For good examples of how to read in a way that tries to take full advantage of the richness of scripture, see D. Packard et al., Feasting.
18. S. Prothero, Literacy, pp. 105–112.
19. J. E. Seaich, Ancient Texts 1995, p. vii.
20. M. Barker, Hidden, p. 34.
21. H. Bloom, Names Divine, p. 104. Since at least the time of Norman Vincent Peale’s The Power of Positive Thinking (1952), a parade of quasi-religious books have, in the words of Prothero (S. Prothero, Literacy, pp. 113, 117. See also C. Lasch, Revolt, p. 216ff.):
    

    preached therapy more than theology, happiness rather than salvation. Then, as today, debating (or even discussing) religious doctrines was considered ill-mannered, a violation of the cherished civic ideal of tolerance, so it was difficult for children to learn or for adults to articulate what set their religious traditions apart from others.
    Current interest in contemplative practice has caused “spiritual but not religious” folks to rediscover such neglected resources inside Christianity and Judaism as centering prayer and Kabbalah. But it has also led them to Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, and other Asian religions in search of various forms of meditation, yoga, and tai chi… Here too, however, the trend is toward religion stripped down to its “essentials”—essentials that in this case are confined almost entirely to the experiential or moral dimensions. This development is well advanced in the American Buddhist community, where some have argued that Buddhism can get along just fine without such staples as karma and reincarnation. “Buddhism Without Beliefs,” as this movement has been called, aims to distill the Buddhist life down to nothing more than one’s favorite sitting or chanting practice, and then to put that practice at the service of such American preoccupations as happiness. The tendency to shirk from doctrine is particularly pronounced in the “multi-religious America” camp. Here even the minimal monotheism of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic model must be sacrificed since many Buddhists don’t believe in God and many Hindus believe in more than one. The only common ground here seems to be tolerance itself. When pluralists gather for interreligious dialogue, their discussions always seem to circle back to ethics… [without] a whisper of theology.

22. Cited in S. Prothero, Literacy, p. 113. As an example, Prothero cites a statement by Eisenhower to a Soviet official in a December 1952 meeting that “our form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith, and I don’t care what it is” (ibid., p. 113). The same fierce loyalty to an abstract “idea” of God divorced from any particulars is expressed more prosaically in an off-the-street comment made to a sociologist by a high-school student in the Middle West, “Yeah, we smoke dope all over, in our cars, walking around before class, anytime, but that doesn’t mean we don’t believe in God or that we’ll let anybody put God down” (P. Fussell, Class, p. 150).
23. See, e.g., H. B. Eyring, Power; S. D. Nadauld, Principles, pp. 88–89; B. K. Packer, Plan of Happiness; B. K. Packer, Children, p. 17; B. K. Packer, Do Not Fear, p. 79; B. K. Packer, Errand, pp. 307–312; M. K. Jensen, Anchors; D. A. Bednar, Increase, pp. 151–174; D. A. Bednar, Teach Them; B. K. Packer, Principles; M. R. Ballard, Opportunities and Responsibilities. President Boyd K. Packer, among others, has often noted the fact that “God gave unto [men] commandments, after having made known unto them the plan of redemption” (Alma 12:32, emphasis added. See, e.g., B. K. Packer, Plan of Happiness; D. A. Bednar, Increase, p. 154).
    Eric Rackley’s pioneering study on how “Latter-day Saint youths’ social and cultural values, practices, beliefs, and experiences influence their views of scripture” is a good example of how empirical research can be helpful in future efforts to develop “more effective religious literacy practices that are more responsive to youths’ histories with scripture” (E. D. Rackley, Latter-day Saint Youths’ Construction, p. 41).
24. H. W. Nibley, Message 2005, p. 99. Cf. Moroni 7:31–32. D&C 88:118 exhorts the Saints to “seek learning, even by study and also by faith.” The implication of scripture, however, is that learning spiritual matters from book study is ultimately a poor cousin to learning by faith — i.e., study “out of the best books” is only necessary because “all have not faith.” Though himself a great advocate of schools for the teaching of practical subjects in Kirtland and Nauvoo, on matters of learning for the eternities Joseph Smith wanted the Saints to gain knowledge by direct revelation — to come to the point where they could throw away their crutches, take up their beds, and walk: “The best way to obtain truth and wisdom is not to ask it from books, but to go to God in prayer, and obtain divine teaching” (J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 3 October 1841, p. 191). Note that the original source for this quote actually reads “the only way” (J. Smith, Jr., Words, 3 October 1841, p. 77, emphasis added).
    B. L. McGuire, 7 March 2016 notes that this is precisely the message also of 1 Nephi 15:8–9 (see B. L. McGuire, Nephi, 61–64): “And I said unto them: Have ye inquired of the Lord? And they said unto me: We have not; for the Lord maketh no such thing known unto us.” McGuire observes that Joseph sees this not only “in a personal way … but also on a larger magnitude. We have a cultural attitude in the Christianity that he was experiencing that said that we had all the revelation we were going to get (which is a larger societal expression of this same sort of thing) and against which he (and the Book of Mormon) become the counterexample. The Church in some ways becomes the example for other Christian churches” (B. L. McGuire, 7 March 2016).
25. “To put it bluntly,” writes Nibley, “short of revelation, no real translation of [scripture — or, for that matter, any other inspired teaching —] is possible” (H. W. Nibley, Message 2005, p. 55. See also Joseph Smith’s teachings about the necessary spiritual qualifications for understanding the parables of Jesus in J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, December 1835, pp. 94–96). The Prophet taught: “Could we read and comprehend all that has been written from the days of Adam, on the relation of man to God and angels in a future state, we should know very little about it. … Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject” (ibid., Funeral of James Adams, 9 October 1843, p. 324). Cf. Moroni 7:31–32 and Elder Willard Richards’ original notes of the sermon published in J. Smith, Jr. et al., Journals, 1843–1844, 9 October 1843, p. 109.
    Joseph Smith was democratic in his desire that every Saint to receive the privilege of personal communion with the heavens and a revelatory unfolding of the meaning of scripture, decrying those who supposed that the plain truths of scripture were “mystery … and, therefore, are not to be understood” (J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, December 1835, p. 96). He taught that it “is the privilege of every Elder to speak the things of God” (D. Q. Cannon et al., Far West, 25 October 1831, p. 20, spelling and capitalization modernized) and that every Saint could come to a personal knowledge of the Father Himself (see, e.g., D&C 67:10; 88:68; 93:1). On one occasion, Joseph Smith said: “God hath not revealed anything to Joseph, but what He will make known unto the Twelve, and even the least Saint may know all things as fast as he is able to bear them, for the day must come when no man need say to his neighbor, Know ye the Lord; for all shall know Him … from the least to the greatest [see Jeremiah 31:34]” (J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 27 June 1839, p. 149. Cf. J. Smith, Jr., Words, 27 June 1839, p. 4).
26. Articles of Faith 1:9.
27. N. A. Maxwell, Cosmos, p. 2.
28. In response to a request in 1831 by his brother Hyrum to explain the translation process more fully, Joseph Smith said that “it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon; and … it was not expedient for him to relate these things” (J. Smith, Jr. et al., Documents, July 1831–January 1833, General Conference Minutes, Orange Township, Cuyahoga Co., Ohio, 25–26 October 1831, p. 84, capitalization modernized). For more on the Prophet’s reluctance to share details of sacred events, see R. O. Barney, Joseph Smith’s Visions; R. Nicholson, Cowdery Conundrum. As a specific illustration of the sacred regard in which the Prophet held the temple ordinances, Andrew Ehat reminds us that none of the nine participants who were present when the Nauvoo endowment was first bestowed on 4 May 1842 recorded the events of that day in their personal reminiscences. In explanation of this fact, Ehat observes (A. F. Ehat, Who Shall Ascend, p. 49):
    

    The Prophet Joseph Smith had asked each participant not to record the specifics of what they had heard and seen that day. Six weeks later, in a letter to his fellow apostle Parley P. Pratt, Heber C. Kimball wrote that these favored few had received “some precious things through the Prophet on the priesthood that would cause your soul to rejoice.” However, he added, “I cannot give them to you on paper for they are not to be written” (Heber C. Kimball to Parley P. Pratt, 17 June 1842, Heber C. Kimball Papers, LDS Church History Library). They were just too sacred.

29. J. Smith, Jr. et al., Documents, July 1831–January 1833, Letter to Noah C. Saxton, 4 January 1833, p. 354, in a parallel to the wording found in Omni 1:20 that was also taken up by Oliver Cowdery in a 9 December 1829 letter (O. Cowdery, Letter to Cornelius Blatchly, 9 November 1829) and in the published account and testimony of the Three Witnesses (J. Smith, Jr. et al., Histories, 1832–1844, pp. 318–323). See also D&C 1:29, 20:8. B. L. McGuire, 7 March 2016 observes:
    

    It seems quite obvious to me that Omni 1:20 (which was translated just before we get the testimonies of the various witnesses) is the source of all of these statements. And it provides a useful context in trying to come to terms with Joseph’s limited descriptions. That is, Joseph sees in his use of the Nephite Interpreters exactly the sort of thing he reads about in Omni. And his use of this phrase is very much to also say all of the things that this connection suggests as well (that Joseph was a prophet like King Mosiah, that his use of the interpreters was like that given in the Book of Mormon with the Jaredite record, and so on). … [W]hen he talked about the translation of the Book of Mormon, … he did so using a scriptural passage that he first encounters near the end of the translation. And while we often point to this statement as a description of the translation process, because we rarely connect it to an intentional citation of scripture, we miss all that this statement is really being used to tell us about the translation process, and what Joseph Smith wanted to convey through this use of scripture.

30. B. Young, 7 October 1866.
31. Summarizing the Savior’s answer to the disciples who asked him why He taught in parables, Elder James E. Talmage wrote that (J. E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, p. 275):
    

    while it was their privilege to receive and understand the deeper truths of the gospel, “the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven” as He expressed it, with people in general, who were unreceptive and unprepared, such fulness of understanding was impossible.

    Gordon C. Thomasson further elaborated (cited in The Directions of Mormon Language: Panel Discussion, p. 85):

    When Jesus spoke in parables, he was precisely speaking on multiple levels. Intentionally, he was saying different things to different people. I don’t think that we can give meat to babes; I think that they need milk [see 1 Corinthians 3:1–3; Hebrews 5:12]. … For instance, someone could be preaching repentance in a sermon. The ninth through the fourteenth chapters of Alma is an interesting one. People read it for years and just thought that it was a nice repentance sermon. One day, when I was working with Hugh Nibley, I walked into the office, sat down, and he kicked me in the pants and I kicked him in the pants. We realized that Alma was calling to repentance a people who had already had the temple endowment. Because people never expected to find the temple there, they never saw the temple there, but it’s all through those chapters of Alma [cf. H. W. Nibley, Message 2005, p. 54, citing Giorgio de Santillana: “every translation is a mere function of the translator’s expectation”). The General Authority in conference might, as it were, call people to repentance and it looks like the straightforward call to repentance, but it has special relevance to those who have been through the temple.

32. For example, on 2 April 1843, Joseph Smith preached a sermon that included a discussion of Jesus’ Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14–30; Luke 19:11–27) and His nighttime encounter with Nicodemus (see John 3:1–5). In the notes of the sermon recorded in Joseph Smith’s Diary by Elder Willard Richards, it reads (J. Smith, Jr. et al., Journals, 1841–1843, p. 326):
    

    What is the meaning of the scriptures he that is faithful over a few thi[n]gs shall be made ruler over many? & he that is faithful over many shall be made ruler over many more?
    Nicodemus. except a man be born of water & of the spi[r]it. —
    I shall not tell you? —

    According to a late recollection of Benjamin Johnson, the Prophet had explained the doctrine of plural marriage to him not long before. Benjamin was reluctant to embrace the principle and said (B. F. Johnson, My Life’s Review, pp. 83–84):

    “Brother Joseph, this is all new to me; it may all be true, — you know but I do not, to my education it is all wrong; but I am going, with the help of the Lord to do just what you say, with this promise to you — That if ever I know you do this to degrade my sister I will kill you, as the Lord lives.” He looked at me, oh, so calmly, and said, “Br. Benjamin, you will never see that day, but you shall see the day you will know it is true, and you will fulfill the law and greatly rejoice in it.” And he said, “At this morning’s meeting, I will preach you a sermon that no one but you will understand. And furthermore, I will promise you that when you open your mouth to your sister, it shall be filled.”
    At the meeting he read the parable of the Talents, and showed plainly that to him that hath shall be given more, and from him that had but one should be taken that he seemed to have, and given to him who had ten. This, so far as I could understand, might relate to families, but to me there was a horror in the idea of speaking to my sister upon such a subject, the thought of which made me sick. But I had promised, and it must be done. I did not remember his words and have faith that light would come, — I only thought “How dark it all looks to me.” But I must do it, and so told my sister I wished to see her in a room by herself, where I soon found her seated. I stood before her trembling, my knees shaking like Belteshazzar’s. But I opened my mouth and my heart opened to the light of the Lord, my tongue was loosened and I was filled with the Holy Ghost. I preached a sermon that forever converted me and her also, to the principle, even though her heart was not yet won by the Prophet. And so I had great joy after my tribulation [see D&C 58:4].

33. Of course, the same is true in reading from the scriptures. Speaking of the Book of Mormon, John L. Sorenson said it this way (in The Directions of Mormon language: Panel discussion, p. 86): “Let me … speak as a specialist on Mesoamerica and say that while reading the Book of Mormon may ring true some truths of importance, I would say that only a few of us know what we’re missing. In other words, we are vastly ignorant of a great deal that is in there. Yet we suppose we understand. Thank goodness we understand what we do.”
34. C. S. Lewis, Descriptione; G. de Santillana et al., Hamlet’s Mill, p. 10. Specifically regarding the ancient view of the temple, Mark Smith writes: “The idea of divine presence barely resonates in our culture. We stand at such a massive distance from the ancient traditions of the Jerusalem temple … As the decades pass, our culture seems increasingly removed from the Christian and Jewish religious traditions that drew upon the experience of temple” (M. S. Smith, Priestly Vision, p. 36).
35. A. H. King, Joseph, pp. 287–288.
36. Matthew 6:10.
37. M. Barker, Hidden, p. 128.
38. M. Barker, Earth, pp. 1–2.
39. B. C. Hafen, Anchored, p. 3.
40. On the origins of today’s “praise and worship” services, “patterned after the rock concert of secular culture,” see F. Viola et al., Pagan Christianity, pp. 164–166.
41. Paul Tillich, cited in R. Coles, Secular Mind, p. 5. See also ibid., p. 18.
42. J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 29 January 1843, p. 276. Cf. J. Smith, Jr., Words, Willard Richards, 29 January 1843, p. 161; J. Smith, Jr. et al., Journals, 1841–1843, 29 January 1843, p. 252.
43. 1 Nephi 19:24. See also 1 Nephi 19:23; 2 Nephi 11:2, 8.
44. B. L. McGuire, March 7 2016.
45. Ibid.. For more on this topic, see B. L. McGuire, Nephi, pp. 58–59 n. 21, 68–71, 77.
46. For example, Gerrit Dirkmaat gives examples of Joseph Smith’s efforts to revise and update his Doctrine and Covenants revelations as they were prepared for publication (G. Dirkmaat, Great, pp. 56–57).
47. D&C 1:24.
48. D&C 128:18.
49. Perhaps the most striking example is found in citations of Malachi 4:5–6, a key prophecy relating to the restoration of the priesthood:
    

    Malachi 4:5–6 (cf. Luke 1:17; 3 Nephi 25:6; D&C 27:9; 110:15; 128:17. See also J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 2 July 1839, p. 160, 20 January 1844, p. 330, 10 March 1844, p. 337, 7 April 1844, p. 356. Cf. J. Smith, Jr., Words, Before 8 August 1839 (1), p. 11, 21 January 1844, p. 318, 10 March 1844, pp. 329, 333, 7 April 1844, p. 342; J. Smith, Jr. et al., Journals, 1843–1844, 7 April 1844, p. 220):

    5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: 6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

    Joseph Smith–History 1:38–39 (1838; J. Smith, Jr. et al., Histories, 1832–1844, History Drafts 2 and 3, pp. 224–225; J. Smith, Jr., Documentary History, 1:12):

    38 … Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. 39 … And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.

    J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 27 August 1843, p. 323 (cf. J. Smith, Jr., Words, 27 August 1843, p. 244; J. Smith, Jr. et al., Journals, 1843–1844, 27 August 1843, p. 86):

    Elijah shall reveal the covenants to seal the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the children to the fathers. The anointing and sealing is to be called, elected, and made sure.

    J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 20 January 1844, p. 330 (cf. J. Smith, Jr., Words, 21 January 1844, p. 318):

    Now, the word “turn” here should be translated “bind,” or “seal.”

    J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 10 March 1844, p. 337 (cf. J. Smith, Jr., Words, 10 March 1844, p. 329, 334 (“seal or bind or turn the hearts”), 334–335, 336):

    He should send Elijah to seal the children to the fathers, and the fathers to the children.

50. J. C. Alleman, Problems in Translating the Language of Joseph Smith, p. 22. See G. Dirkmaat et al., Prophets Have Spoken for a well-crafted exposition of the process and results of George D. Watt’s efforts to record the sermons of Church leaders from 1851 onwards in shorthand and subsequently to create the sometimes highly amended published versions that appeared in the Deseret News and the Journal of Discourses. Of course, those who recorded the sermons of Joseph Smith faced even greater challenges, as they had no skills in shorthand and were often challenged by delays of years before the notes from the sermon could be filled out into finished prose. Another blow was the untimely death of Elder Willard Richards, who had been a primary scribe for his Nauvoo sermons. He passed away on 11 March 1854, having been able to complete a draft of the History only to the date of 1 March 1843. After Elder Richards’ death, the direction of this work fell to Elder George A. Smith who, by 1856, had overseen its completion up through the June 1844 death of the Prophet. For a more complete account of the writing of Joseph Smith’s History, see D. C. Jessee, JS History; J. Smith, Jr. et al., Histories, 1832–1844, pp. xiii–xxxiii.
51. J. Smith, Jr., Words, pp. xvii–xviii.
52. D. C. Jessee, Priceless Words, p. 23.
53. D. C. Jessee, Reliability, p. 29.
54. Ibid., p. 31.
55. J. Smith, Jr., Words, p. xvii.
56. In an “Epistle to the Saints,” Elder Willard Richards, hoping “soon to start on a mission towards some Island in the Pacific ocean,” urgently enjoined the Saints to contribute to the effort of gathering historical records (J. Smith, Jr., Documentary History, 16 November 1845, 7:526):
    

    All those who have letters, or documents of any kind in their possession, which in any way relate to the History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are requested to leave them with the historian before tomorrow evening.
    All elders who have been out on special missions within two years, and have not reported themselves in writing, are requested to do so before tomorrow evening.
    Every individual who may be in possession of any fact, circumstance, incident, event, or transaction which they wish recorded in the General History of the Church will report it in writing before tomorrow evening.
    The historian wants all books, maps, charts, papers, documents of every kind, name, and nature, and all information that may relate to, or have a bearing in any wise upon the History of the Church, before him, in his office within twenty-four hours.

57. D. C. Jessee, Priceless Words, pp. 28–31.
58. See, e.g., the passage in one of Joseph Smith’s sermons about the rounds of Jacob’s ladder added by later church historians and discussed below (J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 21 May 1843, pp. 304–305).
59. J. Smith, Jr., Documentary History.
60. D. C. Jessee, Reliability, p. 47 explains:
    

    To further complicate the question of authorship, since Joseph Smith’s diary did not provide an unbroken narrative of his life, gaps were bridged by using other sources, changing indirect discourse to direct as if Joseph had done the writing himself. Not uncommon according to the editorial practices of the day, this method of supplying missing detail had the effect of providing a smooth-flowing, connected narrative of events.

    For examples of these difficulties, see ibid., pp. 37–41.

61. E.g., J. Smith, Jr., Teachings; J. Smith, Jr., Teachings 2007; J. Smith, Jr., Teachings 1997.
62. E.g., J. Smith, Jr., Words; J. Smith, Jr. et al., Journals, 1841–1843; J. Smith, Jr. et al., Journals, 1843–1844.
63. E.g., J. M. Bradshaw, God’s Image 1, pp. 643–644, 750; J. C. Alleman, Problems in Translating the Language of Joseph Smith.
64. According to D. C. Jessee, JS History, p. 441, Joseph Smith and his scribes had only progressed to the date of August 5, 1838 in the history by the time of the Prophet’s death.
65. See D. A. Bednar, Faithful Parents, pp. 30–33.
66. “[D]espite the long list of impediments in history writing, Joseph Smith showed sustained interest in documenting the church’s rise and progress, and his repeated efforts to do so bore fruit. … Near the end of his life, Joseph Smith gave high priority to his history, and he was finally able to devote the resources to make it a substantial production. In May 1843, he told William W. Phelps of a message that came to him in a dream: ‘The history must go ahead before any thing’ [J. Smith, Jr. et al., Journals, 1843–1844, 19 May 1843, pp. 18–19]. … Under Richards’ direction, the enterprise made substantial progress. Addressing the Saints in Nauvoo a month before he was killed, Joseph Smith noted with satisfaction that during the past three years his ‘acts and proceedings’ had been recorded by ‘efficient Clerks in constant employ,’ who had accompanied him everywhere and ‘carefully kept my history, and they have written down what I have done, where I have been & what I have said’ [see J. Smith, Jr., Words, 26 May 1844, pp. 374, 406 n. 1. Cited in J. Smith, Jr. et al., Histories, 1832–1844, p. xxxi n. 47 as “‘Sermon of Joseph the Proph[et],’ 26 May 1844, p. 2, JS Collection, CHL”]” (ibid., pp. xiv, xxxi).
67. According to Donald Q. Cannon (D. Q. Cannon, King Follett Discourse, p. 182):
    

    Willard Richards … served the Prophet Joseph Smith as “private secretary” and historian. In that position, he kept Joseph Smith’s daily journal for the years 1842–44, and recorded his summary of the King Follett Discourse in that journal. Of Richards’ abilities as a scribe, Orson Spencer wrote that he “was eminently gifted. He chronicled events, dates, circumstances, and incidents with rare accuracy of judgment and rare tenacity of memory.”

    Stan Larson gives the following description of Elder Richards’ style as he took notes of the King Follett Discourse, which seems consistent with his general method of recording Joseph Smith’s other sermons (S. Larson, King Follett, p. 193):

    Willard Richards left a quite sketchy account, often with disjointed sentence fragments. He seems to have merely taken down various points during the discourse that he felt were particularly important. He often leaves spaces or inserts dashes to indicate he is not taking down every word. His report is “minutes” in the strict sense of the word since the sermon, which lasted a little over two hours, has been reduced to be read in just a few minutes.

    Describing the difficulties he faced in trying to create a complete narrative of the last four days of Joseph Smith’s life from the notes of Elder Richards, Elder Wilford Woodruff, Assistant Church Historian, wrote: “Dr. Richards wrote but little, and that in detached sentences, expecting to make it out himself, but died before doing it” (Letter of Wilford Woodruff to John Bernhisel, 30 June 1856, quoted in D. C. Jessee, Reliability, p. 36). This summary aptly describes the challenge that is faced by anyone trying to flesh out Elder Richards’ notes of Joseph Smith’s sermons.

68. Martha Jane Knowlton Coray, who taught school with her husband Howard in Nauvoo, recorded detailed, literate notes of several of Joseph Smith’s discourses. With assistance from her husband, Howard, she served as a scribe to Lucy Mack Smith as the latter dictated her memoirs, and later created a fair (finished) copy of the manuscript (see L. M. Smith, Revised and Enhanced History, pp. xviii–xxiii; L. M. Smith, Lucy’s Book, pp. 67–68; J. Smith, Jr., Words, p. 419 n. 2). For a detailed account of the lives of the Corays, see C. D. Tate, Jr., Howard and Martha Jane Knowlton Coray.
69. The transcript of Elder Willard Richards’ notes, made during the sermon, are from J. Smith, Jr. et al., Journals, 1843–1844, 21 May 1843, pp. 20–22. The notes of Richards, who was present for the original discourse, were later filled out under the direction of Elder George A. Smith, who continued the compilation of Joseph Smith’s History of the Church (J. Smith, Jr., Documentary History) in the 1850s after the death of Elder Richards (J. Smith, Jr. et al., Journals, 1843–1844, 21 May 1843, p. 21 n. 68; D. C. Jessee, JS History, p. 470). The original notes by Elder Richards, along with additional accounts of this sermon and helpful notes, were published in J. Smith, Jr., Words, 21 May 1843, pp. 204–209. I have drawn the expanded account of the sermon originally compiled in the 1850s by church historians as later edited and published by Elder B. H. Roberts on behalf of the Church (J. Smith, Jr., Documentary History, 21 May 1843, 5:401–403. See also J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 21 May 1843, pp. 303–306). Volumes in the “Histories series of The Joseph Smith Papers … make available the manuscript behind B. H. Roberts’ widely used publication, and … identify, in turn, the sources behind the manuscript itself, thereby facilitating more informed use of the history” (J. Smith, Jr. et al., Histories, 1832–1844, p. xxxii).Specifically describing the challenges in filling out Joseph Smith’s history and teachings for the final years of the Nauvoo period, Dean C. Jessee wrote (D. C. Jessee, Reliability, p. 41):
    

    The task of preparing Joseph Smith’s discourses for publication was particularly difficult in the later stages of the history when it became necessary to reconstruct word sequences more than a decade after they were spoken, from notes that in some instances were very brief. In summarizing his work on this crucial phase of the history, George A. Smith wrote: “I have filled up all the reports of sermons by Prest. Joseph Smith and others from minutes or sketches taken at the time in long hand … which was an immense labor, requiring the deepest thought and the closest application, as there were mostly only two or three words (about half written) to a sentence.” But he assured his reader that “the greatest care has been taken to convey the ideas in the Prophet’s style as near as possible; and in no case has the sentiment been varied that I know of; as I heard the most of his discourses myself, was on the most intimate terms with him, have retained a most vivid recollection of his teachings, and was well acquainted with his principles and motives” (Smith to Woodruff, 21 April 1856).
    In addition to George A. Smith’s own careful editorial work, which he felt was enhanced by an 1831 revelation that promised the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to those who functioned in the office of Church Historian (D&C 47:4), was the additional verification that came from reading the finished compilation of each discourse in the hearing of members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, some of whom had also heard the original addresses. But while these measures no doubt guaranteed the doctrinal accuracy of Joseph Smith’s discourses, they obviously would not reflect his personality as accurately as a verbatim report would have done.

70. See J. Smith, Jr., Words, 21 May 1843, pp. 208–209.
71. According to Donald Q. Cannon (D. Q. Cannon, King Follett Discourse, p. 182):
    

    Wilford Woodruff … had received no formal stenographic training, but had a strong desire to write a history of the Church. Consequently, he recorded not only his own activities, but also the sermons, teachings, and prophecies of Joseph Smith and other Church leaders. He chose to record most of this material in his personal journal, which has been characterized as “careful and painstaking.” Woodruff developed a unique note-taking method which one writer described in this manner:
    He had a gift from God. It was this, that when he did not have pencil or paper with him, he could, after hearing the Prophet Joseph Smith preach a sermon, go home and write it word for word and sentence for sentence, but after completing the writing … the sermon would pass from his mind, as though he had never heard it.

    Stan Larson gives the following description of Elder Woodruff’s style as he took notes of the King Follett Discourse, which seems consistent with his general method of recording Joseph Smith’s other sermons (S. Larson, King Follett, pp. 193–194):

    Wilford Woodruff recorded in his journal a more nearly complete account, but only after a formal introduction in which he described the sermon in terms that could only be known after it was finished. Though Woodruff claimed in 1877 to have recorded the King Follett Discourse “on the crown of his hat, standing in the congregation,” he must have meant no longer extant notes which he later transferred to, and expanded in, his journal since his neatly-printed journal account has no abbreviated words, no gaps in the recording, and no unclearly written words. This transfer could have occurred that same day, or as much as a week or two later. Often the Woodruff account has synonyms and a slightly different word or phrase order when compared to the other accounts, but it is compatible to the other three versions in terms of the basic sense of the message. These considerations seem to indicate the need for a slightly different use of the Woodruff account.

72. According to Donald Q. Cannon (D. Q. Cannon, King Follett Discourse, pp. 181–182):
    

    William Clayton … served as a private secretary to Joseph Smith. According to one biographer, Clayton “received a good common-school education” and was “a clear writer” with a “love for order.”
    The popularity and versatility of his missionary and pioneer journals bear witness of his ability as a recorder of historical events.

73. J. Smith, Jr. et al., Journals, 1843–1844, 21 May 1843, p. 20.
74. Ibid., 21 May 1843, p. 20 n. 58, citing Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 21 May 1843.
75. Public Domain. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Transfiguration_bloch.jpg (accessed 21 December 2015).
76. 2 Peter 1:19.
77. 2 Peter 1:19.
78. See 2 Peter 1:16–17.
79. Matthew 17:2.
80. J. Smith, Jr., Words, 21 May 1843, Martha Jane Knowlton Coray Notebook, p. 206.
81. J. H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, pp. 178–179.
82. 2 Peter 1:16.
83. 2 Peter 1:17.
84. For related teachings on the doctrine of election during the 1830s, see, e.g.,J. Smith, Jr., Writings 2002, To Silas Smith, 26 September 1833, p. 323: “Yet [Paul] was careful to press upon them the necessity of continuing on until they as well as those who inherited the promises might have the assurance of their salvation confirmed to them by an oath from the mouth of him who cannot could not lie.”Ibid., To Hezekiah Peck and others, 31 August 1835, p. 366: “let us be wise in all things, and keep all the commandments of God, that our salvation may be sure.”J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 22 January 1834, pp. 54–55, 64: “all the commandments contained in the law of the Lord, have the sure promise annexed of a reward to all who obey”; “Have you a promise of receiving a crown of righteousness from the hand of the Lord with the Church of the Firstborn?” (cf. 2 Timothy 4:8)J. Smith, Jr., Words, Willard Richards Pocket Companion, 27 June 1839, pp. 4–5: “let him continue to humble himself before God, hungering & thirsting after Righteousness. & living by every word of God & the Lord will soon say unto him Son thou shalt be exalted. &c When the Lord has thoroughly proved him & finds that the man is determined to serve him at all hazard. then the man will find his calling & Election made sure.” (Cf. J. Smith, Jr., Documentary History, 27 June 1839, 3:380; J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 27 June 1839, p. 150)
85. Original source in Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, as published in J. Smith, Jr., Words, 14 May 1843, pp. 200–202. See also the expanded versions of the sermon prepared for publication by church historians in J. Smith, Jr., Documentary History, 14 May 1843, 5:387–390; J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 14 May 1843, pp. 297–299; W. Woodruff, Life, pp. 175–176.
86. Original source in William Clayton Diary, as published in J. Smith, Jr., Words, 17 May 1843, p. 202. See also J. Smith, Jr., Documentary History, 17 May 1843, 5:392; J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 17 May 1843, p. 301.
87. Original source in Willard Richards’ notes for the Joseph Smith Diary, as published in J. Smith, Jr. et al., Journals, 1843–1844, 13 August 1843, pp. 75–77 — see also J. Smith, Jr., Words, 13 August 1843, pp. 238–239; Martha Jane Knowlton Coray Notebook, as published in ibid., 13 August 1843, pp. 240–241; Franklin D. Richards, “Scriptural Items,” as published in ibid., 13 August 1843, p. 241; William Clayton Diary, as published in ibid., 13 August 1843, pp. 241–242.
88. Original source in Willard Richards’ notes for the Joseph Smith Diary, as published in J. Smith, Jr. et al., Journals, 1843–1844, 27 August 1843, pp. 85–87. Cf. J. Smith, Jr., Words, 27 August 1843, pp. 243–245.
89. Original source in Willard Richards’ notes for the Joseph Smith Diary, as published in J. Smith, Jr. et al., Journals, 1843–1844, 10 March 1844, p. 200. Cf. J. Smith, Jr., Words, 10 March 1844, p. 335. Additional contemporary sources can be found in ibid., 10 March 1844, pp. 327–336. See also the expanded versions of the sermon prepared for publication by church historians in J. Smith, Jr., Documentary History, 10 March 1844, 6:249–254; J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 10 March 1844, pp. 335–341.
90. Thomas Bullock Report, J. Smith, Jr., Words, 12 May 1844, p. 368. This sermon is summarized in J. Smith, Jr. et al., Journals, 1843–1844, p. 248 n. 1124.
91. The Greek term for “election” in the underlying New Testament text is ekloge.
92. Thomas Bullock Report, J. Smith, Jr., Words, 12 May 1844, p. 368. See 2 Peter 1:10. The Greek term for “sure” in the underlying New Testament text is bebaios, meaning reliable, unshifting, firm.
93. J. H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 2 Peter 1:11, p. 106.
94. Isaiah 49:2; 1 Nephi 21:2
95. Judges 5:13; Psalm 49:14; D&C 121:46.
96. Isaiah 28:15–17.
97. Isaiah 52:14; Jeremiah 18:4; Mark 2:22.
98. J. Smith, Jr. et al., Journals, 1843–1844, 11 June 1843, p. 31.
99. W. Woodruff, Woodruff, 9 September 1843, 1:297. Cf. Note 8 for Joseph Smith’s 21 May 1843 sermon in the online version of J. Smith, Jr., Words. In the front matter of R. L. Bushman, Rough Stone, the author erroneously attributes the statement of Elder Kimball to Brigham Young. Heber C. Kimball used similar imagery in another sermon in 1860 (H. C. Kimball, 1 January 1860, pp. 347–348):
    

    Joseph Smith, in his day, used similar comparison when speaking of men who are polished. He compared them to a smoothly polished stone, which, when set to rolling, would lose all its fine polish, and turn up marred and bruised, without even leaving a line to mark its course. On the other hand, set a stone to rolling that is unpolished and rough from the mountain side, and it will do great execution in its course, and leave a visible path behind it, and become smoother as it rolls. Joseph compared himself to a rough stone. What is the use of polishing stones for building purposes before they are taken out of the mountains?

100. R. L. Bushman, Rough Stone. In R. L. Bushman, On the Road, pp. 3, 8, the author describes the events around his selection of a title, but says nothing about his rationale for its selection.
101. During a fireside that Bushman gave following the appearance of the biography, he was asked: “Would Joseph Smith be embarrassed that we would try to polish this rough stone?” Bushman answered: “He grew up in a rough culture with deep passions. He was penitent because he wanted unity above all. His love was so great that they [i.e., the Saints] loved him” (R. L. Bushman, Salt Lake Ensign Stake Fireside (26 February 2006). Personal notes of Jeffrey M. Bradshaw. See the reference to this fireside in R. L. Bushman, On the Road, p. 107).
102. W. K. MacNulty, Freemasonry, p. 160.
103. Cf. Deuteronomy 27:6; Joshua 8:31.
104. Daniel 2:45, emphasis added. B. L. McGuire, 7 March 2016 notes that in Joseph Smith’s day, this stone was commonly understood by members and non-members alike to be the Church of Christ, which would roll down the mountain and eventually destroy the kingdoms of the earth that were represented as the components of a statue within Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (E. Smith, Discourse Delivered at Jefferson Hall, p. 27):
     

     This kingdom, set up more than seventeen hundred years ago, has been dreaded by kings ever since, and while they have seen it rolling down from the mountain, they have feared lest it should roll on them. This stone has been rolling nearer and nearer to the image, but it never struck it, till the year one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five. In that year, this stone struck one of the great toes of the image, which was the British kingdom; this kingdom, and France, were the two great toes of the image.

     First Presidency counselor Heber C. Kimball used similar imagery in 1860 (H. C. Kimball, 1 January 1860, p. 347):

     Though the kingdom that was to be set up in the last days, according to the Prophet Daniel, was compared by him to a stone that was cut out of the mountain without hands, we cannot suppose that temples can be built without hands. The Prophet had reference, no doubt, in this comparison to a block of rock detached by an invisible power from a mountain side, which commenced in its rough and unpolished state to roll down to the plains beneath.

     In contrast to the more common idea expressed by Elias Smith and President Heber C. Kimball, it appears that Joseph Smith did not intend to equate the idea of Daniel’s “stone … cut out without hands” (Daniel 2:34; D&C 65:2) with the imagery of a rough stone rolling down a mountain, as one might naturally suppose. In an 1838 entry in the Journal of Henry W. Bigler, the Prophet gave the following portrait of the stone described in chapter 2 of Daniel (R. N. Moon, Lost Sermon):

     The first Sunday I was in Far West I went to [a] meeting held in an unfurnished frame building hoping to hear the Prophet preach but how disappointed I was when he called a beardless boy to the stand to preach — but I soon found there was preach in him. He took a text in the second chapter of Daniel and when he concluded the Prophet got up and complemented the young Elder but said the Prophet, “I will correct the idea in regard to the little stone rolling forward — that is not so, it is stationary like a grindstone. And like a grindstone it revolves (Joseph made a circular motion with his hands) and said that when the Elders went abroad preaching the gospel and people believed and obeyed the gospel and became believers in the Book of Mormon, they were added to the little stone–thus they gathered around it so that it grew larger and larger until it had already began to pinch the toes of the image — and it [the stone] would finally break it [the image] in pieces and be carried away like the chaff of the summer thrashing floor while the stone kep[t] growing until it filled the whole earth [cf. D&C 109:72: “… that the kingdom, which thou hast set up without hands, may become a great mountain and fill the whole earth.”)

105. Mark 14:58, emphasis added.
106. President Heber C. Kimball, a lifelong Freemason, asked this question rhetorically when comparing Joseph Smith, who was polished as he rolled down the mountain side, to men who began as polished stones and would only become “marred and bruised” as they rolled (H. C. Kimball, 1 January 1860, p. 348). However, this question is answered by the logic of 1 Kings 6:7.
107. 1 Kings 6:7. Thanks to Ben McGuire for this suggestion.
108. J. Smith, Jr., Words. This statement appears only in the online version of the book.
109. 1 Nephi 14:30; Mosiah 1:8; Alma 13:31; Helaman 5:13; 3 Nephi 7:17; Ether 15:33.
110. J. Smith, Jr., Words, 21 May 1843, Martha Jane Knowlton Coray Notebook, p. 206.
111. As recorded in Joseph Smith’s Journal by Elder Willard Richards, J. Smith, Jr. et al., Journals, 1843–1844, 21 May 1843, p. 20, spelling modernized.
112. J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 2 July 1839, p. 158.
113. J. Smith, Jr., Words, 21 May 1843, p. 209.
114. See M. L. Bowen, Founded Upon a Rock, pp. 22–24.
115. Ether 3:20.
116. Ecclesiastes 7:6: “For as the crackling of thorns under a pot, so is the laughter of the fool: this also is vanity.” Thus, Joseph Smith is comparing the opinions of men to the “laughter of the fool.”
117. W. Woodruff, Woodruff, 10 March 1844, 1:364. Cf. J. Smith, Jr., Words, 10 March 1844, p. 331. For the expanded version prepared later by church historians, see J. Smith, Jr., Documentary History, 10 March 1844, 6:253 J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 10 March 1844, p. 339.
118. Ecclesiastes 7:6.
119. According to B. L. McGuire, 7 March 2016: “it seems very likely that [church historians] used a printed source [for the wording of this anecdote]. The wording is too close to any number of highly similar accounts.”
120. With permission. Image References: BathAbbey-9Oct2004.jpg; BathAbbeyDetail-9Oct2004.JPG.
121. 2 Corinthians 12:2.
122. Genesis 28:12.
123. 1 Corinthians 15:40-41. Cf. D&C 76:81; D&C 88:21.
124. 2 Corinthians 12:1–4. Cf. 3 Nephi 28:13–14; D&C 76:115.
125. Jacob 3:13; Words of Mormon 1:5; Helaman 3:14; 3 Nephi 5:8; 26:6; Ether 15:33.
126. D&C 76:1–119. Cf. D&C 137:1–10.
127. Alma 16:16; D&C 132:3; D&C 136:31.
128. 1 Nephi 8:37.
129. D&C 111:11; 121:33; 128:19.
130. John 16:12; 3 Nephi 17:2; D&C 19:22; 50:40; 78:18.
131. D&C 35:21; 86:3; 101:53.
132. Isaiah 10:3; 1 Peter 2:12; D&C 124:10.
133. Genesis 9:13; Ezekiel 1:28.
134. Matthew 24:36–38; D&C 51:20; 87:8.
135. J. Smith, Jr., Words, 21 May 1843, Martha Jane Knowlton Coray Notebook, p. 207.
136. Ibid., William Clayton Diary, 17 May 1843, p. 202. Cf. J. Smith, Jr., Documentary History, 17 May 1843, 5:392; J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 17 May 1843, p. 301.
137. J. Smith, Jr. et al., Journals, 1843–1844, 11 June 1843, p. 33.
138. Ibid., 10 March 1844, p. 200. Cf. J. Smith, Jr., Words, 10 March 1844, p. 335. For an expanded version of this statement prepared later by church historians, see J. Smith, Jr., Documentary History, 10 March 1844, 6:254; J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 10 March 1844, p. 340–341.
139. J. Smith, Jr. et al., Journals, 1843–1844, p. 21 n. 69.
140. J. Smith, Jr., Words, p. 283 n. 9.
141. Edwards’ comparison of the rainbow to Jacob’s ladder was made in the following context (J. Edwards et al., Works 2, pp. 697–698):
     

     Psalm 122:3: “Jerusalem is builded as a city compact together.” Part of this bow is on earth, and part in heaven, so it is with the church. The bow gradually rises higher and higher from the earth towards heaven, so the saints from their first conversion are travelling in the way towards heaven, and gradually climb the hill, till they arrive at the top. So this bow in this respect is a like token of the covenant with Jacob’s ladder, which represented the way to heaven by the covenant of grace, in which the saints go from step to step, and from strength to strength, till they arrive at the heavenly Zion; so in this bow the ascent is gradual towards the top in the way to heaven; the beginning of the ascent is sharpest and most difficult; the higher you ascend the easier the ascent becomes. On earth this bow is divided, the parts of it that are here below are at a distance from one another, but in heaven it is united, and perfectly joined together. So different parts of the church on earth may be divided, separated as to distance of place, have no acquaintance one part with another, and separated in manner of worship and many opinions, and separate in affection, but will be perfectly united in heaven. The parts of the rainbow, the higher you ascend, the nearer and nearer do they come together; so the more eminent saints are in knowledge and holiness, the nearer they are to a union in opinion and affection; but perfect union is not to be expected but in heaven.

142. B. L. McGuire, 7 March 2016.
143. E.g., J. Smith, Jr., Words, 21 January 1844, p. 319: “But their has been a great difficulty in getting anything into the heads of this generation it has been like splitting hemlock knots with a Corn doger for a wedge & a pumpkin for a beetle, Even the Saints are slow to understand I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God, but we frequently see some of them after suffering all they have for the work of God will fly to peaces like glass as soon as any thing Comes that is Contrary to their traditions, they Cannot stand the fire at all.” Cf. the polished versions of this statement in J. Smith, Jr., Documentary History, 21 January 1844, 6:184–185; J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 21 January 1844, p. 331.
144. Jacob 3:13; Words of Mormon 1:5; Helaman 3:14; 3 Nephi 5:8; 26:6; Ether 15:33.
145. J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 21 May 1843, p. 305.
146. D&C 47:4.
147. See D. C. Jessee, Reliability, p. 41.
148. J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, August 1832, pp. 12–13; J. Smith, Jr., Words, 7 April 1844, p. 350. See also the church historians’ polished version of the 7 April 1844 references in J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 7 April 1844, pp. 346–347, 348.
149. H. W. Nibley, What, p. 369. On the topic of Freemasonry and the origins of modern temple ordinances, see, more generally, J. M. Bradshaw, Freemasonry.
150. A. G. Mackey et al., Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, s.v., Jacob’s Ladder, p. 361. Elsewhere, Mackey elaborates on the symbolism of the ladder as found in the Tracing Board of the First Degree (A. G. Mackey, Symbolism of Freemasonry, chapter XVI–The Covering of the Lodge): “This mystic ladder, which connects the ground floor of the lodge with its roof or covering, is another important and interesting link, which binds, with one common chain, the symbolism and ceremonies of Freemasonry, and the symbolism and rites of the ancient initiations.” G. Oliver, Freemason’s Treasury, p. 197 elaborates as follows:
     

     On the volume of the sacred Law rests a ladder, which reminds us of the vision of Jacob at Luz, on his journey into Padanaram to avoid the wrath of his brother, when he received the promise of a blessing on himself and his posterity; by the assistance of which, we, as Masons, hope to attain to the holy covering of our Lodge; which is sometimes denominated “a cloudy canopy,” at others, “a celestial canopy of divers colours,” or “ a starry-decked heaven where all good Masons hope to dwell.” Hence the charge appended to the fourth section of the E. A. P. Lecture: “May every Brother Mason arrive at the summit of his profession, where the just will be sure to meet with their due reward.” It is depicted on our tracing board as a triad, consisting of Sun — Moon — Seven Stars, and connected with the earth by means of the above-mentioned ladder, containing a triad of steps, and resting on the Holy Bible.

     Speaking specifically of the theological virtue of charity, Mackey continues:

     Charity … takes the same place in the ladder of masonic virtues as the sun does in the ladder of planets. In the ladder of metals we find gold, and in that of colors yellow, occupying the same elevated position. Now, St. Paul explains Charity as signifying, not alms-giving, which is the modern popular meaning, but love — that love which “suffereth long and is kind” [1 Corinthians 13:4]; and when, in our lectures on this subject, we speak of it as the greatest of virtues, because, when Faith is lost and Hope has ceased, it extends “beyond the grave to realms of endless bliss,” we there refer it to the Divine Love of our Creator. But Portal, in his Essay on Symbolic Colors, informs us that the sun represents Divine Love, and gold indicates the goodness of God.
     So that if Charity is equivalent to Divine Love, and Divine Love is represented by the sun, and lastly, if Charity be the topmost round of the masonic ladder, then again we arrive, as the result of our researches, at the symbol so often already repeated of the solar orb. The natural sun or the spiritual sun — the sun, either as the vivifying principle of animated nature, and therefore the special object of adoration, or as the most prominent instrument of the Creator’s benevolence — was ever a leading idea in the symbolism of antiquity.

151. W. K. MacNulty, Freemasonry, p. 160 gives the following description:
     

     In both the Macrocosm and the Microcosm there are four levels. The lowest of these is the physical world, symbolized in the Macrocosm by the Chequered Pavement and in the Microcosm by the theological virtue Faith. The second level up is that of the psyche which is represented in Macrocosm by the central area of the board with most of the symbols, and in the Microcosm by the theological virtue Hope. The third level up is the Spirit, represented by the Heavens and by the theological virtue Charity. The fourth level is Divinity. It is represented in the Heavens by the Star that contains the “All-Seeing Eye” of the Deity; and It, the Source of all things, is the fourth level and the Source of both the Macrocosm and the Microcosm.

     With respect to the “Mystic Ladder of the 30th Degree, Knight Kadosh or Knight of the Black and White Eagle,” Hutchens writes (R. R. Hutchens, Bridge to Light, pp. 284, 286–287):

     The most elaborate symbol in this degree is the Mystic Ladder. On one side the rungs represent the seven liberal arts and sciences of the ancients — grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy. …
     Corresponding to the rounds representing the seven Liberal Arts and Sciences, the Mystic Ladder has seven rounds of a more esoteric or mystical significance. Pike approximately corresponds some of them to pars of the Sephirothic Tree of Life from the Kabbalah. The first round represents the Fourth Sephira, Justice; the second, the Fifth Sephira, Benignity; the fifth round, the Seventh and Eight Sephiroth, Victory and Glory; the seventh, the Third Sephira, Intelligence or Understanding. The other round represent the Masonic virtues of Faith, Kindliness, and Patience. The esoteric significance must remain as part of our ritual, confided only to faithful breasts.
     On the other side are the Four Cardinal Virtues (Fortitude, Prudence, Temperance and Justice) surmounted by the three Theological Virtues (Faith, Hope and Charity). Connects the ground floor of the Lodge (representing the world) to its roof or covering (representing the heavens).

152. See J. M. Bradshaw, Freemasonry, p. 181. As Lindquist puts it (J. H. Lindquist, Keywords, p. 36):
     

     [Joseph] Smith regularly found ways to make productive and pedagogic use of the Saints’ “traditions” by harnessing words and concepts already available to his listeners and then gradually modifying them in an effort to better explain complex and original — even radical — doctrines. If the Prophet was correct in the Saints’ tendency to “fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes tht is contrary to their traditions” (J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 20 January 1844, p. 331), then introducing the endowment ceremony in wholly unfamiliar terms would have been extremely difficult. [For example, t]he deployment of “key” [in discussing] the temple was one strategy that allowed the Saints to understand the endowment as both an extrapolation of already familiar doctrines and the expression of new truths in a new way.

153. See, e.g., A. Nozedar, Secret Signs and Symbols, s.v., ladder, p. 116: “A rainbow also serves as a ladder, or bridge, between the celestial realms and the ones below.” Cf. Ibid., s.v. rainbow, p. 249.
154. This fact is known with certainty because the Coray Notebook was not acquired by the Church until sometime after 10 July 1902 (J. Smith, Jr., Words, p. 419 n. 2).
155. In the Coray Notebook, the material about Paul’s visit to the third heaven occurs near the end of the record of the discourse, between these two statements: “There are some things in my own bosom that must remain there” and “There are only certain things that can be done by the Spirits and that which is done by us that is not done with a view to eternity is not binding in eternity” (ibid., 21 May 1843, p. 207). In the notes of Elder Richards, the equivalent of these two statements occurs in the same order (i.e., “I shall keep in my own bosom. we have no claim in our eternal compact. In relation to Eternal thi[n]gs [p. [216]] unless our actions. & contracts & all thi[n]gs tend to this end. —”), however Elder Richards appears not to have recorded the statement between them that appears in the Coray Notebook concerning Paul’s visit to the third heaven.
156. The Coray Notebook mentions Paul’s visit to the third heaven, but does not say anything about Jacob’s Ladder nor about Joseph Smith’s limitations in being able to explain the Vision (i.e., D&C 76). D&C 76 outlined details of the three degrees of glory in the telestial, terrestrial, and celestial kingdoms.
157. J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 21 May 1843, p. 305. For more detailed discussion of this topic, see J. M. Bradshaw, Faith, Hope, and Charity.
158. Jude 1:3.
159. 2 Peter 1:1.
160. 2 Peter 1:5–8. Cf. D&C 107:31.
161. 2 Peter 1:10.
162. See 2 Peter 1:5.
163. See 2 Peter 1:10.
164. 2 Peter 1:3.
165. 2 Peter 1:3; D&C 80:5.
166. 2 Peter 1:3.
167. J. Smith, Jr., Words, 21 May 1843, Martha Jane Knowlton Coray Notebook, pp. 206–207.
168. J. Starr, Partakers, p. 81.
169. N. Russell, Deification, p. 151.
170. J. M. Bradshaw, Temple Themes in the Oath, pp. 21–23. See also B. C. Hafen et al., Contrite Spirit, pp. 222–223.
171. S. Sandmel et al., New English Bible, 2 Peter 1:4, p. 299. See also J. H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, pp. 159–160.
172. J. N. Sparks et al., Orthodox Study Bible, p. 1692.
173. J. Vajda, Partakers.
174. D&C 107:3; 2 Peter 1:8.
175. 2 Peter 1:5.
176. Elder Bruce R. McConkie also saw “an additive order to the attaining of these attributes” (J. F. McConkie et al., Revelations, p. 68).
177. H. A. Fischel, Uses of Sorites. An earlier, Israelite form of sorites was used, e.g., in Joel 1:3; Genesis 36:31–43; 1 Chronicles 1 and 2. Matthew 1:1–17 and M. Lieber, Pirkei Avos, 1:1, pp. 6–11 are famous examples of the classic form of sorites in use during the Hellenistic period as applied to lists of genealogy and transmission of authority. As to the use of ethical or ethico-metaphysical sorites similar to Romans 5:3–5 and 2 Peter 1:5–7 in Jewish and Roman literature, see, e.g., H. Marks et al., English Bible, Wisdom 6:17-20, 2:739; J. Neusner, Mishnah, Sotah, 9:15:III:MM, p. 466; L. A. t. y. c. B.–C. Seneca, Epistuale Morales 2, 85:2, pp. 286–287; M. T.–B. Cicero, De Legibus, 1:7:22–23, pp. 320–323. For an example of sorites in modern revelation, see D&C 84:6–17. Sorites arguments have been studied extensively by philosophers since the late nineteenth century because of logical paradoxes that can arise in some formulations (D. Hyde, Sorites Paradox).
178. H. W. Attridge et al., HarperCollins Study Bible, p. 2068 n. 1:5–7.
179. J. H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, p. 155. I have substituted the kjv terms for these virtues where they differ from Neyrey’s list. I have also corrected the ordering of these lists where it differed from scripture.
180. Matthew Bowen observes that the Hebrew word for hope (tiqvah), often equated with “patience” in the New Testament, comes from a root that means to “wait” (M. L. Bowen, 7 March 2016). He suggests that this may reflect the process of approaching the veil and being prepared in all things into enter the presence of the Lord (cf. D&C 136:31). Romans 5:3–4 defines hope as the result of “patience/endurance” (= steadfastness; Greek hupomene) and “experience” (= character, proof, testing; Greek dokime), developed in tribulation. See also 1 Thessalonians 1:3; 2 Thessalonians 1:4; 2 Timothy 3:10; Titus 2:2; Hebrews 6:12; 2 Peter 1:6; Revelation 2:19; Alma 7:23; D&C 4:6; 6:19; 107:30 where patience either complements or replaces “hope” in the list. Elsewhere in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon, the similar quality of “longsuffering” (Greek makrothymia) is mentioned, often in conjunction with patience. Cf. Ephesians 4:2; 1 Corinthians 13:4; 2 Corinthians 6:6; Galatians 5:22; Ephesians 4:2; Colossians 1:11; 3:12; 2 Timothy 3:10; Alma 7:23; 13:28; 17:11; 38:3; Moroni 7:45; D&C 107:30; 118:3; 121:41.
181. Neyrey points out that 2 Peter 1:5–7, unlike Romans 5:1–5, supplements the group-specific qualities of faith, hope, and charity with more properly Greco-Roman virtues. He compares the combination of vertically and horizontally oriented virtues within the list to the division in the Ten Commandments between the laws that govern relationship with God and fellow man. Moreover, citing Philo, Special Laws, 2:211–213, pp. 438-441, he sees the numerical count of eight virtues as “suggesting a certain wholeness or completeness. … All of the specifically Christian virtues are joined with the more popular ones to suggest a completeness of moral response. … Wholeness, moreover, is found in attention to virtues in regard to body (self-control) and spirit, as well as thought and action. In this wholeness, then, holiness is urged, a completeness of moral excellence to all” (see J. H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, pp. 154–155).
182. J. E. Faulconer, Life of Holiness, p. 209. Cf. 1 John 3:2; D&C 38:8; 50:45; 76:94; 93:1. Faulconer continues: “Since the word ‘glory’ can also be taken to mean ‘perfection,’ as in Romans 3:23, Jesus Christ has brought us into a place where we can rejoice in a hope that we will see the perfection of the Father in its brightness and majesty. We will see the Father in the Son, and we will see Him by being in His presence.”
183. Matthew 7:7. Just as the verse in the 1833 Book of Commandments corresponding to D&C 4:6 originally contained a truncated version of the list of virtues from 2 Peter 1:5–7 (J. Smith, Jr. et al., Published Revelations, Book of Commandments 3:2, p. 21 (p. 9)), so D&C 4:7 contains a truncated version of Matthew 7:7 (cf. Luke 11:9; 3 Nephi 14:7; 3 Nephi 27:29).
184. Matthew Bowen comments (M. L. Bowen, Thy Will Be Done, p. 243):
     

     The Greek verbs meaning “ask” and “seek” correspond to the Hebrew verbs sh’l and bqsh, which were used to describe “asking for” or “seeking” a divine revelation, often in a temple setting. [Tvedtnes] detects a further temple echo in “knock” (J. A. Tvedtnes, Temple Prayer, p. 90), which should resonate with Latter-day Saints. The two divine passive reward clauses “it shall be given you” and “it shall be opened to you” also may suggest a temple situation with Jesus as “keeper of the gate” (2 Nephi 9:41–42. See J. Gee, Keeper).
     These suppositions are supported by Nephi’s assertion, “If ye cannot understand, … it will be because ye ask not, neither do ye knock; wherefore, ye are not brought into the light, but must perish in the dark” (2 Nephi 32:4, emphasis added). A person’s being “brought into” a place seems to imply the presence of a keeper-of-the-gate figure or paralemptor, as when Jesus promised the disciples, “I will come and receive [paralempsomai] you to myself” (John 14:3). The “light” would then be that part of the temple where God’s full presence shines as represented by the Holy of Holies. … Granted, there are additional senses in which one might understand this reward clause. However, if the temple is the locus par excellence of inquiring, asking, and seeking revelation from the Lord (see Psalm 27:4), then the divine passive to be “brought into the light” probably connotes being brought into the light of the Lord’s countenance (see Numbers 6:24–27), a full reception of the blessings of the Atonement or the royal “adoption” (Romans 8:15–23), the greatest possible “revelation.”

     Regarding “revelation,” Bowen continues (M. L. Bowen, Thy Will Be Done, p. 248 n. 41):

     The word “revelation” from Latin revelatio originally connoted “a taking away of the veil” (compare Greek apokalyptein, “uncover”). This idea is depicted in 2 Corinthians 3:14–18, where Paul connects “liberty” (Greek eleutheria; Greek aphesis, “release”) to revelation and beholding the Lord’s glory with “open face” and being transformed into His glory (see 2 Corinthians 3:15–19). We note again Paul’s declaration that creation anxiously awaits the “revelation [apokalypsin] of the sons of God” and being “delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty [eleutherian] of the children of God” (Romans 8:19, 21).”

185. J. W. Welch, Sermon, p. 72.
186. See, e.g., 1 Corinthians 13:12; D&C 93:1. Cf. J. A. Widtsoe, Work, p. 33. Also cited in A. K. Parrish, Widtsoe, pp. 307–308.
187. See J. M. Bradshaw, He That Thrusteth in His Sickle for the temple themes woven throughout D&C 4 and a brief history of the evolution of the list of virtues in that revelation.
188. J. W. Welch, Counting to Ten, p. 57.
189. E. J. Bickerman, Jews in the Greek Age, p. 134. Cf. D. W. Parry, Demarcation, pp. 413–414.
190. F. I. Andersen, 2 Enoch, 1:110–161, p. 140.
191. In an unpublished manuscript, Samuel Zinner has shown that in several ancient Christian writings, what later surfaced as the Jewish Sefirot appear as Christian virtues (S. Zinner, The Kabbalistic Sefirot: Overlooked prototypes in first- and second- century Christian literature).
192. I discuss the relationship between faith, hope, and charity and the temple ordinances in greater detail in J. M. Bradshaw, Faith, Hope, and Charity.
193. J. Smith, Jr. et al., Journals, 1843–1844, p. 21 n. 72.
194. Numbers 10:9; Deuteronomy 20:4; 1 Samuel 4:3; Psalm 3:7, 106:10; Luke 1:71.
195. Romans 6:9; 1 Corinthians 15:54–57; Hebrews 2:8; Mosiah 15:20; D&C 7:2; 50:35.
196. D&C 84:19–22; 128:11, 14; 131:5–6.
197. J. Smith, Jr., Words, 21 May 1843, Martha Jane Knowlton Coray Notebook, p. 207.
198. Psalm 110:2; Matthew 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42–43; Acts 2:34–35; Hebrews 1:13; 10:12–13.
199. J. Smith, Jr., Words, 17 May 1843, p. 202.
200. 2 Peter 1:19.
201. Cf. D&C 131:5–6.
202. J. Smith, Jr., Words, Wilford Woodruff Journal, 7 April 1844, p. 346, spelling modernized. Cf. J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 7 April 1844, p. 354.
203. 203
     J. Smith, Jr., Words, Wilford Woodruff Journal, 14 May 1843, p. 200, spelling modernized. Cf. J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 14 May 1843, p. 297; D&C 130:18–19.
204. J. Smith, Jr., Words, 14 May 1843, p. 200, spelling and punctuation standardized.
205. D&C 84:19. See D. A. Bednar, Power to Become, pp. 75–78.
206. John 17:3. Cf. D&C 132:23–24.
207. J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 14 May 1843, p. 297. The original in Wilford Woodruff’s Journal reads: “the Principle can be comprehended” (J. Smith, Jr., Words, Wilford Woodruff Journal, 14 May 1843, p. 200).
208. J. Smith, Jr., Words, Wilford Woodruff Journal, 14 May 1843, p. 200, spelling modernized. Ibid., 14 May 1843, p. 297. On 13 August 1843, echoing the Savior’s words in John 17:3, he exhorted his hearers: “Ebe sealed by the servants of God. Eternal life is to know the only true God and his son Jesus without which there is no salvation” (J. Smith, Jr., Words, Howard and Martha Coray Notebook 13 August 1843, p. 241).Elsewhere, the Prophet taught that this knowledge can only be obtained in the heavenly equivalent of the earthly Holy of Holies (J. Smith, Jr., Documentary History, 1 May 1842, 4:608). Elder Bruce R. McConkie elaborates (B. R. McConkie, New Witness, p. 492):
     

     What greater personal revelation could anyone receive than to see the face of his Maker? … And is it an unseemly or unrighteous desire on man’s part to hope and live and pray, all in such a way as to qualify for so great a manifestation? There is a true doctrine on these points, a doctrine that is spelled out as specifically and extensively in the revealed word as are any of the other great revealed truths. There is no need for uncertainty or misunderstanding and surely, if the Lord reveals a doctrine, we should seek to learn its principles and strive to apply them in our lives. This doctrine is that mortal man, while in the flesh, has it in his power to see the Lord, to stand in His presence, to feel the nail marks in His hands and feet, and to receive from Him such blessings as are reserved for those only who keep all His commandments and who are qualified for that eternal life which includes being in His presence forever.

209. See Jude 1:6; Abraham 3:26–28.
210. Alma 34:34.
211. Jude 1:6; Abraham 3:26, 28.
212. Genesis 3:14–15; Moses 4:20–21.
213. Alma 40:13.
214. Matthew 9:33; Mark 7:26–30.
215. J. Smith, Jr., Words, 21 May 1843, Martha Jane Knowlton Coray Notebook, p. 207.
216. Luke 20:35; Hebrews 11:35; Jacob 4:11.
217. Daniel 7:14; 1 Peter 5:11; Jude 1:25; Revelation 1:6; 1 Nephi 22:24; Alma 5:50; 12:15; D&C 76:91, 114, 119; 109:77.
218. 1 Corinthians 9:25.
219. Job 1:6.
220. Job 1:7.
221. Genesis 3:14–15; Moses 4:20–21.
222. Alma 40:13.
223. Matthew 9:33; Mark 7:26–30.
224. J. Smith, Jr., Words, 21 May 1843, Martha Jane Knowlton Coray Notebook, p. 207, spelling and punctuation modernized.
225. Ibid., 5 January 1841, William Clayton’s Private Book, p. 60. Cf. J. Smith Jr., Teachings, 5 January 1841, p. 181. The Prophet continues: “He is pleased when he can obtain the tabernacle of man and when cast out by the Savior he asked to go into the herd of swine showing that he would prefer a swine’s body to having none.”
226. K. M. Van de Graaff, Body, p. 1080.
227. M. B. Brown, Plan, p. 33.
228. J. Smith, Jr., Words, 5 January 1841, William Clayton’s Private Book, p. 60. In the case of the exercise of this power by the righteous, Madsen clarifies that this is not “a dominating, exploiting, enslaving power. ‘Power over’ means more advanced, more Christ-like” (T. G. Madsen, LDS View, p. 101).
229. J. Smith, Jr., Words, 21 May 1843, Franklin D. Richards “Scriptural Items,” p. 208, spelling and punctuation modernized.
230. Ibid., 19 January 1841, McIntire Minute Book, p. 62, spelling and punctuation modernized. Cf. 2 Nephi 9:8–9. See additional quotations in M. B. Brown, Plan, p. 47n.. See also Alma 34:35 regarding the fate of the wicked in the resurrection.
231. For more on this subject, see J. M. Bradshaw et al., Mormonism’s Satan.
232. 2 Corinthians 12:2.
233. Genesis 28:12.
234. 1 Corinthians 15:40–41. Cf. D&C 76:81; D&C 88:21.
235. 2 Corinthians 12:1–4. Cf. 3 Nephi 28:13–14; D&C 76:115.
236. Jacob 3:13; Words of Mormon 1:5; Helaman 3:14; 3 Nephi 5:8; 26:6; Ether 15:33.
237. D&C 76:1–119. Cf. D&C 137:1–10.
238. Alma 16:16; D&C 132:3; D&C 136:31.
239. J. Smith, Jr., Words, 21 May 1843, Martha Jane Knowlton Coray Notebook, p. 207.
240. Ibid., 27 August 1843, James Burgess Notebook, p. 247. Ehat and Cook comment (ibid., pp. 307–308 n. 43):
     

     Given that the Prophet would have answered the question similarly in May, this is remarkable confirmation of the then-unwritten revelation on eternal marriage. When it was written seven and a half weeks later (12 July 1843), this revelation asserted that if couples were sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise through the authority of the sealing power of the priesthood and later were given the promise that they would come forth in the first resurrection, and if they should continue without committing the unpardonable sin, “Then shall they be gods … because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them” (D&C 132:19–20).

241. For brief, accessible overviews of doctrines and historical practices in the Church relating to plural marriage, see these Gospel Topics essays posted on the official Church Web site: Plural Marriage; Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo; Plural Marriage in Early Utah; Manifesto. For many in our culture, the “emotional and priestly logic” of faithful practitioners of plural marriage is difficult to understand, particularly in light of the “romantic logic” that prevails in modern society. This topic is insightfully addressed in K. Flake, Emotional and Priestly Logic.
242. A. F. Ehat, Ordinances, pp. 53–54, 56–57, 71–72.
243. For a description of and history of the Quorum, see ibid., passim. For a brief summary, see J. Smith, Jr. et al., Journals, 1843–1844, pp. xx–xxi.
244. Levi Richards, Diary, 14 May 1843, Church Archives, cited in A. F. Ehat, Ordinances, p. 261 n. 159. Ehat continues: “William Law also used Jacob 2 in his campaign against the Prophet’s teachings on plural marriage (see A. F. Ehat, They Might Have Known, p. 154). George A. Smith observed that when Joseph Smith was confronted with this passage from the Book of Mormon, the Prophet would cite the passage in that chapter that said, “For if it will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people. … (Jacob 2:30), and follow this by saying, “God has commanded us” (George A. Smith to Joseph Smith III, 9 October 1869, Historian’s Office Letterpress Copybooks, Church Archives).”
245. Levi Richards, Diary, 14 May 1843, Church Archives, cited in A. F. Ehat, Ordinances, p. 261 n. 60.
246. Ibid., p. 262 n. 165 writes:
     

     Entries for 7, 9 February 1843; 27 April 1843; 12, 17 July 1843; and 18 August 1843 confirm that Clayton’s references to “priesthood” were his innocuous but fairly transparent synonym for “plural marriage.” The 23 May entry shows that while Hyrum was a member of the “Quorum,” he was not a member of the “secret priesthood.” Moreover, William Clayton, who had been an initiate to the “secret priesthood” for three months, would not become a member of the “Quorum” until February 1844. These two facts show, therefore, that Clayton was referring to plural marriage when he mentioned “priesthood” in these contexts.

247. W. Clayton, Diaries, 23 May 1843.
248. According to B. C. Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, 2:1: “Between February and July 1843, Joseph Smith was sealed to perhaps fourteen additional plural wives.”
249. The anguish of Joseph Smith on this subject was still being felt during the spring of 1844 in the midst of attempts by apostates to murder him. D. L. Harris, Verbal Statement, pp. 5–6 remembered him as saying:
     

     They accuse me of polygamy, and of being a false prophet … but, said he, I am no false prophet, I am no impostor; I have had no dark revelations, I have had no revelations from the devil. I have made no revelations; I have not got anything up myself. The same God that has thus far dictated and directed me, and inspired me and strengthened me in this work, gave me this revelation and commandment on Celestial and Plural marriage; and the same God commanded me to obey it. He said to me that unless I accept it and introduce it and practice it, I together with my people should be damned and cut off from this time henceforth. And they say if I do so and so they will kill me. What shall I do! What shall I do! If I do not practice it I shall be damned with all my people; if I do teach it and practice it and urge it, they say they will kill me, and I know they will. But said he, we have got to observe it, that it was an eternal principle, and that it was given to him by way of commandment and not by way of instruction.

     For more on the historical background of this statement as well as his eyewitness account of Joseph Smith’s transmission of apostolic keys to the Twelve in March 1844, see J. M. Bradshaw, “There’s the Boy.”
     According to Richard S. Law, son of William Law who led the effort against the Prophet’s life, his father “with his arms around the neck of the Prophet, was pleading with him to withdraw the doctrine, of plural marriage.…. [William] pleaded for this with Joseph with tears streaming from his eyes. The prophet was also in tears, but he informed [William] that he could not withdraw the doctrine, for God had commanded him to teach it, and condemnation would come upon him if he was not obedient to the commandment” (L. W. Cook, Law, pp. 27–28, original source in “An Interesting Testimony,” The Improvement Era, May 1903, pp. 507–510). According to A. F. Ehat, Ordinances, pp. 73–73:

     Even after Hyrum switched loyalties, Law and Marks did not come out in public rebellion. They were tacitly allegiant to Joseph. In fact, Marks accepted and received with his wife, Rosannah, the ordinances of eternal marriage. Moreover, Law for five months seriously considered entering the practice of plural marriage and wished to be sealed to his wife Jane in eternal marriage. Finally, in late 1843, Marks and Law renounced their support of the prophet and pushed for the abandonment of plural marriage. So if on 26 May 1843 Joseph’s trials were now over from his brother, they only that day seemed to be beginning with Law and Marks. As William Clayton had been reminded by Newel K. Whitney in 1844 shortly after the Martyrdom, it was William Law, William Marks and Emma Smith who were opposed to Joseph and the Quorum over such subjects. But during the Prophet’s lifetime, William Law was the only one to come out in open rebellion.
     According to two separate sources, the beginning of this significant rupture in the Quorum began when Joseph Smith told William Law that he and Jane could not be sealed. Joseph apparently told Law this during or shortly after the 26 May 1843 Quorum meeting; for Law was not present at the 28 or 29 May meetings though he and Jane were in the city. Apparently Joseph never told William (and certainly not Jane) why God “forbid” him to administer these blessings to the couple. Perhaps Joseph originally did not seal the couple because he was testing them on plural marriage — a test Law ultimately failed. However, after Law was excommunicated in April 1844, Joseph explained that he refused to seal the couple because God revealed to him that “Law was adulterous.” Although left without explanation, William continued to attend Quorum meetings; and Jane (beginning in October 1843) attended all the meetings of the Quorum until William made his final decision on plural marriage.

     For a summary of arguments by William Marks and the RLDS Church that Joseph Smith intended to abandon the doctrine and practice of plural marriage in the months prior to his death, see B. C. Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, 2:247–261. Countering such arguments “is some limited evidence that the Prophet may have proposed to other women in the last seven months of his life and ample evidence that he taught the principle to others and encouraged them to live it” (ibid., 2:261).

250. B. Young, 7 October 1866.
251. J. Smith, Jr., Words, 21 May 1843, Martha Jane Knowlton Coray Notebook, p. 207.
252. Ibid., 21 May 1843, Franklin D. Richards “Scriptural Items,” p. 208.
253. Ibid., p. 283 n. 12.
254. According to Brigham Young (B. Young, 8 October 1866):
     

     Right north of the Masonic Hall in Nauvoo the ground was not fenced. This was in the year 1842. There were some rails laid along to fence up some lots. Hyrum saw me and said, “Brother Brigham, I want to talk to you.” We went together and sat upon the rails that were piled up. He commenced by saying, “I have a question to ask you. In the first place I say unto you that I do know that you and the Twelve know some things that I do not know. I can understand this by the motions and talk and doings of Joseph and I know there is something or other which I do not understand that is revealed to the Twelve. Is this so?” I replied, “I do not know anything about what you know, but I know what I know.” Then he said, “I have mistrusted for a long time that Joseph had received a revelation that a man should have more than one wife, and he has hinted as much to me, but I would not bear it.” We had heard him say hard things. I recollect in one council where Joseph undertook to teach the brethren and sisters, William Law was there and William and Hyrum and a few others were against Joseph. William Law made this expression: “If an angel from heaven was to reveal to me that a man should have more than one wife, and if it were in my power I would kill him.” That was pretty hard, but Joseph had to submit for it. The brethren were not prepared to receive the doctrine. Brother Kimball and others were in that council. Joseph had meetings in his house time after time and month after month, every Sunday evening. Joseph was worn out with it, but as to his denying any such thing, I never knew that he denied the doctrine of polygamy. Some have said that he did, but I do not believe he ever did. …
     I will now go back to where I met Hyrum. He said to me, “I am convinced that there is something that has not been told me.” I said to him, “Brother Hyrum, Joseph would tell you everything the Lord reveals to him if he could.” I must confess I felt a little sarcastic against Hyrum, although he was just as honest as an angel and as full of integrity as the Gods, but he had not that ability which Joseph possessed to see and understand men as they were. I took advantage of this and I said to him, “Brother Hyrum, I will tell you about this thing which you do not know if you will swear with an uplifted hand before God that you will never say another word against Joseph, and his doings’ and the doctrines he is preaching to the people.” He replied, “I will do it with all my heart,” and he stood upon his feet saying, “I want to know the truth and to be saved,” and he made a covenant there, never again to bring forward one argument or use any influence against Joseph’s doings. Joseph had many wives sealed to him. I told Hyrum the whole story and he bowed to it and wept like a child and said, “God be praised.” He went to Joseph and told him what he had learned and renewed his covenant with Joseph and they went heart and hand together while they lived, and they were together when they died, and they are together now, defending Israel.

255. For accounts of the conversion of Hyrum and Emma to the principle, see A. F. Ehat, Ordinances, pp. 56–71; B. C. Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, 2:33-61.
256. A. F. Ehat, Ordinances, p. 59.
257. B. C. Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, 2:48. On the date of 11 May 1843, see 2:49.
258. See the brief mention of Hyrum’s conversion in W. Clayton, Diaries, 26 May 1843: “Hyrum received the doctrine of priesthood.”
259. J. Smith, Jr. et al., Journals, 1843–1844, 26 May 1843, p. 23. According to A. F. Ehat, Ordinances, p. 61, “except for a few prayer circles held, the group had not met in a year” (see J. Smith, Jr., Documentary History, 5:44–46, 84, 250).
260. J. Smith, Jr. et al., Journals, 1843–1844, p. xxi n. 35, citing the Manuscript History of Brigham Young (B. Young, History 1801–1844, 26 May 1843, p. 79). All those present had, of course, been endowed previously.
261. J. Smith, Jr. et al., Journals, 1843–1844, 28 May 1843, pp. 24–25. James Adams was also sealed to his wife, Harriet Denton Adams. See ibid., p. 25 n. 88. Others were married for eternity the next day (ibid., 29 May 1843, p. 25 and n. 89).
262. See, e.g., W. Clayton, Diaries, 23 May 1843, 23 June 1843, 12 July 1843, 13 July 1843, 19 October 1843; J. B. Allen, No Toil, pp. 130–132; R. L. Bushman, Rough Stone, pp. 494–499; B. C. Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, 2:63–138. B. C. Hales et al., Joseph Smith’s Polygamy — Better Understanding, pp. 87–88 cite a recollection where Emma Smith herself describes her vacillation:
     

     Maria Jane Woodward, a domestic working in the Smith home, overheard an emotional conversation between Emma and Joseph regarding plural marriage. Knowing that Mary Jane had been listening, Emma approached her the next morning:

     She told me to sit down on the bed by her and we both sat down on the bed that I was making. She looked very sad and cast down, and there she said to me, “The principle of plural marriage is right, but I am like other women, I am naturally jealous hearted and I can talk back ot Joseph as long as any wife can talk back to her husband, but what I want to say to you is this. You heard me finding fault with the principle. I want to say that principle is right, it is from our Father in Heaven,” and then she again spoke of her jealousy.
     Then she continued, “What I have said I have got to repent of. The principle is right but I am jealous hearted. Now never tell anybody that you heard me find fault with Joseph or that principle. The principle is right and if I or you or anyone else finds fault with that principle we have got to humble ourselves and repent of it” (M. J. Woodward, Maria Jane Woodward statement, attached to letter from George H. Brimhall to Joseph F. Smith, April 21, 1902 (1: DVD 28). Original in the Church History Library, MS 1325).

263. D&C 124:28.
264. Wilford Woodruff, Historian’s Private Journal, 26 February 1867, See J. Smith, Jr. et al., Journals, 1843–1844, p. xxi.
265. Ibid., 28 September 1843, pp. 104–105. See also ibid., p. xxi and n. 36. According to W. Clayton, Diaries, 19 October 1843, the Prophet told William Clayton that “E[mma] was turned quite friendly and kind. She had been anointed and he also had been a[nointed] K[ing].” Glen M. Leonard provides the following description of this ordinance (G. M. Leonard, Nauvoo, pp. 260–261. See also R. K. Esplin, Succession, pp. 314–315; J. Smith, Jr., Words, 27 August 1843, pp. 244–247, and 303–307 nn.):
     

     At least twenty couples, including nine members of the Twelve who had served faithfully together in England, received another temple blessing prior to the Prophet’s death. All of the recipients had already received the ordinances of the endowment and marriage for time and eternity, or what Joseph Smith called Abraham’s patriarchal priesthood. The keys to this priesthood had been conferred upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland temple in 1836. They would now receive the crowning ordinance of the fulness of the Melchizedek Priesthood. “For any person to have a fulness of that priesthood, he must be a king and priest,” Brigham Young told an audience in Philadelphia on August 6. “A person may be anointed king and priest long before he receives his kingdom” (J. Smith, Jr., Documentary History, 6 August 1843, 5:527, from Wilford Woodruff’s Journal on that date). In a public sermon in Nauvoo three weeks later, Joseph Smith explained this sacred ordinance that he was about to bestow on a select few before the completion of the temple. It was, he said, a promise of kingly powers and of endless lives. It was the confirmation of promises that worthy men could become kings and priests and that women could become queens and priestesses in the eternal worlds. In its administrative aspects, he said, this leadership calling was “a perfect law of Theocracy holding keys of power and blessings … to give laws to the people” (J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 27 August 1843, p. 322. Cf. J. Smith, Jr. et al., Journals, 1843–1844, 27 August 1843, p. 86).

266. B. C. Hales et al., Joseph Smith’s Polygamy — Better Understanding, p. 87. See also B. C. Hales, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy, 2:114–115. For example, Bathsheba W. Smith, wife of apostle George A. Smith, stated (Affadavit, 19 November 1903, as reproduced in J. F. Smith, Jr., Blood Atonement, p. 87):
     

     Near the close of the year 1843, or in the beginning of the year 1844, I received the ordinance of anointing in a room in Sister Emma Smith’s house in Nauvoo, and the same day, in company with my husband, I received my endowment in the upper room over the Prophet Joseph Smith’s store. The endowments were given under the direction of the Prophet Joseph Smith, who afterwards gave us lectures or instructions in regard to the endowment ceremonies. There has been no change, to my certain knowledge, in these ceremonies. They are the same today as they were then. A short time after I received my anointing, I was sealed to my husband, George A. Smith, for time and eternity, by President Brigham Young, in the latter’s house, according to the plan taught, to my knowledge, by the Prophet Joseph Smith. When I was married in 1841, I was married for time, and not for eternity.

267. See J. M. Bradshaw, Temple Themes in the Oath, pp. 53–65.
268. J. Smith, Jr., Words, 21 May 1843, Martha Jane Knowlton Coray Notebook, pp. 207–208.
269. I.e., 2 Peter 1:19.
270. L. T. Dennis et al., ESV, p. 2419 n. 1:19.
271. Emphasis added. Likewise, summarizing the thrust of Peter’s arguments, Lee writes (S. S. Lee, Jesus’ Transfiguration, p. 143):
     

     I believe that [the] theological thinking of 2 Peter is almost equivalent to both the Markan discipleship of following Jesus in his suffering, death, and glorification (Mark 8:27–9:13) and Paul’s understanding of the believers’ continuous transformation into the image of Christ (2 Corinthians 3:18–4:6).

272. J. Smith, Jr., Teachings, 11 June 1843, p. 308.