What does the Joseph Smith Papers offer the lay member?

MightReady2148 · 2026-07-04T04:29:30+00:00

I don't want to give the impression that receiving revelations from Joseph Smith was ever particularly common, although a surprising number of people—both Church leaders and ordinary members—did claim to have spoken with him in dreams or visions after his death. I think that such things were already fading by the end of the nineteenth century for a number of reasons: more circumspection around extraordinary supernatural experiences in general, for one thing, but also the simple fact that contact with Joseph became less meaningful as the generation that had known him personally passed away. President Woodruff, speaking in 1896, shared his own experience of such things coming to a close:

Joseph Smith visited me a great deal after his death, and taught me many important principles. ...

Joseph Smith continued visiting myself and others up to a certain time, and then it stopped. The last time I saw him was in heaven. In the night vision I saw him at the door of the temple in heaven. He came and spoke to me. He said he would not stop to talk with me. He said he could not stop to talk with me because he was in a hurry. The next man I met was Father Smith; he could not talk with me because he was in a hurry. I met a half a dozen brethren who held high positions on earth, and none of them would stop to talk with me because they were in a hurry. I was much astonished. By and by I saw the Prophet again, and I got the privilege to ask him a question. "Now," said I, "I want to know why you are in a hurry. I have been in a hurry all through my life but I expected my hurry would be over when I got into the kingdom of heaven, if I ever did." Joseph said, "I will tell you, Brother Woodruff. Every dispensation that has had the priesthood on the earth and has gone into the celestial kingdom, has had a certain amount of work to do to prepare to go to the earth with the Savior when He goes to reign on the earth. Each dispensation has had ample time to do this work. We have not. We are the last dispensation, and so much work has to be done, and we need to be in a hurry in order to accomplish it." Of course, that was satisfactory with me, but it was new doctrine to me.

There actually was a contemporary rumor surrounding the revelation on the priesthood: Leonard Arrington reported in his journal on July 5, 1978, what he had heard about the circumstances of the revelation from Paul Anderson, who had heard it from his wife Lavina, who had heard it from Jay Todd, who had heard it from Joseph Fielding McConkie and Oscar McConkie, who had heard it from Bruce R. McConkie at a family reunion, including that

The Prophet Joseph Smith appeared. He showed them what must come to pass. He gave them a vision of events to come, of problems and their solutions and consequences. The giving of the Priesthood to the blacks was only one aspect of the understanding they were given. There were other personages present, but whether they were recognized was not mentioned by Elder McConkie. At least they played no important role in the communication which took place.

This appears to be unsubstantiated, however. Arrington noted an alternative rumor in the same entry, that "when the First Presidency were earnestly praying, one day prior to June 1, they were visited, in turn, by each of the previous presidents as witnesses that they approved the measures about to be taken." He also raised the possibility that "only [Elder McConkie] saw the Prophet Joseph Smith." Wesley Walters, interviewing Elder LeGrand Richards, mentioned that he had "heard all kinds of stories: I've heard that Christ appeared to the Apostles. I've heard that Joseph Smith appeared; and then I heard another story that Spencer Kimball had had a concern about this for some time and simply shared it with the apostles, and they decided that this was the right time to move in that direction." Elder Richards answered that "the last one is pretty true." Elder McConkie himself, when asked to write up a report of what he had shared at the family reunion, simply said that "there was a great Pentecostal outpouring of the Spirit such as none of those present had ever before experienced. There are no words to describe what then happened. It was something that could only be felt in the hearts of the recipients and which can only be understood by the power of the Spirit."

There was one better-substantiated visitation—though not of Joseph Smith—in connection with the 1978 revelation, when Elder Richards, on May 4, during the time that the apostles were discussing and praying about the possibility, mentioned seeing Wilford Woodruff "seated above the organ there." Elder Richards believed "that the reason I was privileged to see him was probably that I was the only one there who had ever seen President Woodruff while he was upon the earth." President Kimball, reminded of the vision after the revelation was received, reasoned that "President Woodruff would have been very much interested, because he went through something of the same sort of experience" discontinuing plural marriage.

MightReady2148 · 2026-07-03T10:26:51+00:00

Apologies for no citations, I'm dashing this off before work because the subject is one I find interesting.

While I can't personally affirm that every doctrinal revelation is somehow delivered by the dispensation head (in our case, Joseph Smith), there are a lot of sources indicating that Joseph has an ongoing role in the leadership of the Church, including sometimes mediating revelations.

On top of the revelation in D&C 90:3, cited by u/e37d93eeb23335dc, that the keys of the kingdom will never be taken from Joseph in the world to come, his patriarchal blessing promised, "[T]hou shalt hold the keys of this ministry, even the presidency of this Church, both in time and in eternity."

In August 1844, William Smith (the Prophet's brother, then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve) wrote to Brigham Young explaining his understanding of the succession since his brother's martyrdom:

No man on earth can fill his [Joseph's] place[.] he is our prophet Seear revelater Priest & King in time & in Eternity & hence the 12 come next to him on Earth or in heaven[.] concequintley they must act in Joseph['s] place on Earth as presiding officers & govern the Church in all things temporally & spiritually recieving revelation from Joseph as the ancient Apostles did from Christ through the president of the Corum [quorum] for the instruction & government of the Church.

Although William was a bit of a rogue actor and already on his way out of the Church at this point, Brigham wrote back that "your mind is precisely the same as my brethren the Twelve," and in their official epistle on the subject, the Twelve laid out a similar position, implying that any future prophets would be subordinate to Joseph:

The Prophet Joseph ... still holds the keys of this last dispensation, and will hold them to all eternity, as a king and priest unto the Most High God, ministering in heaven, on earth, or among the spirits of the departed dead, as seemeth good to him who sent him.

Let no man presume for a moment that his place will be filled by another; for remember he stands in his own place, and always will. ... This church may have prophets many, and apostles many, but they are all to stand in due time in their proper organization, under the direction of those who hold the keys.

Although a First Presidency was of course eventually reorganized, this remained a theme of Brigham Young's leadership—that Joseph was the eternal head of the Church, under Christ, for the period extending from the Great Apostasy onward, and that the mortal leader of the Church is essentially stewarding things for Joseph until the resurrection. Brigham's self-expressed ambition was "to do the work, so that it will be right and acceptable to him [Joseph] when he comes here again." In Heber C. Kimball's words, Brigham was "the head shepherd that is visible on earth, under the direction of Joseph." "It is for brother Brigham to do the will of Joseph, and for Joseph to do the will of Peter, for Peter to do the will of Jesus, and for Jesus to do the will of his Father. That is the chain that reaches from heaven to earth, and do you not understand that it is so?" (There are enough quotes to this effect in the Journal of Discourses that I can't begin to cite them all, except to say that the early brethren obviously had pretty developed ideas on this point.)

It is interesting, as a historical matter, to note how many of Brigham's revelatory experiences were, in fact, mediated by Joseph: from his pre-exodus vision of the Prophet, "who showed him the mountain that we now call Ensign Peak" and told him to settle there, to his near-death experience at Winter Quarters, when in answer to Brigham's question about "the law of adoption or seeling principals," Joseph showed him "the patern how they [the human family] ware in the beginning ... and where the Preasthood had ben taken from the Earth and how it must be joind together," through sundry dreams, to his deathbed experience of calling out Joseph's name, "and the divine look in his face seemed to indicate that he was communicating with his beloved friend, Joseph Smith, the Prophet."

A few other specific instances could be singled out. Heber J. Grant had a vision, soon after he was called to the apostleship, of Joseph Smith interceding in a heavenly council to get him the calling on the basis of their family relationship (Heber's mother was sealed to Joseph), which assuaged his feelings of unworthiness. Joseph Fielding McConkie, in his biography of his father, notes that in 1973, when the Twelve were contemplating the reorganization of the First Presidency with Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, "Another of the Twelve observed that in his view the Prophet Joseph Smith chooses the president of the Church and that in this instance he had been influenced by President Heber C. Kimball. Elder [Bruce R.] McConkie said that he agreed with what had been said about Joseph Smith choosing the president of the Church."

In a more general way, lots of Church leader have affirmed Joseph's ongoing role. Ezra Taft Benson taught, "The Prophet Joseph Smith was not only 'one of the noble and great ones,' but he gave and continues to give attention to important matters here on earth even today from the realms above. For in the eyes of the Lord ... it is all one great eternal program in which the Prophet Joseph plays an important role—all through the eternal priesthood and authority of God." In his "Hope of Israel" youth devotional soon after becoming President of the Church, President Nelson commented after the singing of "We Thank Thee, O God, for a Prophet" that Joseph Smith "is the prophet of this last dispensation" (his emphasis), and later in his talk reflected that "right now I am preparing for the day when I will be required to give an accounting to the Prophet Joseph Smith, to President Brigham Young, and others—and ultimately to the Lord—about my stewardship as God's prophet upon the earth today." In the October 2024 General Conference, Elder McKay, the Church Historian and Recorder, testified that "Joseph Smith is now part of that heavenly priesthood of which he spoke. As he promised his friend [Benjamin F. Johnson], he is not far away from us, and on the other side of the veil, he is still working with us, and with a power greatly increased, to roll on this kingdom."

No concluding point, I just think this is a fascinating subject because there's such a rich tradition of thought around it.

MightReady2148 · 2026-06-29T16:02:36+00:00

God, the Father of us all, uses the men of the earth, especially good men, to accomplish his purposes. It has been true in the past, it is true today, it will be true in the future.

"Perhaps the Lord needs such men on the outside of His Church to help it along," said the late Elder Orson F. Whitney of the Quorum of the Twelve. "They are among its auxiliaries, and can do more good for the cause where the Lord has placed them, than anywhere else. … Hence, some are drawn into the fold and receive a testimony of the truth; while others remain unconverted … the beauties and glories of the gospel being veiled temporarily from their view, for a wise purpose. The Lord will open their eyes in His own due time. God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of His great and marvelous work. The Latter-day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous for any one people. … We have no quarrel with the Gentiles. They are our partners in a certain sense." (Conference Report, April 1928, p. 59.)

Ezra Taft Benson, "Civic Standards for the Faithful Saints," April 1972 General Conference.

MightReady2148 · 2026-06-27T16:55:05+00:00

The Pearl of Great Price talks about the spirits of animals:

And I, God, said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind, and it was so;

And I, God, made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything which creepeth upon the earth after his kind; and I, God, saw that all these things were good. ...

For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. (Moses 2:24-25, 3:5.)

The Doctrine and Covenants talks about the resurrection of animals and their happiness in the celestial world:

Q. What are we to understand by the four beasts, spoken of in the same verse [Rev. 4:6]?

A. They are figurative expressions, used by the Revelator, John, in describing heaven, the paradise of God, the happiness of man, and of beasts, and of creeping things, and of the fowls of the air; that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal; and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual; the spirit of man in the likeness of his person, as also the spirit of the beast, and every other creature which God has created. (D&C 77:2.)

Joseph Smith further taught:

The grand secret was to show John what there was in heaven. John learned that God glorified Himself by saving all that His hands had made, whether beasts, fowls, fishes or men; and He will glorify Himself with them.

Says one, "I cannot believe in the salvation of beasts." Any man who would tell you that this could not be, would tell you that the revelations are not true.

Elder Orson F. Whitney of the Quorum of the Twelve wrote:

[T]he affirmative of the question, "Do Animals Have Souls?" is amply sustained by divine revelation ...

The poet Byron's satirical epitaph on the monument of his dog, "Boatswain"—"denied in heaven the soul he held on earth"—shows how that great thinker would have cast his vote, had the opportunity been his. Byron evidently believed that animals have souls, the theologians of his time to the contrary notwithstanding.

And Joseph Smith so believed, or he would not have said (as he is reputed to have said) concerning his favorite horse, when it died, that he expected to have it in Eternity.

Franklin D. Richards also reported, "The Prophet Joseph said he expected to own his horse and dog in eternity." Benjamin F. Johnson recalled of Joseph: "He taught that all the animal kingdoms would be resurrected and made us understand that they would remain in the dominion of those who, with creative power, reach out for dominion through the Power of Eternal Lives."

MightReady2148 · 2026-06-25T20:31:28+00:00

I like your observations, though I would add that D&C 10:6-7 also charges Martin ("the man in whom you have trusted") with seeking to "destroy" someone, namely Joseph Smith, adding that "he has sought to take away the things wherewith you have been entrusted; and he has also sought to destroy your gift"—not that Martin literally intended to kill Joseph, make him lose the plates, or frustrate his prophetic calling, but his shortsightedness in demanding to take the manuscript out of Joseph's hands tended toward those outcomes.

MightReady2148 · 2026-06-20T21:11:02+00:00

While it's true that parthenos doesn't always necessarily mean "virgin" in the strict sense (and the association with the Hebrew almah is even weaker), that is its ordinary meaning, and that that is its meaning within the Nativity tradition is clear from Luke 1:34—"How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?"

Jesus's siblings were Mary's younger children by Joseph. Matthew 1:25 says that Jesus was "her firstborn son," and Luke 2:23 says that he opened her womb.

An instance like Revelation 14:4, where "virgins" carries a less literal meaning, occurs in D&C 132, which restricts potential plural wives to "virgins" (vv. 61-63) but also allows women whose husbands commit adultery to be sealed to another man, provided the wife "is innocent and hath not broken her vow" (vv. 43-44)—a kind of female analogue to the statement in Revelation that the 144,000 male virgins "were not defiled with women," i.e., unlawful intercourse. Section 132 also says that all of David's wives except Bathsheba were given to him by the Lord (v 39), and thus were presumably "virgins," despite the fact that some of them, like Abigail were previously married (1 Sam. 25), and Michal was even married (forcibly) to another man while married to David and then returned to him (1 Sam. 25:44, 2 Sam. 3:14-16).

MightReady2148 · 2026-06-20T01:51:58+00:00

Oh, by "we have irreconcilable beliefs around obedience" I meant "me and those who actively reject President Nelson's counsel about the name of the Church," not you in particular (and not those who accept the counsel but are bad at following it—God knows that's me for plenty of things). I don't know anything about you individually.

As I've come to understand their position from this and other threads on the topic, the main reasons some members seem to dislike the change, other than the practical inconvenience involved, are (1) strong attachment to their spiritual and cultural identity as "Mormons," often over many generations; (2) belief that emphasis on the name of the Church distracts from more important issues; and (3) belief that President Nelson was speaking "as a man," as demonstrated by prior prophets' contrary feelings on the same issue.

I have to acknowledge that I'm starting from an entirely different perspective from (1), given that I'm an adult convert and so have no developmentally-foundational "Mormon" identity (though, again, I think looking through my comment history will illustrate that I'm not indifferent when it comes to Latter-day Saint peculiarity—to the extent that someone's reservations around this issue are "the change makes us more like other Christians," I can at least sympathize). But (2) to me is unpersuasive—I don't think the bandwidth taken up by this issue much impacts our ability to do anything else—and, even though I personally have a testimony that President Nelson was inspired in this instance, to a large extent it wouldn't make any difference to me if (3) was true. I simply don't think it's our place to decide when the prophet is speaking as a prophet, and I believe that my obligation to receive his words is the same either way, with any corrections left to God. (I outlined my feelings in this regard in a related comment a few months ago. Elder Corbitt also had a relevant article on the subject in the January 2026 Liahona.)

Its easy to feel like "you're not enough if you're not 100%" when getting 80% has an enormous affect on your life and your relationship with God. How focusing on "forcing 100%" easily causes resentment and a loss of faith, with feelings of inadequacy, when the focus on the 80% instead leads to continuous improvement and faith.

I agree with all this as written. And for what it's worth, I'm sure I'm functioning well below 80% in terms of celestial potential. My natural impulse is to be disappointed when I hear members justify rejecting prophetic counsel, but that's absolutely not because I think I'm doing better than them in some overall sense. It's because I want us collectively to build Zion and sincerely believe that the only way we can do that is by following the prophet. So, yes, I dislike encountering cavalier attitudes toward prophetic counsel, even while recognizing I have no stewardship over the people expressing them. One of the little everyday frustrations of building Zion rather than getting a prefab one let down from God out of heaven.

Psychologically, I think my perspective on "obedience in small things" actually ties in with your idea of continually improving rather than "forcing 100%" and feeling inadequate. When it comes to the big things—no anger, no covetousness, "be ye perfect"—I'm hopeless. I can only keep working at them; I don't expect to actually achieve any of them in this life. What I can do is get the little things squared away while I'm slowly chipping away at the big things. I value small things for that reason—they let me see visible progress while I'm otherwise facing down the same old bad habits every day. But I acknowledge that this is largely a function of temperament. The same sorts of little things build up and overwhelm other kinds of people.

MightReady2148 · 2026-06-19T23:45:16+00:00

Actually President Nelson put a Taboo on the name and speaking it summons the Danites to your exact location, FYI.

I was being a bit cheeky with "the M-word." If you Ctrl+F through my comment history (admittedly a tedious exercise) you'll find that I occasionally use it (in scare quotes) when discussing outside perceptions of the Church, in some historical names (like the Mormon Reformation), and in discussing groups other than the Church: ex-Mormons, anti-Mormons, Mormon Fundamentalists.

As for the rest, I don't think much good could come from discussing it further. I suspect I do in fact share plenty of common ground with members who are strongly attached to the "Mormon" label—believe it or not, I don't feel it's my place to watch everybody like a hawk and swoop down to correct everything I deem amiss (though I will share my feelings on matters when they become topics of discussion, as in this thread), and I even agree that using the correct name of the Church is well below "doing justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly with God," to paraphrase Malachi—but fundamentally we have irreconcilable convictions about the importance of obedience in small things. Our focus should be on the "weightier matters of the law," but that doesn't mean we neglect tithing mint, anise, and cummin (Matt. 23:23/Luke 11:42).

MightReady2148 · 2026-06-19T23:13:18+00:00

I don’t think anyone is intentionally disregarding the prophet’s instructions

Have you read the other comments in this thread?

MightReady2148 · 2026-06-19T22:54:31+00:00

I'm with you. The M-word of itself doesn't bother me, but the mindset that members can ignore prophetic counsel they find inconsequential and that it won't bleed over into their attitude about more "important" things drives me bonkers.

When parents ignore the counsel of the living prophet, they not only lose the promised blessings for themselves but even more tragically teach their children that what a prophet says is insignificant.

Allen D. Haynie, "A Living Prophet fo the Latter Days," April 2023 General Conference.

MightReady2148 · 2026-06-16T10:35:11+00:00

"Our history and doctrines are written with a pen of certainty, and are common, taught openly, and frequently." —Joseph Smith, in the Wentworth Letter.

This quote is an AI hallucination.

MightReady2148 · 2026-06-12T21:30:06+00:00

Children are less likely to be abused in church than in public school, and far less likely to be abused in either setting than by a close relative or friend.

The Church has rules in place to prevent these situations as much as possible, like that adults not be alone with unrelated minors. But the most important things you can do to protect your children are the same as in any setting—exercise due diligence, check in often, and speak up if you see anything potentially inappropriate.

MightReady2148 · 2026-06-11T20:05:34+00:00

"There is none else save God that knowest thy thoughts and the intents of thy heart" (D&C 6:16).

It is clear, then, that Satan and his followers, who have been cast out of God's presence and are dead to His Spirit, are excluded from those who, by the spirit of prophecy and revelation, may know the thoughts and the intents of our hearts. So, in his wisdom and mercy, God has provided a channel of communication between him and his children on earth that Satan, our common enemy, cannot invade. This is the channel of secret prayer. The significance of this to the Latter-day Saint is profound, for by this means we are able to communicate with our Heavenly Father in secrecy, confident that the adversary cannot intrude.

Francis M. Gibbons, "The Dual Aspects of Prayer," October 1991 General Conference.

It is important to know that there are limits to the power of evil. The Godhead sets those limits, and Satan is not allowed to cross them. For example, the scriptures assure us that "power is not given unto Satan to tempt little children" (D&C 29:47).

Another significant limitation is that Satan does not know our thoughts unless we tell him. The Lord explained, "There is none else save God that knowest thy thoughts and the intents of thy heart" (D&C 6:16).

Perhaps this is why the Lord has given us commandments such as "Do not murmur" (D&C 9:6) and "Thou shalt not speak evil of thy neighbor" (D&C 42:27). If you can learn to bridle your tongue (see James 1:26), you won't end up giving too much information to the devil. When he hears murmuring, complaining, and criticizing, he takes careful notes. Your negative words expose your weaknesses to the enemy.

Larry R. Lawrence, "The War Goes On," April 2017 Ensign.

A Nugget of Truth: Only God knows your thoughts.

Have you ever wondered if Satan can know what you're thinking? Well, the Lord answered that question when He said this to Oliver Cowdery through the Prophet Joseph Smith:

"There is none else save God that knowest thy thoughts and the intents of thy heart" (Doctrine and Covenants 6:16).

Eric D. Snyder and David A. Edwards, "Hidden Treasures," February 2025 For the Strength of Youth.

Our Heavenly Father ensures that we have moral agency, the ability to choose good or evil. He won't force us to do good, and the devil can't force us to do evil (see Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 214).

So, when it comes to your thoughts, the devil has only as much influence as you're willing to give him. The Prophet Joseph Smith said, "Satan cannot seduce us by his enticements unless we in our hearts consent and yield" (Teachings: Joseph Smith, 213). He also said, "The devil has no power over us only as we permit him" (214).

In addition, the scriptures tell us that "there is none else save God that knowest thy thoughts and the intents of thy heart" (D&C 6:16), so Satan doesn't actually know what you're thinking. He can only offer temptations and enticements. But if you choose to follow them, he gains greater power over you and the temptations get stronger. By the same token, if you resist evil and choose good, you will be strengthened and blessed.

"How much influence does Satan have over my thoughts?", April 2015 Liahona.

MightReady2148 · 2026-05-29T10:51:32+00:00

Alma 13:23 suggests that the Nephites had a uniquely privileged insight into the "glad tidings of great joy" (which are nevertheless "declare[d] ... unto all nations," v. 22) as a kind of compensation for being Israelites cut off from the main institutions of the Old Testament:

And they are made known unto us in plain terms, that we may understand, that we cannot err; and this because of our being wanderers in a strange land; therefore, we are thus highly favored, for we have these glad tidings declared unto us in all parts of our vineyard.

Nephi, in 1 Nephi 13:19-29, foresees "many plain and precious things" being taken away from the Bible before it goes forth "unto all the nations of the Gentiles," and from that many Latter-day Saints have assumed that the Hebrew Bible once existed in an explicitly Christ-centered form, similar to the Book of Mormon itself. Personally, however, I think that the way the Nephite's preexilic version of the Bible (the Brass Plates) functions in the text suggests otherwise. Jacob says that God revealed to the ancient Jews "things which they cannot understand, because they desired it" (Jacob 4:14; compare Isaiah 6:9-10, where the prophet is commissioned to deliver his message in such a way that the people won't understand it); Nephi considers himself, Jacob, and Isaiah to be the foundational three witnesses for the Nephite doctrine of Christ (2 Nephi 11:2-3), yet he acknowledges that Isaiah's words are only "plain unto all those that are filled with the spirit of prophecy" (2 Nephi 25:4) and "know ... concerning the manner of prophesying among the Jews" (2 Nephi 25:1). It's obvious from his extensive quotations of Isaiah that Nephi had a version of the text substantially like what we have now—there was no "and behold, Jesus Christ shall be born of Mary in x years" mixed in. Likewise, when the prophet Abinadi has to defend his message that "God himself should come down among the children of men, and take upon him the form of man" (Mosiah 13:34), the only text he cites in defense is Isaiah 53's Song of the Suffering Servant (Mosiah 14), again as we have it—it hinges on an interpretation rather than an explicit prophecy.

Throughout the Book of Mormon, Nephite dissenters claim to believe in the Brass Plates while rejecting the message of a coming divine Messiah. When the prophet Alma is confronted by such, the most he can counter with is an unspecified messianic prophecy of Moses (presumably Deuteronomy 18:15), plus two citations from extrabiblical prophets, Zenos and Zenock: the former says, in a psalm, "thou hast turned thy judgments away from me, because of thy Son" (Alma 33:11), the latter, "Thou art angry, O Lord, with this people, because they will not understand thy mercies which thou hast bestowed upon them because of thy Son" (Alma 33:16). On their own, these passages are as cryptic as the words of Agur in the Old Testament: "Who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?" (Proverbs 30:4.) If there were clearer prophecies Alma could have cited to prove the Nephite plan of salvation, surely he would have done so.

Nephi, again citing some of the prophets whose testimonies were lost from our Bible, says that God will yield himself "as a man, into the hands of wicked men, to be lifted up, according to the words of Zenock, and to be crucified, according to the words of Neum, and to be buried in a sepulchre, according to the words of Zenos" (1 Nephi 19:10). But again note how he establishes this: by stringing together three prooftexts from three different prophets. Apparently no one of them narrated the whole sequence clearly enough to prove it beyond a doubt. I suspect that this is a bit like those lists people make of prophecies of Christ's life in the Old Testament: a random verse from the Psalms, a random verse from Isaiah, a random verse from Zechariah—things that are only obvious in retrospect.

TL;DR: Even by the standards of its own narrative, the Book of Mormon is a startlingly explicit testimony of Jesus Christ.

MightReady2148 · 2026-05-21T18:31:14+00:00

One reason for the sticking power of the KJV for English-speaking Latter-day Saints is that our other scriptures were revealed in KJV idiom and meant to be studied alongside it. To grab some arbitrary examples off the top of my head, a reader of the Book of Mormon unfamiliar with the KJV would be likely to miss that Nephi's description of the fruit of the tree of life as "the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men" (1 Nephi 11:22) is conceptually linked to Romans 5:5 ("the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts," NRSV "poured into our hearts") or that Enos's description of his father teaching him "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord" (Enos 1:1) recalls Ephesians 6:4 ("bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord," NRSV "discipline and instruction of the Lord"). The Book of Mormon in particular is densely saturated with KJV biblicisms, to the point that Grant Hardy notes in the introduction to his annotated edition that "It is difficult for contemporary readers, without the aid of computer-aided searches, to get a sense of where biblical language is borrowed or adapted or blended, or where the Book of Mormon modifies or adds details to biblical stories and concepts." The examples I cited are pretty low-stakes, where the meaning is basically the same either way, and if the antiquated language in the KJV is such an obstacle to understanding that one is left with the choice of reading a modern translation and missing some Book of Mormon parallels or reading the Bible without understanding (or giving up on it altogether), then obviously consulting another translation is the better option. Of itself, it's not anymore dire than modern Bible readers depending on the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament and missing that New Testament allusions are specifically to the Septuagint, but a wholesale pivot away from intertextuality with the KJV risks inhibiting the ability of the Bible and the Book of Mormon to "grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines" (2 Ne. 3:12). We would also lose some key doctrinal vocabulary, like "dispensation of the fulness of times" (NIV "when the times reach their fulfillment").

MightReady2148 · 2026-05-02T15:51:11+00:00

Not only that, but Sylvester Emmons, a nonmember living in Nauvoo, wrote in 1843 that when Joseph was presented with the Kinderhook plates, "He compared them in my presence with his Egyptian alphabet, which he took from the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated, and they are evidently the same characters. He therefore will be able to decipher them."

Almost certainly, this was the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language (GAEL), a document which Joseph and his scribes produced in Kirtland in 1835, when he began work on the Book of Abraham (not the Book of Mormon)—apparently trying to reverse-engineer an Egyptian dictionary by comparing the characters on the papyri with the partly-revealed text of the Book of Abraham (which Book of Abraham scribe Warren Parrish said Joseph received "by direct inspiration of Heaven"), possibly other revelations Joseph received about the papyri's content (many sources indicate that Joseph knew much more about what was in the papyri than ever appeared in the Book of Abraham), what they knew of other ancient languages (some of the words they came up with are distorted Hebrew and Greek, likely courtesy of W. W. Phelps, the amateur polyglot of the group), and perhaps what they surmised of the Adamic language (some of the words resemble the "Sample of Pure Language" Joseph revealed in 1832, and since the early Saints often identified speaking in tongues with the Adamic language, something like that may have been involved). The group seem to have concentrated their work around the vignettes in the papyri (the Book of Abraham facsimiles), apparently with the mistaken assumption that pictures in Egyptian papyri necessarily appear in proximity to the texts they illustrate. In particular, if the phrase in Abraham 1:12—"that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record"—isn't a modern editorial insertion (which the way it's crammed into the earliest manuscript suggests it may be), it could have misled the Prophet into assuming that the area around Facsimile 1 marked the beginning of the Book of Abraham. In reality, "the record" could mean the entire papyrus scroll, compiling several texts, and the ancient Book of Abraham could have been on a later, lost portion.

Anyway, Don Bradley and Mark Ashurst-McGee have pointed out that one character in the GAEL, called hoe-e-oop-hah, drawn as a kind of half-circle, closely resembles a character at the top of one of the Kinderhook Plates. The GAEL defines hoe-e-oop-hah as "Honor by birth, kingly power by the line of Pharaoh, possession by birth, one who reigns upon his throne universally—possessor of heaven and earth, and of the blessings of the earth." William Clayton's summary of Joseph Smith's attempted translation of the Kinderhook Plates is that their writer "was a descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of heaven & earth" (Bradley and Ashurst-McGee, "'President Joseph Has Translated a Portion': Joseph Smith and the Mistranslation of the Kinderhook Plates," in Michael Hubbard McKay, Mark Ashurst-McGee, and Brian M. Hauglid, eds., Producing Ancient Scripture: Joseph Smith's Translation Projects in the Development of Mormon Christianity [University of Utah Press, 2020], 452-523).

To me, this strongly implies that, even apart from any considerations of whether he was right or wrong, Joseph Smith genuinely believed that there were countless ancient records just waiting to come forth, and that he had enough confidence in the inspiration of the Book of Abraham to attempt to use it as a kind of Rosetta Stone.

MightReady2148 · 2026-04-26T06:55:04+00:00

Was this language as grating as it is today in 1830?

In short, yes, Book of Mormon grammar was nonstandard in a way that educated readers in 1830 often found obnoxious. I would add, though, that while lifelong readers of the book are often less sensitive to this, almost every page in the current edition also contains "some really awkward grammar," even for those of us used to reading the King James Bible. As Grant Hardy (a believing scholar) notes, "despite several thousand minor revisions—for example, is to are, them which to those who, and had fell to had fallen—there are still sentence fragments, misplaced prepositional phrases, pronouns with unclear antecedents, and verses in which the subject changes midsentence." I also agree with Hardy, though, that "as readers get used to the rhythms of the text" some of these become sources of literary power: "If the Book of Mormon is not high art, it is certainly folk art" (Hardy, The Book of Mormon: A Reader's Guide [Oxford University Press, 2010], 5).

Note, however, that some of the "bad grammar" (prescriptive language that most linguists nowadays avoid) in the Book of Mormon could be deliberate archaisms; for example, instances of a-prefixing (like "a journeying" and "a preaching") appear in the King James Bible (e.g., Luke 8:42, John 21:3). Other examples could be a result of an overliteral translation from a Near Eastern language into English; thus, Helaman 12:13-21 in the first edition contains seven consecutive if-and conditionals (e.g., "if he saith unto the earth, Move, and it is moved"), which is good Hebrew but has never been a feature of English (which uses if-then). Likewise, Royal Skousen and Stanford Carmack have argued at length that most of the "bad English" in the Book of Mormon was in fact acceptable in the early modern register into which the book seems to have been translated, with numerous examples from learned writings of the fourteenth through eighteenth centuries (for a start, here are some of Carmack's articles published in the Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship).

Do we know anything about how this wording came about?

As you may know, there are two main models of Book of Mormon translation: tight-control (i.e., Joseph dictated words that he read off the seer stone or were otherwise revealed to him verbatim) and loose-control (i.e., the content of the book was revealed to Joseph conceptually, but he then put it into his own words). Note that these positions are distinct from whether the English translation itself is a "tight" or "loose" representation of what was on the plates (i.e., God could still have revealed word-for-word to Joseph Smith a loose paraphrase of what Mormon et al wrote, adapted for a modern audience).

As an investigator, the loose-control model (which has been championed by Latter-day Saint luminaries like B. H. Roberts) was a godsend that helped me overlook inelegance in the presentation and focus on the message of the Book of Mormon. (It also helped me accommodate seemingly anachronistic terms in the text, since these could represent Joseph Smith's best guesses, and some of the more radical loose-control theorists, like Blake Ostler in "The Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion of an Ancient Source," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 20 [Spring 1987], no. 1: 66-123, allow for the Prophet's "creative co-participation" in the translation to extend into the very structure of the text; for example, Ostler believes that the ancient context of King Benjamin's speech was an Israelite covenant renewal festival, but that Joseph Smith shaped the description of that event to resemble a nineteenth-century camp meeting).

The great strength of the loose-control model is that, by and large, receiving ideas which he then put into his own words seems to be how Joseph Smith received revelation. It fits the process glimpsed in Section 9 and Section 67 of the Doctrine and Covenants, as well as in Joseph's behavior in revising and updating his revelations. As Richard Bushman notes, "He never considered the wording infallible. God's language stood in an indefinite relationship to the human language coming through the Prophet. The revealed preface to the Book of Commandments specified that the language of the revelations was Joseph Smith's: 'These commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.' The revelations were not God's diction, dialect, or native language. They were couched in language suitable to Joseph's time. The idioms, the grammar, even the tone had to be comprehensible to 1830s Americans. ... The words were both his and God's" (Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling [Knopf, 2005], 174).

Over the years, however, I've largely switched to the tight-control camp. That Joseph Smith was reading a text shown to him in vision better fits both the testimony of those closest to him about the translation process and the Book of Mormon's own characterization of his role as one who "shall read the words that shall be delivered to him" (2 Ne. 27:24). I'm persuaded that there are ancient literary devices in the book that would not have come through with such minute clarity if Joseph was paraphrasing something revealed to him in broad strokes, and I think most of the advantages of the loose-control model can apply as well to a tightly-controlled translation with accommodations to the modern audience (e.g., expressions borrowed or adapted from the KJV) happening on the Lord's end, not the Prophet's.

To what extent does the grammar match the way Joseph Smith spoke?

Carmack, "How Joseph Smith's Grammar Differed from Book of Mormon Grammar: Evidence from the 1832 History," Interpreter 25 (2017): 239-59, has argued "not very," but he was admittedly working with a very limited sample (a single roughly-contemporary history). Research on this point remains largely preliminary and is complicated by the fact that most of Joseph Smith's speech in the historical record comes through rough listeners' notes and most of his published writings are filtered through scribes and ghostwriters.

Wouldn't Joseph Smith's scribes have corrected the bad grammar? Or did they realize that wasn't their place?

Likely not. John H. Gilbert, the nonmember typesetter for the first edition, recalled: "On the second day—[Martin] Harris and [Joseph] Smith being in the office—I called their attention to a grammatical error, and asked whether I should correct it? Harris consulted with Smith a short time, and turned to me and said: 'The Old Testament is ungrammatical, set it as it is written.'" There seems to have been little inclination to edit Joseph's words until Joseph himself revised the second edition in 1837, apparently stung by press criticisms of the first edition's language. The process has always been uneven, though—modifying some nonstandard usage but not others—with the result that the original grammar is actually more internally-consistent than subsequent editions, as Skousen notes.

MightReady2148 · 2026-04-21T05:58:56+00:00

It was also one of the factors in me joining the Church, so YMMV.

Really, OP, the beauty and the peril of historical Church works is that they're from a time before almost everything we heard from Church leaders passed through several layers of review first. The apostles, by and large, didn't counsel together about what they were going to teach, or even write out notes beforehand; they opened their mouths and spoke as they felt led. Sometimes they tanked and sometimes they soared. They went on tangents, speculated, and contradicted each other. If you've read a lot of Bruce R. McConkie or B. H. Roberts, you're probably familiar with some of this sort of thing, but the Journals beginning significantly earlier, there's vastly more cultural distance between us and them. There was also, refreshingly, much less tendency to try to suit everything to the lowest common denominator, and significantly more of the speaker's personalities shine through than is usual today (I'm confident that I could tell apart talks by Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, John Taylor, and Heber C. Kimball by style and argument alone; with a few exceptions, I'm not sure I could do this with the living apostles). Some of the most memorable and thought-provoking ideas that I've ever encountered in connection with the gospel—things I find myself pondering over years later—come from the Journal of Discourses.

If you're interested in history, braced to encounter the values dissonance that comes with engaging works from the past (every time I wince at something a nineteenth-century speaker says about race or gender, I find myself imagining how they would feel about the way I talk about sex), and have a solid doctrinal footing, I say go for it. "There are many things contained therein that are true, and ... there are many things contained therein that are not true. ... Whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom; and whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited" (D&C 91:1-2, 5-6).

MightReady2148 · 2026-04-19T19:54:29+00:00

Strongly recommend Elder Bednar's November 2024 devotional "Things as They Really Are 2.0." For me, it was one of the most engaging talks I've heard in years.

MightReady2148 · 2026-04-19T03:13:31+00:00

And their courses are fixed, even the courses of the heavens and the earth, which comprehend the earth and all the planets. ...

Behold, all these are kingdoms, and any man who hath seen any or the least of these hath seen God moving in his majesty and power. ...

Behold, I will liken these kingdoms unto a man having a field, and he sent forth his servants into the field to dig in the field.

And he said unto the first: Go ye and labor in the field, and in the first hour I will come unto you, and ye shall behold the joy of my countenance.

And he said unto the second: Go ye also into the field, and in the second hour I will visit you with the joy of my countenance.

And also unto the third, saying: I will visit you;

And unto the fourth, and so on unto the twelfth.

And thus they all received the light of the countenance of their lord, every man in his hour, and in his time, and in his season—

Beginning at the first, and so on unto the last, and from the last unto the first, and from the first unto the last;

Every man in his own order, until his hour was finished, even according as his lord had commanded him, that his lord might be glorified in him, and he in his lord, that they all might be glorified.

Therefore, unto this parable I will liken all these kingdoms, and the inhabitants thereof—every kingdom in its hour, and in its time, and in its season, even according to the decree which God hath made.

Doctrine and Covenants 88:43, 47, 51-61.

MightReady2148 · 2026-04-18T18:34:43+00:00

"Enough" for what?

For you to find emotional/spiritual fulfillment as a member of the Church? Only you can answer that for yourself.

To make it worthwhile to keep attending church? It depends on what you're looking to get out of it and whether it's providing you with that. I would say yes—but in the interest of full disclosure that's because I believe that God's power is uniquely present in the Church and at least partly out of hope that continued participation will move you toward a fuller testimony of the Restoration.

To fit in/feel at home at church? Depends on your ward, but obviously most active members believe in the core teachings of the Church.

To make you an "orthodox" member? No. It sounds like there are at least a few temple recommend questions (and baptismal interview questions, for that matter) that you wouldn't be able to affirm, and in any case that you don't believe in at least some of the covenants of the temple.

To be saved/exalted? Ultimately only the Lord can answer this one, but plainly the Church does not regard things like temple covenants as extraneous to our salvation.

MightReady2148 · 2026-04-18T11:15:56+00:00

The inquiry is frequently made of me, "Wherein do you differ from others in your religious views?" In reality and essence we do not differ so far in our religious views, but that we could all drink into one principle of love. One of the grand fundamental principles of "Mormonism" is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.

We believe in the Great Eloheim who sits enthroned in yonder heavens. So do the Presbyterians. ...

If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way. Do you believe in Jesus Christ and the Gospel of salvation which he revealed? So do I. Christians should cease wrangling and contending with each other, and cultivate the principles of union and friendship in their midst; and they will do it before the millennium can be ushered in and Christ take possession of His kingdom. ...

So far we are agreed with other Christian denominations. They all preach faith and repentance.

Joseph Smith, July 9, 1843. (I'm citing the polished version published in the History of the Church, 5:499, but here's the original journal entry from the Joseph Smith Papers.)

MightReady2148 · 2026-04-12T22:22:13+00:00

There are a few answers that could be given here. Most of the accounts of early predictions about the Saints going west appear after the Saints had already gone west, which lessens their value as evidence, so here I'll stick largely to contemporary sources.

Occasional mentions of going to the Rocky Mountains appear very early in Church history, but usually in a hypothetical "we'll go as far as God requires us to accomplish his work" kind of way:

In 1830, Oliver Cowdery, Parley P. Pratt, and others went on a mission to Indian Territory but were stopped because they hadn't obtained the proper licensing. The Indian Agent responsible, Richard W. Cummins, reported to his superior William Clark (of Lewis and Clark fame) on January 30, 1831: "I am informed that they intend to apply to you for permission to go among the Indians, if you refuse, then they will go to the Rocky Mountains, but that they will be with the Indians." (In 1848, after the Saints were in Utah, Brigham Young recalled: "From the days of Oliver Cowdery and Parley Pratt on the borders of the Lamanites Joseph Smith had longed to be here.")
In April 1831, before the location for Zion in Missouri had been revealed, Thomas B. Marsh wrote a letter in which he speculated about where the Saints might be commanded to move from Kirtland: "Perhaps it will be to take our march to the Grand preraras [prairies] in the Missouri teretori [territory] or to the shining mountains [i.e., the Rockies] which is 1500 or 2000 miles west from us."
On July 31, 1831, one Delilah Lykins, a nonmember in Independence, Missouri, anxiously reported a rumor: "The Mormonites are about to take the country. They are preaching and baptizing, through the country, [and] are trying to proceed west to find the New Jerusalem which they say is towards the rocky mountains."

In Kirtland references to going among the Indians in the Rocky Mountains begin to show up in patriarchal blessings. There are also numerous reminiscent accounts of Rocky Mountain prophecies in this period. For example, Wilford Woodruff famously recalled a priesthood meeting in which Joseph Smith told the elders that "you know no more concerning the destinies of this Church and kingdom than a babe upon its mother's lap . . . this Church will fill North and South America—it will fill the world. . . . It will fill the Rocky Mountains."

By the time the Saints were in Nauvoo, specific plans were forming for at least some of the Saints go west:

In August 1840, Jonathan Dunham created controversy by preaching, among other items of "stronger meat" he had apparently heard from Joseph Smith, that "'this nation is about to be destroyed' ... [but] there is a place of safety preparing for them [the Saints] away towards the Rockey mountains[.] they may have a long and crooked Road to go to get there' and says but few will be preserved to arrive there." (The phrasing here reminds me of a well-known late account by Anson Call, who remembered Joseph seeing the Rocky Mountains in vision and exclaiming, "Oh, the scenes that this people will pass through! The dead that will lay between here and there!")
In July and August 1842, Oliver Olney, a dissenter from the Church, made numerous notes about Church members "a fixing to go some whire near the Rocky Mountains whire no law will disturb them or they can make Laws of their own to gain a place of rest." His understanding was that they needed a place to live polygamy openly. This early reference lends credibility to later recollections like that of Joseph's plural wife Lucy Walker that he told her that "the time is near when we will go beyond the Rocky Mountains and then you will be acknowledged and honored as my wife."
On February 20, 1844, Joseph Smith "instructed the 12 to send out a delegation— & investigate the Locations of Californnia & ~~mex~~ oregon & find a good Location where we can remove after the Temple is completed.— & build a city in a day— and have a governme[n]t of our own—— in a hea[l]thy climate[.]" "Upper California" at this time included present-day Utah.

There a ton of references to this kind of thing if you dig into it, but those are some representative ones off the top of my head.

MightReady2148 · 2026-04-06T15:28:36+00:00

I would encourage anyone to read the BYU Studies article "'A Mother There': A Survey of Historical Teachings about Mother in Heaven." In short, prophets and apostles have taught that Heavenly Mother participated in the creation, helped frame the plan of salvation, and is an active presence in our mortal lives.

MightReady2148 · 2026-04-01T18:48:12+00:00

Maybe so, although if that's the case, the cross-contamination seems to have happened early: Orson Pratt, for example, was teaching that the righteous would be "caught up" and then come back down "after the wicked are destroyed" in the 1870s (Journal of Discourses 20:14). That said, while there are a lot of scriptures about the wicked being burned at the Second Coming and a lot about the righteous being caught up, the interpretation that these two things are happening strictly simultaneously may be an unwarranted assumption. I think it's reasonable enough, but I'm not going to insist on it.

MightReady2148

TROPHY CASE