(Submitted by Dennis B. Horne)
Editorial note: The below quotations are excerpts from letters written by President Joseph F. Smith answering doctrinal inquiries received by him. His answers largely speak for themselves:
…I have this to say: it is
certainly unwise for the Elders or any other member of the Church to advocate
doctrines that are not clearly set forth in the revealed word of God, and
concerning which, in consequence, difference of opinion exist. No good can come
from it, but on the contrary, much evil may result. Had the Lord desired or
designed that such doctrines should be promulgated, he would have clearly and
fully defined them, as he has those beautiful and simple laws and ordinances
known as “the first principles of the Gospel.” While it is far from my purpose
to stifle thought and free speech among the brethren, or to brand as “false
doctrine” any and every mystery of the kingdom, it is nevertheless my wish and my
advice, in which Presidents Winder and Lund, my counselors, heartily join, that
the Elders should not make a practice of preaching upon these abstruse themes,
these partly revealed principles, respecting which there are such wide
differences of belief.
What is
called the Adam-God doctrine may properly be classed among the mysteries. The
full truth concerning it has not been revealed to us; and until it is revealed
all wild speculations, sweeping assertions and dogmatic declarations relative
thereto, are out of place and improper. We disapprove of them and especially
the public expression of such views. In the absence of Elder K-----, and
without any oral or written statement by him as to his belief regarding this
doctrine, we do not feel called upon, nor would it be right to pass judgment in
his case; but we will simply say that the accepted doctrine concerning our
father Adam, the great sire of the human race, is as follows:
He is
Michael, the Ancient of Days, the future God of this earth, when it shall
become celestialized and shine like unto a sea of glass mingled with fire, the
glorified home of celestial beings forever. Hence Adam stands at the head of
the human family, presides over them spiritually and temporally, and will come
in due time as the Ancient of Days to call his children together, according to
the scriptures, both ancient and modern. He will preside over them forever, and
be their God eternally; this, of course, after the Millennial reign of Christ.
Christ is not Adam, nor is Adam Christ, but both are eternal Gods, and it may
even be said Fathers, since they are the parents of eternal or spiritual
children. (Correspondence, Joseph F. Smith to Bishop Edward Bunker, February
27, 1902, 2)[1]
***
In all such matters as this there
is one thing that should be kept constantly in mind, and that is, that the
theories, speculations and opinions of man, however intelligent, ingenious and
plausible, are not necessarily doctrines of the Church or principles that God
has commanded his servants to preach. No doctrine is a doctrine of this Church
until it has been accepted as such by the Church, and not even a revelation
from God should be taught to his people until it has first been approved by the
presiding authority—the one through whom the Lord makes known His will for the
guidance of the saints as a religious body. The spirit of revelation may rest
upon any one, and teach him or her many things for personal comfort and
instruction. But these are not doctrines of the Church, and, however true, they
must not be inculcated until proper permission is given.
The Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recognizes, outside the direct and
heaven-inspired utterances of the prophet, seer and revelator, four standards
of doctrine, namely, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants
and the Pearl of Great Price, containing the revelations of God given in times
past and present for the guidance, salvation and exaltation of his people.
These books have been accepted by the Church, in general conference assembled,
as its doctrinal standards, and nothing outside of them, whether true or false,
has any practical bearing or significance, so far as the conduct of the Church
is concerned. If our elders would always remember these things, and preach and
practice accordingly, the differences you speak of would speedily disappear. We
should avoid disputations, whatever our differences of opinion may be, and
following the advice of Paul, all learn to speak the same things. Now to answer
your questions:
First – “Which
is the God we worship throughout eternity, Father, Son or Adam?”
We are to
worship the Father in the name of the Son.[2]
Second –
“Did Adam live [as] a mortal being twice?”[3]
There is
nothing in the records named that so states, and it is not a true doctrine. . .
.
Fourth –
“We lived our first estate before the world was; then, in Genesis 1:27, we find
that ‘male and female created he them;’ next we have the fact, in Genesis 2:7,
that man became a living soul, to live, suffer and die, and yet through these
become as God is. Please explain fully the two seeming spiritual creations.”
They are
not both spiritual creations; the first was spiritual, the second was temporal.
This is evident from Genesis 2:4, 5, where, in reference to the first or spirit
creation, it speaks of the making of “the earth and the heavens,” “every plant
of the earth before it was in the earth,” and “every herb of the field before
it grew,” and of man before there was “a man to till the ground.” It is
probably the use of the word “soul,” in Genesis 2:7 that confuses you. With us
the souls is not the spirit, as with the world; the soul is the spirit and the
body combined (D&C 88:15). It was not until the spirit or “breath of life”
passed into the body that the Lord God formed “of the dust of the ground,” that
“man became a living soul.”
(Correspondence, Joseph F. Smith to Sister Lillie Golsan [Autaugaville,
Alabama], July 16, 1902)[4]
***
You seem to be somewhat charged
with the spirit of inquiry which, however, appears to be in the air. Some of
the most foolish queries imaginable are coming in from all quarters. You say
the rumor is that when you were asked by a man of this town, if Joseph and
Hyrum Smith had been resurrected that your reply was that, ‘their bones were
gone’. Then you ask: “was Joseph and Hyrum ever brought to Salt Lake and
buried?” To the latter question I answer No. Their remains were left in their
silent resting place in Nauvoo where, in all probability, their ashes still
remain. The man in your town, whoever he may be, reporting as above, does so
out of whole cloth and with no foundation in fact that I have any knowledge of.
Again you
state that it is reported that I “stated in Rexburg, Idaho, in public, that I
saw the Savior face to face and shook hands with him and saw the nail prints in
his hands.” In answer to this I have only to say that to the best of my
recollection I never made any such statement as the above either in Rexburg or
any other place. It is very strange indeed how such stories get in circulation.
Some people seem to be drawing largely upon their imagination but they should
respect the truth sufficiently not to attribute these fancies to anyone else,
not responsible for them.[5]
(Correspondence, Joseph F. Smith to Joseph J. Porter, [Escalante, Utah],
February 11, 1902)
***
You ask:
“Is the Spirit of the Lord and the Holy Ghost one and the same?” When they are
used synonymously – yes – and they are frequently used in the same sense. But
literally – they are not one and the same. Sec. 84, pg. 45-46 D&C has no
reference to the Holy Ghost, who is a personage of spirit (D&C
130:22) but to the spirit of God which giveth light to every man that
cometh into the world. The Holy Ghost is only given to those baptized,
etc.
Question 2:
‘Was the Apostle Paul one of the Twelve Apostles?” To my mind, without doubt he
was. How could he have met with the Twelve, and why should Peter have chided
him for saying some things hard to be understood, etc. and how could he have
been recognized and regarded as having authority—in the Church—if he had not
been one of the Twelve? Could the House of God be a House of Order with Paul
preaching the gospel as an apostle independently of the Twelve? It does not
matter to me if the Bible is silent on the matter. Common sense and a knowledge
of the order of the Priesthood proves to me beyond doubt that neither Paul nor
Barnabas would have been recognized as Apostles if they had not been of the
Twelve. (Correspondence, Joseph F. Smith to Brother Clark, February 10, 1902[6])
***
Your letter
. . . came duly to hand asking the following question: Is the stand taken
correct that the church is built upon the Rock of Revelation, and is the
subject referred to by Christ in speaking to Peter? I answer Yes. This has been
the opinion and conclusion, as also the strong argument, of all the prominent
writers in the Church from P.P. and Orson Pratt down to this day. The Catholics
claim that Christ meant that Peter was the Rock. The Protestants that Christ
was the Rock. Both must be wrong snice not one, then nor since, could
possibly tell whether Peter was an Apostle or Jesus was the Christ without Revelation
from God!
It seems
supremely ridiculous, to suppose that Jesus meant to build His Church upon
Peter! And yet it is quite as consistent to believe that as to believe the Lord
meant himself in this declaration: for not even the disciples could know or
tell that Jesus was the Christ but by revelation from God. “Flesh and blood”
could not reveal this truth unto them.
The
question was: “Whom do men say that I, the son of man, am?” . . . “Some say
John the Baptist; some say Elias and others Jeremias; or one of the
prophets”—“But whom say ye that I am?” And Peter said, “Thou art the Christ,
the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered, “Blessed art thou, Simon
Barjona.” (Why blessed?) “For flesh and blood hath not revealed this unto thee
but my Father who is in heaven. . . . and upon this rock (revelation from the
Father in heaven) I will build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not
prevail against it.” The words “And I say also unto thee that thou are Peter”
were spoken but I emphasize the great principle of Revelation from God by which
Peter knew that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God.
The Church
of Christ was and is built upon the Rock of Revelation and the Apostles and
prophets are the foundation stone, Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.
(Correspondence, Joseph F. Smith to George E. Browning, Ogden UT, July 17,
1902)
***
If I
understand you aright, you wish to know if you are doing wrong, as a Latter-day
Saint, in studying the principles of socialism, and in joining a socialistic
club for that purpose.
In answer
to your question I will say that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints disapproves of its members joining societies and organizations of all
kinds whose influence and teachings would have a tendency to divert their
interests in other directions than the one great purpose for which this church
was instituted, namely, the building up of the kingdom of God. It makes no war
on any sect or system, but it defends itself against all inroads attempted to
be made upon faith and allegiance of its members. It encourages them to seek
learning out of the “best books,” but it depreciates among all other evils the waste
of time and demoralization involved in the study of vain philosophy and the
foolish vagaries of men.
I would not
be understood as singling out Socialism and stigmatizing it. I am now speaking
generally. I believe that the system in question contains many beautiful
theories, and that many of its aims are, but I am not prepared to recognize its
avowed ultimate [goal?] as one of these. . . . I cannot see in it any
resemblance to the “order of Enoch,” which you mention; for when that order is
established and in full operation it will be found that the government of God
still exists, and, in fact, that that is God’s government, for the salvation
and exaltation of his children.
Moreover,
it is a plain inference from the teachings of the inspired prophets of ancient
and of modern times, that during the great millennium, when Christ will reign
and the United Order of Zion will flourish as never before upon this planet,
other governments will coexist with it, other churches and nations will enjoy
their rights and liberties under its benevolent and protecting care. This being
the case, and this the character of the world in which we are taking part, is
it not sufficient to belong to such a church, without connecting one’s self
with any other sect or system which must of necessity be less consequential? In
other words, if the Church of Christ, out of which the Kingdom of God shall
grow, contains all that is necessary for the accomplishment of so grand and
noble an object as the brotherhood of man, based upon true and righteous
principles, what is the use of Socialism or any other ism to a Latter-day
Saint, except in so far as it is interesting to note the gradual working of the
leaven of the Gospel and the general progress of mankind toward the fulness of
the truth?
While I see
no harm in the wise and intelligent study of socialistic principles, such of
them at least as are true and as the teachings of the Gospel and the spirit of
the Lord will approve, nor in belonging to a club or society having that as its
only purpose, I would advise you, dear sister, to be prudent and careful, and
not allow yourself to be drawn into any obligations, political or otherwise,
that might possibly result from connecting one’s self with such an
organization. I need not inform you that it is a part of the creed of a
Latter-day Saint to “prove all things and hold fast to that which is good,” and
that if “there is something virtuous, lovely, or of good report, or
praiseworthy, we seek after those things,” recognizing them as part of our religion,
which embraces all that is good and pure in the teachings of all men; but
neither do I need to argue the necessity that exists for one who would be a
savior to others, to keep his or her own feet firmly planted upon the Rock of
Salvation. (Correspondence, Joseph F.
Smith to Miss Leila Marier, Lewisville Idaho, March 3, 1902)
[1]
See also James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency 5:23-34.
[2]
See also Clark, Messages 4:269-71, and “The
Father and the Son,” here.
[3]
This question is probably the result of foolishly trying to harmonize evolution
with the teachings of the scriptures. The reasoning is supposedly that Adam,
the first man, was the mortal offspring of an ape or some kind of neanderthal,
that God then somehow made him immortal so he could fall; he fell and became
mortal again and was cast out of the Garden of Eden with Eve. Pres. Smith is
here rejecting this false theory. See also "The
Origin of Man" Messages 4:199-06; "Pre-Existent
States" Messages 4:261-65; "Letter to President Samuel O.
Bennion" Messages 4:266-67, and Messages 5:289-90.
[4]
See also “The
Origin of Man,” Messages 4:199-206.
[5]
The inquirer may have mistaken Pres. Joseph F. Smith for Elder Melvin J.
Ballard. This type of mistaken identity with the general authorities was and is
very common.
[6]
Compare Clark, Messages 4:32-34 and 5:3-4
No comments:
Post a Comment