If the Temple and Nauvoo House are not Finished you must Run Away

The Nauvoo House of God vs . the Nauvoo Temple of God

I have written some harsh things about how I feel about LDS Apologetics in general. Nevertheless, some of the apologists come up with some good stuff every once in a while. One of my favorite apologists is Gregory L Smith.

I generally like the way he reasons and lays out an argument that he is defending. I feel that he writes with great clarity and is generally quite thorough in his research.

Another thing I like about him is that he is willing to accept the more difficult assignments that bring the greater criticism from LDS readers.

By that, I mean to say that he is willing to…


The Nauvoo House of God vs. The Nauvoo Temple

(Updated version)

21 Responses to If the Temple and Nauvoo House are not Finished you must Run Away

  1. Fusion says:


    Page 2 in this pdf is pretty much blank except for the first sentence ending with ‘as hugh nibley. ..’

    With the ridiculously high amount of money you charge myself and others to read your blog, this can no longer be acceptable! ! Lol

  2. Where does the pickaway lodge come in to all this and the time spent working on this,with the building the temple. and nauvoo house or does it.

    • Terry

      I am not aware of a specific connection between the Pickaway lodge and the two houses of the Lord. Packaway as I recall was a masonic lodge in Ohio that Bennett may have been involved with at some time.

      Masonry in general probably has a lot to do with the crisis of not being able to complete either os the two houses of the Lord in Nauvoo. The saints got preocupied with masonry and I think there were about four masonic lodges that were built in and around Nauvoo during the critical time that the holy houses were supposed to be built.

      The distraction of masonry on the church and the secret quorums and the secret practices and abominations that some of the saints were involved in was no doubt an important part of the reason the saints did not get the job done.

      Another facinating thing I just discovered is that it was commonly believed by the powers that be in Nauvoo that section 97 was the actual revelation commanding the Nauvoo Temple to eventually be built. This clears up several issues. Among them is the awkward timing of the revelation with it coming shortly after the saints in Jackson County had agreed to leave Jackson County, yet Joseph had not heard the news yet. Some skeptics have no doubt assumed this was evidence that the revelation was a manmade blooper, because it was assumed by many that 97 was referring to a Jackson County Temple, however, even though the Lord used the name of “Jackson County” in section 101, 105, 109 and 124, he did not use it in section 97, rather he commanded the saints to build the house in the “Land of Zion” which covers a very large geographical area. Jackson, Far West and Nauvoo are all in the land of Zion.

      This explains why the Lord had to command them a second time to build the temple in Nauvoo and it shows that the saint had been neglegent for about 1 1/2 years after Joseph arrives in Nauvoo, in getting started on the Nauvoo Temple.

      Another thing that section 97 helps to explain is the different purposes between the two houses. It is interesting to itemize the purposes for the Nauvoo Temple from section 97 and the purposes for the Boarding House in 124.

      Lastly, section 97 says the temple was to be built speedily, powered by the power of consecration. Joseph had told the saints when he got to Nauvoo that it was not the time to consecrate and that he would be personally responsible for them not consecrating, that decision in and of itself would have killed the possibility of the temples being completed speedily per the terms of Gods commandment.

  3. This far beyond anything i could have expected as a response.There is a lot hear for me to think about,your take ,on the masonic influence, it seems to separate the two,and two factions within the church,a concept that had not yet come to my thinking..I am a displaced RLDS, And do believe that the church was restored for a season. Never any were have i found so much material to consider than on this site. The material on Rigdon is outstanding and other things as well, i will be doing a lot of reading. Thanks for watching.

  4. Ryan says:


    I’m continually learning from you and trying to catch up on all of your blogs. There is just so much. I really can’t get enough. I’m blessed to have 4-5 hours a day to read, ponder and study my scriptures along with your blog.

    One of the quotes that I read to your rebuttal from Gregory Smith was this:

    “But, those who are claiming that the Saints were rejected do not seem to “believe what Joseph said” when it impacts their claim. I cited many such examples–a particularly cogent one is 12 May 1844, where he encourages them all to bring their families to Nauvoo so they can receive the ordinances. This encouragement simply makes no sense if they have been rejected or are failing.”

    I didn’t see where you addressed it.

    • Great question Ryan

      It was not a question worth addressing in that forum because those LDS apologists are prophet worshippers who don’t think that Joseph Smith ever made a malignant mistake. They refuse to acknowledge that Joseph had fulfilled the succession prophecy in section 43 and had temporarily stopped abiding in the Lord.

      That is why he had been replaced as the prophet of the church by someone else.

      The cold hard truth of the matter is that Joseph Smith had given the King Follett funeral sermon on April 7th, 1844, two months prior to his 12 May 1844 sermon in which he taught a very serious false doctrine about the nature and character of God. He blatantly contradicted the scriptures in the four standard works (including the scriptures Joseph brought forth). In the sermon he claims that God was not from everlasting to everlasting even though the scriptures testify that declaration to be true.

      God the Father was not once a mortal being like us!

      If you have not read the posts regarding that issue I highly encourage you to do so.

      There is a magnificent reason why Joseph had to have a temporary fall.

      In order to do justice to the topic of Joseph temporarily falling from his church position, I would need to provide the contextual backdrop of the atonement statute which the apologists are light years from being ready for.

      Anyway, I am responding to you.

      Joseph had lost the spirit and his calling long before his 12 May sermon. The words of Isaiah had come to pass that God was going to cover the eyes of his seers. That is the first thing to keep in consideration.

      Therefore, if Joseph was saying that the ordinances of baptism for the dead was still valid, one has to determine if those words represented the “word of God” and were consistent with section 124, OR if they were the words of a desperate man still trying to hold the church together and force the issue..

      Secondly, when Joseph Smith announced that God would no longer accept baptisms for the dead, I believe he was making a “thus sayeth the lord” declaration. He had learned by revelation that the baptisms were no longer acceptable.

      I don’t think he was making a “thus sayeth the Lord” declaration when he allowed baptisms to be resumed in the baptismal font that was located in the unfinished temple.

      Lyman Wight interpreted the declaration that baptisms were no longer allowed in the river as being the end of the acceptable time. Apparently all baptisms for the dead stopped at that time and a period of time went by before the saints began resuming baptisms for the dead in the unfinished temple.

      The 64 dollar question is, did Joseph ever receive a revelation from God allowing baptisms to be performed in the unfinished temple? I am not aware that a revelation was ever received allowing it. It makes not sense. Either the Saints should have been able to continue using the rivers, or, they were rejected.

      Using an unfinished temple contradicts the letter and spirit of the revelation!

      I believe the evidence points to the fact that the Saints had been rejected at the time Joseph Smith made is anouncement that baptisms were no longer acceptable in the river.

      I believe the Saints were not authorized to be doing baptisms for the dead in the unfinished temple when they eventually began doing that.

      Here is Lyman Wights statement:

      “We were to have a sufficient time to build that house during which time our baptisms for our dead should be acceptable in the river. If we did not build within this time we were to be rejected as a church we and our dead together. Both the temple and baptizing went very leisurely till the temple was somewhere in building the second story when Bro Joseph from the Stand announced the alarming declaration that baptism for our dead was no longer acceptable in the river, as much to say the time for building the temple had passed by and both we and our dead were rejected together. The church now stands rejected together with their dead The church being rejected now stands alienated from her God in every sense of the word” Church History Vol 2 p 790

      It is pretty difficult to argue with Lyman’s interpretation of what it meant when the baptisms in the river were no longer acceptable. Look closely at the following passage:

      “31 But I command you, all ye my saints, to build a house unto me; and I grant unto you a sufficient time to build a house unto me; and during this time your baptisms shall be acceptable unto me.
      32 But behold, at the end of this appointment your baptisms for your dead shall not be acceptable unto me
      ; and if you do not these things at the end of the appointment ye shall be rejected as a church, with your dead, saith the Lord your God.”

      As you can see, baptisms outside of the temple are only allowed during the building of the house, prior to the end of the appointed time. There are only two things that would cause the river baptisms to cease, one would be the completion of the building project, the other would be the end of the appointment.

      The building was not completed at the time Joseph informed the church that the baptisms were no longer acceptable in the river.

      At the Church’s October 1841 general conference, Joseph Smith
      shocked the gathered congregation by stating, “There shall be no more
      baptisms for the dead, until the ordinance can be attended to in the
      Lord’s House”
      (HC 4:426).

      Although the saints eventually assumed that they simply needed to erect a baptismal font in the unfinished temple, there is no documentation to support that such an act was commanded by revelation, indeed, the act appears to be condemned by the verves 33-34.

      Furthermore, when baptisms resumed one month later in the unfinished temple, it was in a temporary wooden baptismal font that was to eventually be replaced by one of cut stone. (http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V23N02_87.pdf )

      Strangely enough, dispite the strong warning given in Section 124, some of the saints continued doing baptisms for the dead in the river as late as 1844. The article above fron Dialogue states:

      “On some occasions, however, as when Wilford Woodruff and his wife, Phoebe, went to the Mississippi River in August 1844 “to be baptized for some of our dead friends,” the river was still used as an alternate site (Kenney 1985, 2:455). This may have
      been because the new stone font was under construction in the temple or because the turmoil surrounding the June 1844 deaths of Joseph and Hyrum…”.

      I have previously blogged about that statement by Wight and I have challenged his belief that the sufficient time was up, because it did not seem like a “sufficient” (fair and reasonable) amount of time to build either structure, let alone both of them. Now that I have more information, I am of the opinion that Lyman Wight was correct in his declaration.

      Few people realize that section 124 did not represent the beginning of the practice of baptisms for the dead in Nauvoo. They were being done before that section was given.

      Although it is possible that the baptisms were no longer acceptable because the sufficient time allotted had expired, it is also probable that the saints were being rejected because of transgression.

      It is very possible that something having to do with secret abominations (polygamy-secret wife doctrine) or involvement in secret societies (masonry) took place at that time that offended God so deeply that he pulled the plug at that time.

      It is unfortunate that the folks over at the Interpreter have “cried uncle” and disabled the comments feature on the friendly discussion I was having with them, because I was about to unleash the bombshell on them that Section 97 is the actual revelation containing the commandment to build the temple!!! (it doesn’t really matter because those folks over there are too wise to be taught anything)

      This proves my claim that section 124 was primarily about the Nauvoo House and not about the Temple!!!

      It also proves that the saints were delinquent in building the Nauvoo Temple BEFORE section 124 was even given!

      I came upon this new information just a few days ago while reading the times and seasons.

      I will be updating the last pdf to include this information.

      Here is the quote from the Times and Seasons:

      “To show more fully the will of God concerning the house which is to be built, we make an extract from the book of Covenants, page 209, which reads as follows:

      10 Verily I say unto you, that it is my will that a house should be built unto me in the land of Zion, like unto the pattern which I have given you.
      11 Yea, let it be built speedily, by the tithing of my people.
      12 Behold, this is the tithing and the sacrifice which I, the Lord, require at their hands, that there may be a house built unto me for the salvation of Zion—
      13 For a place of thanksgiving for all saints, and for a place of instruction for all those who are called to the work of the ministry in all their several callings and offices;
      14 That they may be perfected in the understanding of their ministry, in theory, in principle, and in doctrine, in all things pertaining to the kingdom of God on the earth..’

      Now, I would candidly ask the Saints, and all who desire to do the will of God, will we lay hold with our mights to accomplish this mighty, this glorious work, and show by our works, that we, who enjoy the glorious privilege of living in these latter days, (in which God has begun his work to bring to pass the gathering of his elect,) are worthy of the high privileges which we enjoy, by coming up like men of God and sacrifice, and by our works show that we are such a people as the Lord would have gathered together, as described in the 50th Psalm which says: “Gather my Saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice?” Among the sacrifices which God requires at this time is the tithing for the building of this house.”

      Again, with this new information, it is now clear that the Saints had been negligent in building the temple before section 124 was given and that 124 was not addressing the Nauvvo Temple. It was addressing the Nauvoo Boarding House.

      Here is a chronology of the events pertaining to the Nauvoo Temple timeline.

      August 1833: “Verily I say unto you, that it is my will that a house should be built unto me in the land of Zion, like unto the pattern which I have given you.” (section 97)

      Winter 1839/40 Even as the Saints began to settle Commerce, the Brethren “began to talk upon the subject of building a temple, wherein to administer the ordinances of God’s house. Several councils were held and a place selected where upon the temple was contemplated to be built.” (Clayton, “Nauvoo Temple History Journal,” p. 3.)

      July 1840: Shortly after the saints had begun to establish the city of Nauvoo Joseph Smith proclaimed in a public sermon that the time had come to begin the Nauvoo Temple: “Now from this hour bring every thing you can bring and build a Temple unto the Lord a house into the mighty God of Jacob. We will build upon the top of this Temple a great observatory a great and high watch tower and in the top thereof we will Suspend a tremendous bell..” (building the Zion of the Lord)

      In the same sermon Joseph Smith prophesies the eventual failure of the Nauvoo Temple: “We shall build the Zion of the Lord in peace untill the servants of that Lord shall begin to lay the foundation of a great and high watch Tower and then shall they begin to say within themselves what need hath my Lord of this tower seeing this is a time of peace..”

      Aug 1840 — In Nauvoo the First Presidency issued a general epistle, stating, “…it is necessary to erect a house of prayer, a house of worship of our God, where the ordinances can be attended to agreeably to His divine will, in this region of country.”(Smith, History of the Church, 4:186.)

      Oct 1840 — In the General Conference of the Church the congregation resolved, “That the Saints build a house for the worship of God, and that Reynolds Cahoon, Elias Higbee, and Alpheus Cutler be appointed a committee to build the same.” Men agreed to”tithe” their labor, working one day in ten on the temple. (Smith, History of the Church, 4:205.) The Temple Committee was charged to superintend the work and oversee the entire operation. They also received donations. Those who donated received receipts, usually written by Elias Higbee. (Clayton,”Nauvoo Temple History Journal,” p. 3.) A limestone quarry in an old stream bed northwest of Nauvoo, but within the city limits, opened. It was located west of Main Street, between Hyrum Street and Joseph Street. Elisha Everett struck the first blow for stone for the temple. William Niswanger operated the quarry, which came to be called the Temple Stone Quarry. Albert P. Rockwood and his assistant Charles Drury supervised the crews cutting the limestone. (Smith, History of the Church, 4:229; William Clayton Journal, Journal History, 31 Dec 1844.) Later, stone from another quarry was also used. Joseph Smith III stated, that the stone for the Temple came”from a quarry in the north side of the city along the river bank [the Temple Stone Quarry] and some of them from down the river [probably the Loomis Quarry].” (Saints Herald,26 Sept 1949.)

      Fall 1840 — Joseph Smith “advertised for plans for a temple. He [William Weeks] said several architects presented their plans, but none seemed to suit Smith. So when he went in and showed his plans, Joseph Smith grabbed him, hugged him and said, ‘You are the man I want.'”(F. M. Weeks to J. Earl Arrington, in Arrington,”William Weeks,” BYU Studies, 19 [Spring 1979]: 340.)

      19 Oct 1840 — Prior to this date the Temple Committee had contacted Daniel H. Wells about land for the temple. (Clayton,”Nauvoo Temple History Journal,” p. 4.) Joseph Smith wrote that the Church had “secured one of the most lovely situation [for the Temple] in this region of the Country.” He also stated that the Nauvoo Temple was “expected to be considerable larger than the one in Kirtland and on a more magnificent scale.” (Smith. History of the Church, 4:229; Times and Seasons, 2 [1 Jan 1842]: 259-260.)

      15 Dec 1840 — Work in the quarry continued, but progress was slow. The workers “tithe” their time, working one day in ten. (Manuscript History of the Church, 15 Dec 1840, CA.)

  5. Questioning says:

    After reading Is God a who or a what, The Fullness of the Father, and your above comments to Ryan, I’ve a question I was hoping you could answer. Growing up LDS we are told in the next life we will be married to our spouses and progressing to be Gods ourselves. If this doctrine is wrong, than is there information in the scriptures about what does take place in the eternities for us?

    • In section section 121 we are told that in “a time to come” “nothing shall be withheld, whether there be one God or many gods“.

      Then, in a later verse, which appears to answer the question, it says “According to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was

      From my study, I am of the belief that there is the “Eternal God” with a capital “G“, composed of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and there are those who progress through a mortal probation who become begotton “Sons of God” with a small “g”.

      While I don’t want to downplay the significance of that which is available to those who become “equal” with Christ and receive the “fulness of the Father”, I believe it is still very important to recognize that there is a very important distinction between Him who is from everlasting to everlasting vs., intelligences who become the Sons of God.

      We are informed in section 76 and other places that we will worship and praise God forever.

      While the majority of souls that come to this earth will apparently not become the Sons of God, and will live in a state of singleness, after this lifwe, those who become the sons of God will represent a male and female intelligence that have been “sealed” or “bound” together and fulfilled the commandment to become “one flesh“.

      See the following article for passages that pertain to eternal sealings


      Please remember that these are all just the beliefs of a heretic. For a more traditional viewpoint, please consult your local bishop or stake president and don’t rehearse to him what you have read here.

  6. Fabledsog says:


    This is remarkable; as usual you remain insightful as if you possess the gift of seership. And I am not saying this to flatter you, because you might have some grand secret. But you have been a voice of those who have long since passed, of those who are not yet ready to set forth the decrees of God.

    This concept has unlocked a piece that for a long time was fluff to me. Recently I had figured it was about the Kirtland temple, but to my surprise this concept suddenly brought the piece to a keen remembrance. If I may share it, hopefully it will help sustain this particular concept. And will show that the Lord has not forgotten his promises in the days of his withdrawal.

    While it is on a more personal note, at the end of the day it will be just as important to others as it is to me. By that I mean, is that the Lord has to be true to the personal promises as well as the group promises, if the substance really was inspired by God. And if the Lord does not honor the personal promises, there might be a chance he does not honor the promises made to the group.

    For instance the gospel of Abraham to me is a set of promises made to Abraham, and the house of Israel, and also the children of Israel. And if the Lord does not honor his promise in saving Israel, then Abraham will be questioning his own salvation. Sure things are predicated on faith, but when the Lord states multiple times, Israel shall be saved. Faith is something that the Lord has control over more than we think; the failure of the saints wasn’t just in foresight, I believe it was planned. If the Lord wanted them to succeed, there are numerous ways to eradicate the evil influencing their hearts. Our lives are not our stories, they are God’s, flesh begets flesh Spirit begets spirit.

    So to provide an incredible witness whether credible or not, that when the promises made to me from my patriarchal blessing are fulfilled, it will be in a time when the very words of D&C are fulfilled.

    “In due time, you will be able to go to the Lord’s House, that holy and sacred Temple. The Temple will be a safe haven for you, where you can gain strength and the courage to carry on in difficult times. In faithfulness you will be blessed with a wonderful companion and be able to enjoy the blessings of an eternal family in eternity.”

    Right at the start is due time which carries a lot of weight in regards to major prophecies. At that due time, I will be able to go to the House of the Lord, currently I am unable to go and there are plenteous reasons why. The Nauvoo House is able to be considered a temple too, since that anything God resides in is considered a temple. And one other thing is the phrase holy and sacred, which two words are synonyms; this leads me to the conclusion that the Lord had two distinct places in mind. This isn’t too hard to consider, since even genuine temples had segmented parts. The Lord’s House will be a safe haven for me, need I say more? The place is where I can gain strength and courage to keep the commandments in tribulation. Although it doesn’t exactly mean that I will gain the strength and courage or in other words power and authority at that particular place, but others might.

    Now to the puzzling part, it will be a place where I will be able to enjoy the blessings of an eternal family in eternity; which means to me that the Nauvoo House will be a house of eternity where I can commune with my family. It also tells me that it can also be a place where I can be blessed with a wonderful companion (just one). But wonderful doesn’t exactly mean as to the type of person she is, which could very well be the case, but means as to the state of the companion; full of wonder. This means to me that the Nauvoo House will be a place where true eternal marriages and sealings will occur. It could be said that the Nauvoo Temple is a house of patriarchy, and the Nauvoo House, a house of matrimony.

    In addition to this enlightening piece is a previous piece which clarifies that servants of the Lord will be gathered to more than one place.

    “The blessings of the faithful will be with you forever. Your faith and testimony will grow and become strong and you will be a valiant leader among leaders and serve in holy and sacred places.” (Holy houses and sacred temples)

    I know this will arouse suspicions, but maybe the hope of the Lord fulfilling his word coming partially to light, is somewhat needed even if it is just a whisper.

    38 For, for this cause I commanded Moses that he should build a tabernacle, that they should bear it with them in the wilderness, and to build a house in the land of promise, that those ordinances might be revealed which had been hid from before the world was.
    (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 124:38)

    Moses commanded to build a tabernacle, and a house in the land of promise? How strange, for the one like Moses to also receive two commands for two buildings of the Lord! Especially considering the Lord mentioned the ark and covenant, but somehow forget to mention that the house was for its permanent place, and went on about hidden ordinances.

    A stranger

    (I hope the eternal language is short, english is still too wordy lol)

    • Oh….my…..Gosh!

      “build a tabernacle, that they should bear it with them in the wilderness, and to build a house in the land of promise”

      I had never picked that up! both a tabernacle and a HOUSE!

      Fabled, you are at the top of your game brother. That is incredible!!!

  7. Questioning says:

    Did I read correctly that when D&C 124:42 was received they had already been building the Nauvoo Temple? I must be wrong because D&C has the revelation dated Jan.19,1841, and everywhere I read says construction started on the temple in Feb. after the revelation. Just confused, any help with references would be awesome?

    • Yes you read it correctly.

      Four days before section 124 was given, on Jan 15th, the First Presidency published an announcement in the times and seasons stating that “The temple of the Lord is in process of erection here..”

      Greg Smith claims that the statement does not mean that they had actually begun erecting the building.

      I believe it does.

      But regardless of whether they had physically begun working on laying the foundation and/or whether the walls were going up yet or not, I believe the statement makes it clear that the revelation to build the Nauvoo Temple had been given prior to the reception of section 124.

      In the article I provide further documentation to show that Joseph had publicly already told the saints to build a Temple in Nauvoo in 1840.

      Finally, I provide documentation from the Times and Seasons showing that the real revelation containing the commandment to build the Temple in the “land of Zion” (Nauvoo Temple) is actually section 97 given back in 1833 just after the saints agreed to leave Jackson County!

      All of this backs up the supposition that section 124 was primarily about the “Nauvoo House”, not the “Nauvoo Temple”.

      This means that the following verse is referring to the Nauvoo House:

      42 And I will show unto my servant Joseph all things pertaining to this house, and the priesthood thereof, and the place whereon it shall be built.

      It was the Nauvoo House that the Lord was about to show Joseph where it was to be built.

      Somehow we have lost sight of the fact that the Nauvoo House is a House of the Lord where the Lord is going to dwell and where amazing things are going to take place.

  8. jr says:

    One day could you do a piece about the D&C “revelations” that were changed (dates changed, content, etc.), who possibly made the changes, which revelations are false and so on. And list them in order or in a time line. I am having a hard time keeping it all straight. LOL. (I have ADD). 🙂

    Could you please the significance of the Nauvoo House? If it was to be a boarding house then why so important? Or was it supposed to be used for other purposes?
    Thanks! Love your blog

    • jr-

      “One day could you do a piece about the D&C “revelations” that were changed”

      That is a great idea that I have toyed with. The thought is overwhelming to me right now because it would take quite a depth of time, thought and research and I am lazy and having a difficult time focusing. Most of my posts simply draw from the research I have accumulated over the years and are therefore easy and quick to put together. The type of post we are talking about here would really be a serious undertaking at a time when I am having a difficult time staying engaged with the PTHG series, which would normally be a piece of cake because I already have all of the resource material so easily at hand.

      If I could do it on the topic you are suggesting I think it would give some good food for though to those who are struggling with the David Whitmer interpretation of Joseph being a fallen prophet as early as 1829.

      In fact, the thing that helped me avoid going down the road that David Whitmer went down is that one day I was comparing the alterations made between BofC chapter 4 which eventually became D&C section 5, and I came upon the following passages which Joseph Smith deleted when he modified the revelation to be published in the 1835 D&C:

      Book of Commandments 4:5 1833 Edition: And thus, if the people of this generation harden not their hearts, I will work a reformation among them, and I will put down all lyings, and deceivings, and priestcrafts, and envyings, and strifes, and idolatries, and sorceries, and all manner of iniquities, and I will establish my church, like unto the church which was taught by my disciples in the days of old.4:6 And now if this generation do harden their hearts against my word, behold I will deliver them up unto Satan, for he reigneth and hath power at this time, for he hath got great hold upon the hearts of the people of this generation: and not far from the iniquities of Sodom and Gomorrah, do they come at this time: and behold the sword of justice hangeth over their heads, and if they persist in the hardness of their hearts, the time cometh that it must fall upon them. Behold I tell you these things even as I also told the people of the destruction of Jerusalem, and my word shall be verified at this time as it hath hitherto been verified.

      Here is the edited and altered version of the same passage in section 5 of the D&C:

      Doctrine and Covenants 5:19 1835 Edition” For a desolating scourge shall go forth among the inhabitants of the earth, and shall continue to be poured out from time to time, if they repent not, until the earth is empty, and the inhabitants thereof are consumed away and utterly destroyed by the brightness of my coming. 5:20 Behold, I tell you these things, even as I also told the people of the destruction of Jerusalem; and my word shall be verified at this time as it hath hitherto been verified.

      When I had first read the passage in the Book of Commandments the Spirit bore witness to my soul that it was true. God was going to deliver the Saints over to Satan at some point in time.

      When I noticed that Joseph Smith had deleted it from the D&C I was badly shaken. I thought to myself, “if that passage was true in 1833, it is still true in 1835! Who gave Joseph Smith the right to alter and delete the word of God!!!!

      Then the spirit taught me that in 1833 the prophesy that God would deliver the Saints over to Satan at some time in the future was a true prophecy of a future event, but it was not longer a prophecy of a future event by the time that the D&C was published in 1835!!!!

      God had indeed delivered the Saints over to Satan between 1833 and 1835!!!!!

      It therefore would have been very deceptive and misleading and down right inaccurate for Joseph Smith to have included that exact passage in the D&C because it would have implied that being turned over to Satan was still a future event, would have implied that the Saints had maintained their status as the Church of Christ.

      That thought, blew my mind and it opened me up to the possibility that the rejection of the fulness happened much earlier than I have previously thought. (some of my earlier posts on this blog still indicate that the rejection happened a few years later than 1834 (because I am too lazy to go back and correct the posts) That is how recently I have learned about this aspect of the latter day apostacy.

      It was after that “ah ha”, that I learned about the significance of the special conference at the Morley Farm and rejection of the Melchizedek endowment by the collective body of the Saints, and it was after that ah ha that I found out about joseph and Sidney changing the name of the church and taking the name of Christ out of the name of the Church in 1834 etc., etc., etc.

      All of this information grew out of realizing that God had inspired Joseph Smith to alter the revelations in the BoC, in 1833 to correctly reflect the state of the Saints and the world just a few short years later, in 1835.

      After realizing how inspired the change was between those to passages from the BofC and the D&C I began using sites like this one that provide a side by side comparison


      to compare the changes that were made, and in most instances, I could see that the reason the changes were made were because the state of the church had changed in their relationship with God.

      That is what I tried to convey in those two posts, showing the distinction between:

      The “Book of Commandments” written to the “Church of Christ” in 1833

      and the

      Doctrine and Covenants” written to the “Church of the Latter day Saints” in 1835.

      I should have written down my findings at that time when I evaluated all of the changes, because it probably would be helpful in showing the fallacy of the scenario that David Whitmer paints, but alas, I didn’t.

      I think, however, from what I have just written, that anyone that wants, can do their own study and arrive at the same conclusion that I did.

      Thank you jr for asking the question you did to get me to at least give a brief example of what led me to the conclusions I have made. I probably should have responded with these thoughts when Thirsting asked for additional insight regarding the things that DW wrote… I hope you are reading this, Thirsting and I hope it is in some way helpful to you. 🙂

      Secondly you said-

      “Could you please [explain] the significance of the Nauvoo House?”

      It is interesting that you asked that question because I just got an email from a very dear friend in Denver who is an attorney, who helps provide a “peer review” for the series I am doing on PTHG. In the email he basically brings up the same question and points out to me that I did not take the time to develop this concept in my recent rants about section 124.

      He also inadvertantly points out that I did not develop why I take the statement in the Times and Seasons by Elias Higbee so seriously, regarding section 97 being the original revelation that commanded the building of the Nauvoo Temple.

      I will be addressing these issues in an upcoming post.

      Thank you for such thoughtful questions and for visiting the blog of this heretic.


  9. jr says:

    Sorry, I overlooked your last comment.
    If the Nauvoo House was to be a house of the Lord, then what was the Temple for at that time period? Does this mean we are not to have Temples today? Thank you.

  10. Ryan says:

    A question I had yesterday about baptisms for the dead.

    All the baptism from JS time till today have been done for the LDS church.

    Setting aside that The Lord has rejected them, when he comes again to establish Zion, won’t the church’s new change?

    Won’t we all need to be baptized again like those in 3 Ne?

    If so, won’t ALL the baptisms for the dead done under the LDS head need to be re-done?

    • In my most humble and heretical opinion, everyone dead and alive from the time of Joseph Smith until now will need to be rebaptized just like the Nephites did at the coming of Christ.

      It will not be a burden… it will release the burden of sin that needs to be washed away.

  11. Fusion says:

    …and if I may add, Watcher, that when that baptism comes it will be like Mosiah 4:1-3…when the people COLLECTIVELY fell on the floor as ONE in heart, mind and purpose, and repented, desiring the Lord have mercy and give His Spirit once again:

    1 And now, it came to pass that when king Benjamin had made an end of speaking the words which had been delivered unto him by the angel of the Lord, that he cast his eyes round about on the multitude, and behold they had fallen to the earth, for the fear of the Lord had come upon them.

    2 And they had viewed themselves in their own carnal state, even less than the dust of the earth. And they all cried aloud WITH ONE VOICE, saying: O have mercy, and apply the atoning blood of Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins, and our hearts may be purified; for we believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who created heaven and earth, and all things; who shall come down among the children of men.

    3 And it came to pass that after they had spoken these words the Spirit of the Lord came upon them, and they were filled with joy, having received a remission of their sins, and having peace of conscience, because of the exceeding faith which they had in Jesus Christ who should come, according to the words which king Benjamin had spoken unto them.

    And thus we can be like the folks in Mosiah 5:1-5, confessing our faith and having a mighty change in heart, and receive the manifestations and all prophesywith joy as we covenant to do His will, and thus become ‘children of Christ’ (v7):

    1 And now, it came to pass that when king Benjamin had thus spoken to his people, he sent among them, desiring to know of his people if they believed the words which he had spoken unto them.

    2 And they all cried with one voice, saying: Yea, we believe all the words which thou hast spoken unto us; and also, we know of their surety and truth, because of the Spirit of the Lord Omnipotent, which has wrought a mighty change in us, or in our hearts, that we have no more disposition to do bevil, but to do good continually.

    3 And we, ourselves, also, through the infinite agoodness of God, and the manifestations of his Spirit, have great views of that which is to come; and were it expedient, we could prophesy of all things.

    4 And it is the faith which we have had on the things which our king has spoken unto us that has brought us to this great knowledge, whereby we do rejoice with such exceedingly great joy.

    5 And we are willing to enter into a covenant with our God to do his will, and to be obedient to his commandments in all things that he shall command us, all the remainder of our days, that we may not bring upon ourselves a never-ending torment, as has been spoken by the angel, that we may not drink out of the cup of the wrath of God.

    Tonight, my two little children asked my wife and I whilst praying, why the Lord didn’t answer the prayers of those in the Philipines affected with the storm. Then they answered their own Q by saying ‘perhaps the Lord lets the storm happen so WE the people can go and help, otherwise we will never need to help and never will’…

    …out of the minds and mouths of babes indeed


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: