SACRED FICTION AND TRANSFORMATION

 

Modern readers often place the question of historicity in the foreground. Did these events actually happen? If so, exactly how did they happen? Entire books are sometimes accepted or rejected on the basis of how confidently those questions can be answered. The Book of Job has long been debated because some regard it as a literary composition rather than the biography of a historical man. The Book of Tobit faces similar criticism, though more readily because its deuterocanonical status places it outside the canon of many Christians. The same questions surround many extracanonical writings, such as the expanded Acts of the Apostles. Although these texts profoundly shaped later Christian tradition and the stories told about the saints, they are generally neglected as scripture because they were not included in the biblical canon.

In recent decades, scholarly discussion of an ancient concept has become more prevalent: that of "sacred fiction," the idea that a work may be inspired or spiritually authoritative without being a literal historical record. I find the category useful, not because I am prepared to label particular books as fiction, but because it shifts the conversation toward a more productive question. In many cases, the available evidence does not justify certainty about whether a text should be understood as literal history, theological narrative, or something in between. I prefer to acknowledge that uncertainty rather than pretend to possess greater confidence than the evidence permits.

Yet the category of sacred fiction serves an important purpose because it reminds us that the value of scripture does not stand or fall with its historical form. Even if every book of the biblical canon were shown to be an exact historical record, that would not be its greatest contribution. Scripture was not preserved merely to inform us about the past, but to transform us in the present. Its ultimate purpose is not the accumulation of historical knowledge, but the formation of faithful people by shaping our character, deepening our understanding of God, and teaching us how to live. Historical knowledge may support those aims, but it is not the end for which scripture was given.

This perspective also frees us to approach many ancient religious writings with greater humility. Instead of asking only, "Did this happen?" we may also ask, "What truth is this attempting to communicate?" That question remains worthwhile whether the account is literal history, stylized history, parable, visionary literature, or some combination that cannot now be distinguished with certainty. A text should not be dismissed simply because its literary form is uncertain if it continues to illuminate enduring truths about God, humanity, and the spiritual life. Certainty is valuable when we can honestly attain it, but the absence of certainty does not prevent us from learning. Seekers should not discard potentially valuable sources simply because they cannot resolve every historical question surrounding them.

Jesus frequently taught through parables. If our response to hearing the Parable of the Prodigal Son is to ask what the young man's name was, where he lived, or what independent evidence corroborates the account, then we have entirely missed Christ's purpose. Whether the story recounts a historical individual or presents a deliberately constructed example becomes secondary to the truth it was intended to reveal. We would be like someone who, when the Master points toward the horizon, becomes fascinated with His finger instead of looking where He directs our attention.

This principle extends beyond the parables of Jesus. Whether we are reading canonical Scripture, deuterocanonical books, extracanonical Christian literature, Jewish traditions, or the sacred writings of other peoples, the first question should not always be, "Can I prove this happened exactly as written?" Sometimes the wiser questions are these: "What enduring truth does this account seek to preserve? What principles is this writing intended to grant us greater access to?" These questions do not require us to abandon historical inquiry. They simply recognize that spiritual instruction and historical reporting are related but distinct purposes, and that the former is often accessible even when the latter remains uncertain. 

The task of the seeker may therefore require a shift in the way sacred literature is perceived and approached. Rather than seeing it primarily as a record of the past, it should also be understood as a tool through which God continues to work in the present. Viewed in this way, the purpose of sacred writings is not merely to preserve the memory of God's dealings with others, but to increase our ability to recognize His dealings with us. We read them best when we do so with the awareness that God is no less present with us than He was with those whose experiences they record or those whom He inspired to record them, and that His ability to use a text for that purpose is not as limited as we may initially presume.

If God can make use of both good and bad events to test and challenge mankind, then He can also work through texts regardless of whether we label them canonical, deuterocanonical, extracanonical, historical, parabolic, or even entirely outside of our religious tradition. From this viewpoint, our interest in ancient texts is not primarily archaeological, but devotional and revelatory. We therefore may avoid being caught up asking which books deserve the label “Holy Scripture,” a question that often encourages us to draw boundaries before we have fully considered what God may yet teach through a text. Such judgments have the ability to alienate others more than to invite mutual growth through inquiry. We may instead focus on broader and more practical questions that invite us to adopt a posture of humble attentiveness rather than premature certainty. Rather than asking, "Does this text merit my attention?"—thereby narrowing the well from which we may draw benefit. The better questions are these: "Through which writings is God still teaching attentive seekers?" and, "What is He teaching me right now?"

SCHOLARSHIP AND THE SEEKER

SCHOLARSHIP AND THE SEEKER

One of the most persistent over generalizations among the public is that scholarly opinions of ancient documents, such as their authorship and dates of composition, are derived from a largely objective process. Perhaps no one imagines the process is as simple and straightforward as placing a manuscript under a microscope, chemically testing it or measuring it by a simple metric, yet many rigidly assume proposed dates and other determinations as though derived from just such a direct and reliable method. In reality, most dates assigned to ancient texts are not discoveries, but judgments, authorship and the language of composition are assertions based on interpretation of evidence, and theories such as its influences and the reason for which it was written are reasonable inferences, often proposed for further discussion. How easily they are taken for concrete facts.

This is not a shortcoming of critical methods, just how results are often viewed. Judgments are unavoidable. Historians work with incomplete information. They must weigh probabilities, compare theories, and make determinations based upon the evidence available to them. The problem arises later, when those judgments become inherited assumptions, and those assumptions become established facts in the minds of subsequent generations.

Many critics of modern scholarship believe that this tendency is driven primarily by atheism. It is certainly true that many scholars are atheists, agnostics, or otherwise skeptical of religious claims. Yet atheism is not the only explanation for the patterns we observe. The pressures we should look to first are much more human and far more universal.

Imagine a young scholar beginning his career with no strong position on the authorship or dating of a particular text. He examines the evidence. He studies the arguments. Several theories remain plausible. Some appear slightly stronger than others. Eventually he reaches a conclusion and publishes his findings.

Up to this point, the process is generally healthy. The change occurs after the judgment has been made. The scholar is no longer acting as a judge weighing possibilities. He now becomes an advocate for the conclusion he has reached. This is natural. Human beings do not spend years developing an argument only to present it with the same uncertainty they felt before reaching it. Once a conclusion has been adopted, evidence supporting it receives greater attention while evidence against it receives greater scrutiny. Again, this is not dishonesty. It is ordinary human behavior.

The next generation enters the discussion and encounters not the original uncertainty, but the polished conclusion. The caveats remain in the footnotes, but the confidence grows in the summaries. What began as a probability becomes a likelihood. What began as a likelihood becomes a consensus. What began as a consensus becomes a fact. At no point was certainty actually established.

This process becomes particularly visible in discussions of authorship and dating. A document claims to have been written by a particular individual. The evidence is insufficient to prove the claim. Rather than remaining permanently agnostic, scholars often feel pressure to choose between authenticity and pseudepigraphy. Since falsely authenticating a document carries greater professional risk than falsely rejecting one, the safer position gradually becomes preferred.

The result is an asymmetrical system. If a document is authentic but labeled pseudepigraphal, little damage is done to the scholar's reputation. The error is difficult to prove and rarely revisited. If a document is declared authentic and later shown to be pseudepigraphal, however, the mistake becomes highly visible.

Given those incentives, caution naturally moves in one direction. This tendency does not require hostility toward religion. It does not require an anti-supernatural worldview. It arises from ordinary risk management. The same pattern can be observed in countless other fields. Institutions generally reward errors of caution more than errors of acceptance.

A second problem lies in the reconstruction of historical development. Scholars often speak confidently about how doctrines evolved, how offices developed, how myths expanded, how language changed, and how communities transformed over time. Yet these reconstructions are themselves built upon earlier assumptions.

A text is dated late because it contains a developed doctrine. The doctrine is considered developed because it appears in texts dated late. The dates are then reinforced by the doctrine, and the doctrine is reinforced by the dates.

Such models may be correct. Sometimes they are undoubtedly correct. Yet they often possess a degree of certainty that exceeds the evidence supporting them. History is rarely so tidy.

Ideas do not always develop in straight lines. Communities do not all evolve at the same rate. Ancient people were not following the timelines later historians would construct for them. An individual may be ahead of his age. A remote community may preserve an older tradition. A teaching may emerge, disappear, and later reappear. A text may be revised while preserving genuinely ancient material.

The past was a living reality, not a chart in a textbook. For this reason I remain skeptical whenever certainty exceeds evidence. That skepticism applies equally to traditional claims and scholarly claims. A document's self-identification should not be accepted uncritically. Neither should it be dismissed uncritically. The honest answer in many cases is that we do not know.

Modern scholarship often treats this answer as a temporary embarrassment to be overcome. I increasingly suspect that uncertainty is the more reasonable conclusion more often than we admit. Schools and those offering research grants prefer conclusions. Publishers insist on them and readers are disappointed without them. Careers are built upon conclusions, while “I do not know,” though honest, rarely becomes a bestselling book.

Yet uncertainty is not weakness. It is simply an acknowledgment of reality. The further back we travel into antiquity, the fewer witnesses remain and the more dependent we become upon reconstruction. Reconstruction has value. It is necessary. But reconstruction should never be mistaken for observation. Nor should what we can prove based on evidence be taken for all that that was.

Many of the dates, authorships, and developmental models that dominate modern discussions of ancient literature may ultimately prove correct. The problem for the spiritual seeker is not that scholars reach conclusions, but that the distinction between evidence and inference is too often forgotten. When that happens, assumptions inherit the authority of facts, and future generations begin building upon foundations whose uncertainty has long since been concealed beneath the weight of repetition.

For the academic, this amounts to some improper conclusions. When it becomes a burden placed upon seekers or those proposing faith based systems, or a tool for controlling or influencing personal beliefs, it becomes manipulative and oppressive to conscience, thought and religious liberty. It arises from a category error that should be countered and corrected so that faith based beliefs and systems, if detrimental or unhelpful, may be properly countered within the framework in which they exist.

The Responsibility of the Seeker

If the limitations of scholarship are real, it does not follow that scholarship is without value. Quite the opposite. The seeker of truth, who yearns for understanding, should be willing to learn from anyone. Atheists, believers, historians, clergy, skeptics, mystics, and scholars of every tradition may possess pieces of information that help illuminate the whole.

The mistake lies not in listening to them, but in surrendering judgment to them. Many people reject scholarship because they perceive bias. Others reject faith because they perceive bias. Both approaches are immature. The fact that a source possesses biases does not make it worthless. It simply means that its limitations must be understood.

An atheist scholar may be predisposed toward naturalistic explanations. A committed believer may be predisposed toward interpretations that support cherished doctrines. A denominational scholar may face pressures from institutions, traditions, congregations, or publishers. An independent scholar may face pressures of a different sort, including the desire to be original, controversial, or recognized. No one stands completely outside such influences.

The solution is not to trust no one. The solution is to trust no one completely. The independent seeker is therefore wise to consider diverse opinions while remaining free to accept none of them. The purpose of examining evidence is not to discover whose authority should replace our own. It is to better understand the matter under consideration.

Indeed, accepting either the scholar's conclusion or the believer's conclusion without personal investigation merely replaces one appeal to authority with another. Such dependence is intellectually dangerous because conclusions are always downstream from assumptions, and assumptions are often invisible to those who hold them.

Even when a scholar presents evidence fairly, the seeker should remember that evidence and interpretation are not identical. A person presenting evidence is often presenting an interpretation simultaneously. The facts themselves may be accurate while the framework used to organize them remains debatable. This is why serious inquiry requires looking beyond conclusions and examining the evidence directly whenever possible.

Nor should we imagine that the strongest interpretation available today must therefore be correct. Evidence is frequently incomplete. Sometimes it is misleading. Sometimes it points strongly in one direction only to be recontextualized by new discoveries. Entire scholarly reconstructions have been overturned by a single manuscript, inscription, archaeological find, or forgotten source. What once appeared decisive can become questionable overnight.

This does not mean evidence is useless. It means evidence has limits. The desire for certainty often exceeds the amount of information available to justify it. For this reason, I have increasingly come to believe that drawing conclusions is not always the highest objective. Sometimes remaining open to multiple possibilities better reflects the actual state of the evidence. The person who prematurely closes a question may gain confidence, but confidence and truth are not always the same thing.

This is particularly important in spiritual matters. The spiritual seeker is not a scholar. He may benefit from scholarship, but he is not bound by its objectives, methods, assumptions, or restraints. The scholar seeks conclusions that can survive scrutiny within an academic community. The seeker seeks communion with God. These goals overlap at times, but they are not identical.

The reason scholarship survives being wrong is because its purpose was not to provide certainty, but to construct increasingly useful and evidence-based models of reality. Those models are provisional by design. A good historian does not expect his conclusions to remain untouched forever, he expects them to be refined, challenged, and occasionally overturned. Likewise, the purpose of testimony, as used by the faithful believer, is not to compel assent. A testimony that could compel belief would cease to function as testimony and become proof. Its purpose is different. It exists to expand the listener's awareness of possibility, invite inquiry, and encourage pursuit.

The purpose of study for a spiritual seeker, likewise, is to prepare ourselves for conversation with God on His terms, while its purpose for the academic is to better understand mankind and his world. Academic standards exist to determine what can be demonstrated publicly. Spiritual truth often concerns matters that cannot be demonstrated publicly at all. A relationship with God cannot be peer reviewed. Prayer cannot be footnoted. Revelation cannot be reproduced in a laboratory.

For this reason, the seeker's journey cannot end with research. Research is only the first step. The Book of Mormon teaches this principle plainly. Moroni does not instruct us merely to gather evidence. He instructs us to study, ponder, and then ask God. Likewise, the Doctrine and Covenants teaches that one must study a matter out in one's mind and heart before seeking divine confirmation.

The process contains multiple stages. First comes investigation. Then comes reflection. Then comes conscience. Then comes prayer. The evidence must first pass through the mind, but afterward it must also pass through the heart, and by this I do not mean emotion alone, but that internal faculty through which we perceive right and wrong, truth and falsehood, goodness and corruption. One might call it conscience, moral intuition, spiritual perception, or the light of Christ. Whatever name is preferred, it is a faculty that scholarship alone cannot replace.

After we have gathered the evidence available to us and examined it honestly, we have only completed the first portion of the work. The final portion belongs to God. There are times when spiritual insight confirms what evidence appears to indicate. There are times when it cautions patience. There are times when it overturns our expectations entirely. Such moments become tests of faith because they require choosing between confidence in our own reasoning and trust in divine guidance.

Such methods, or even interest, may sound foolish to those who believe material reality is the highest reality. Yet the seeker begins with a different premise. The seeker understands that this present world is not ultimate reality. It is a temporary environment through which ultimate reality is perceived only dimly. We see through layers of limitation, assumption, mortality, culture, language, and imperfect understanding. Under such conditions, certainty is often an illusion.

God never directed us to lean upon the research and judgment of other human beings anyway, whether they are wise and expert in their fields or not, any more than He limited our pursuit of knowledge to the books that He authored through prophets and apostles. We should not confuse any part for the whole or any required step for completion. Every part of His creation is the subject of study, and also its means. “This life is the time to prepare to meet God;” it is also a lifelong opportunity and process to seek and get to know Him, and everything in it is intended to serve that purpose, including its experiences, applications, mistakes and lessons learned. 

Often we find that the journey is as important, or at times more important, than the destination. The journey is where growth occurs, while the destination is the place the journey prepares us for. An imperfect image of God, as may be assembled from purely human resources, is secondary to the ongoing relationship with the living God Himself, that may be cultivated through every means of learning God has provided.

Seeking and obtaining God and His truth are likewise two separate phases. One is the lifelong process of preparation; the other is the fulfillment toward which that preparation points. We cannot obtain unless we seek, and seeking is a process. The search of the spiritual seeker may be considered a dance with Deity. To dance, we must be participants, not merely observers. It is essential that we let God lead and that we follow, and this includes performing all the steps specifically designated for the one following. As in dance, our own self expression emerges in the process.

Study in this context is not a solitary effort, but a required part in a joint venture in which one partner is both the guide and the object of search. We may think of life’s pursuit of knowledge leading to God as a scavenger hunt between two lovers, designed as both a game and a challenge. The leading partner devised it, determined its themes, selected the landscape and parameters and hid clues, which are specially customized based on deeply personal knowledge so that with effort the other partner may follow and appreciate success. It’s not a means to eliminate unworthy suitors. The intent is not to remain hidden. The search is the point. The clues are designed to be solved so that it becomes an engaging means to draw closer. Its Creator anxiously awaits discovery at its conclusion. 

Humility is therefore more valuable than certainty, openness more valuable than conclusions, receptivity more valuable than defense of positions, and willingness more fruitful than resignation due to the impossible size of the mystery. Though it overlaps with and appears similar at times to what is done by academics, the study associated with spiritual discipleship is not merely academic, and therefore must be evaluated according to its own unique purposes and standards rather than those of academia or other disciplines. It therefore benefits from clearly communicated distinctions that identify it as such and set proper expectations. 

Seekers are not bound by academic conclusions any more than institutional or traditional ones, or even bound to make many conclusions that do not have to be made for now. Seekers and academics have incomparably different things at stake: for one, it is the pursuit of a clearer and more accurate understanding of the world; for the other, it is the discovery of the Creator, who uses that same world as a medium through which to leave clues that lead us back to Him. Knowledge to the seeker is not an end, but a means. Conclusions that harden into certainty before life itself has concluded, or while there is more to study are premature. They do not represent the culmination of a lifelong disciple’s spiritual quest, but its cessation. 

Contrary to Popular Opinion.

Because I have discussed incentives, assumptions, and institutional pressures, some readers may assume that I am hostile toward scholarship itself. The opposite is true. When I encounter people who dismiss academic research into scripture, history, or religion, I generally argue in its defense. Sources are useful when they are not misused. Exposure to differing viewpoints, unfamiliar evidence, and competing interpretations is often beneficial. Deliberately avoiding information that challenges one's existing beliefs is merely another form of confirmation bias. Ignorance is not discernment.

My concern is not academic credibility, but academic certainty. In fact, I apply the same standard to scholars that scholars often apply to extraordinary religious claims. If a scholar wishes to persuade me that a conclusion about the distant past can be held with great confidence, I expect a strong argument and correspondingly strong evidence. Certainty itself is a claim, and in many cases an extraordinary one.

Part of the reason for this is that I have little use for certainty in either scholarship or faith. I find operational understanding far more valuable. An explanation does not need to be infallible to be useful. A model does not need to be final to have merit. I am content to work with the best understanding presently available while remaining willing to revise it tomorrow if better information emerges. Learning often requires relearning.

When I discussed pressures that may encourage scholars to express greater confidence than the evidence warrants, I was not suggesting that such influences are universal, nor even that they are always conscious. Human beings are affected by incentives in ways they often fail to recognize. Nor do such pressures operate in only one direction. Some reward caution and conformity. Others reward novelty, controversy, and challenges to established views. The point is not that scholars are uniquely susceptible to these influences, but that no human institution is exempt from them.

More importantly, my purpose in mentioning such pressures was never to provide an exhaustive catalog of them. The examples merely illustrate a larger principle. The past contains unknowns. Evidence is incomplete. Rational and intelligent people can therefore disagree without either side being irrational or dishonest. In such circumstances, certainty deserves scrutiny. Confidence should correspond to evidence. To claim certainty where only probability exists is no improvement over claiming knowledge where only speculation exists.

This principle applies far beyond academia. Indeed, for every scholar who overstates confidence, there are countless more podcasters, reporters, clergy, teachers, and ordinary individuals who misunderstand the confidence with which scholarly conclusions were originally presented. Many people repeat conclusions they have never personally investigated and then defend them with greater certainty than the original researcher ever expressed.

It is primarily for such people that this section was written. Anyone who spends time discussing scripture will eventually encounter someone appealing to an academic conclusion—or more often a simplified version of one—to dismiss an idea, a passage, or an entire religious tradition. Frequently this is done in service of an exclusionary doctrine. Yet those making the appeal are often unaware that the same scholars they cite may hold similarly skeptical views regarding portions of their own canon or tradition. The lesson is not that scholars should be ignored. It is that no authority should be substituted for thought, and no conclusion should be mistaken for certainty merely because it has been repeated often enough.

Rhetorical Hyperbole and the Authority of the Spirit in Galatians 1:8

Rhetorical Hyperbole and the Authority of the Spirit in Galatians 1:8 Alexei Mattanovich Abstract Modern readings of Galatians often strip Paul’s language of its rhetorical force and historical context. This paper argues that Galatians 1:8 is not a legislative prohibition against future revelation, but a reductio ad absurdum hyperbole designed to protect a dynamic, spiritually confirmed Gospel from authority-based corruption. By invoking an "authority ceiling"—including himself and the angelic host—Paul establishes the internal witness of the Holy Spirit as the ultimate epistemological authority, higher than any institutional or celestial hierarchy. The Rhetorical Crisis in Galatia Paul was not a systematic theologian laying down a timeless legal code; he was a powerful communicator addressing a moment of pastoral crisis. His argumentative letters have often been treated as a fixed replacement law, encasing living rhetoric in stone and obscuring the art that made him effective to his original audience. In Galatia, the crisis was one of loyalty and social pressure. Dignitaries of high standing from Jerusalem were insisting that Gentile converts adhere to the Torah and be circumcised. This "Ethnocentric Legalism" directly contradicted the Gospel of liberty Paul had delivered. Paul’s concern is not speculative theology but the preservation of the "interior action" of faith. He does not care how important these men think they are; he aims to prevent the Galatians from deferring their conscience to mortal gatekeepers. The Authority Ceiling: Reductio ad Absurdum In Galatians 1:8, Paul employs extreme hypothetical language: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” Modern literalists read this legalistically, yet this reading fails because it ignores the established Jewish-Christian understanding of angels as guarantors of truth. By invoking an angel, Paul appeals to the highest conceivable authority in order to collapse all possible loopholes. The force of the statement lies in the implausibility of the scenario. Paul—the least likely person to corrupt his own message—and holy angels are used as rhetorical placeholders to show that even the most exalted source cannot override a prior divine confirmation. This is supported by Paul’s broader usage in the same letter. In Galatians 3:19, he notes the law was “ordained by angels,” and in 4:14, he praises the Galatians for receiving him “as an angel of God.” These passages demonstrate that Paul held the angelic office in high regard; he is not drawing categorical suspicion on angelic messengers, but is using them to illustrate that the source of truth is God Himself, not the messenger. The Mechanism of Persuasion: God vs. Man In verse 10, Paul’s rhetoric pivots to the source of conviction: “For am I now persuading men or God? Or do I seek to please men?” This is often misread as a simple statement on "people-pleasing." In the context of 1st-century patronage, Paul is rejecting the social hierarchy of the Jerusalem elite. The rhetorical question implies a profound theological point: It was not Paul who convinced the Galatians through oratory or charisma. It was God who convinced them through a manifestation of the Spirit. Therefore, when Paul asks, “Is it I who convinces people, or is it God?” he is reminding them that their conversion was an encounter with objective divine reality. If their assurance came from God, then to abandon it for the sake of "important men" is a rejection of the Divine in favor of the "arm of flesh." Contextual vs. Universal Code Common objections insist that Paul’s words are "timeless" and thus the initial recipients do not matter. However, recognizing that Paul was writing to a specific community does not dismiss the text; it anchors it. To mentally change the context from a personal letter of rebuke to a church-wide legal code effectively disregards the author's intent. Scripture contains enduring principles, but they must be translated from the unique circumstances of the first receivers. Paul’s comparison to God’s promise to Abraham in Galatians 3:15 furthers this point. The faith-based covenant preceded the Law and is preferred over the obligations of the Law, which arose only as a result of transgression. Just as Abraham’s relationship with God was interior and faith-based, Paul argues that the Galatians' relationship with the Gospel must be rooted in their own spiritual witness. Conclusion Galatians 1:8 does not finalize the word of God, nor does it close the door on revelation. It is a rhetorical defense of a spiritually confirmed Gospel against authority-driven distortion. The standard Paul appeals to is not institutional control, but the prior spiritual confirmation of his audience. Personal revelation is not autonomous self-certainty, but participation in a divine reality that must bear spiritual coherence and transformative power. The ability to receive revelation does not ensure perfection, but it provides the only landscape where true discernment can occur. Paul stands not as a sentinel barring the way to future light, but as a witness that in a world of clever deception and institutional pressure, the only path to assurance is the one that leads directly to the Spirit.

THE ONE MIGHTY AND STRONG by Wingfield Watson

 THE “ONE MIGHTY AND STRONG”

BY WINGFIELD WATSON, HIGH PRIEST

 

Twenty columns of the EVENING AND MORNING STAR, taken up in the argument, that Jesus is the “one mighty and strong” to be sent “to set the house of God in order,” etc., aught certainly to be room enough to prove anything that can be proved in theology — any ordinary question, at any rate. But has our friend G. D. Cole, who has written so much on this question in the last three issues of said Star, succeeded in proving that Jesus is the mighty and strong one promised? For one, I deny it.

To assume that Jesus Christ is the one mighty and strong to be sent to set the house of God in order, etc., is to assume that He must come here and enter again upon another ministry among the wicked and the corrupt of the earth, which is contrary to many things written; for all that is written fully assures us that whatsoever is not prepared to meet him at his second coming must perish “root and branch” from under the whole heaven, as for instance the following:

“For behold the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, and all that do wickedly, shall be as stubble, and the day that cometh shall burn them up saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch ; but unto you that fear my name shall the sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings, and ye shall go forth and grow up as calves of the stall; and ye shall TREAD DOWN THE WICKED, for they shall be ASHES under the soles of your feet in the day that I do this, saith the Lord of Hosts,” (Mai. 4:1, 2, 3.)

No chance for mistake in this. But this is not all. In D. & C. 28:2, - we have almost a repetition of the things spoken of by Malachi: “For, the hour is nigh and the day soon at hand, when the earth is ripe; and all the proud, and they that do wickedly, shall be as stubble, and I will burn them up saith the Lord of Hosts, that wickedness shall not be upon the earth, for I will reveal myself from Heaven with power and great glory, with all the hosts thereof, and dwell in righteousness with men on earth a thousand years, and the wicked shall not stand.”

The remnant shall be gathered out of all nations, “and then shall they look for me (Jesus) and behold I will come; and they shall see me in the clouds of heaven, clothed with power and great glory, with all the holy angels, and he that watches not for me shall be cut off.” (D. & C. 45:6.)

“And at that day when I shall come in my glory, shall the parable be fulfilled, which I spake concerning the ten virgins; for they that are wise, and have received the truth, and, have taken the Holy Spirit for their guide, and have not been deceived, verily I say unto you, they shall not be hewn down, and cast into the fire, but shall abide the day; and the earth shall be given unto them for an inheritance; and they shall multiply, and wax strong, and their children shall grow up without sin unto salvation, for the Lord shall be in their midst, and his glory shall be upon them, and he will be their king and their lawgiver.” (D. & C. 45:10.)

I will quote again: “And truth will I send forth out of the earth, to bear testimony of my only begotten; his resurrection from the dead; and righteousness and truth, will I cause to SWEEP the earth as with a FLOOD to gather out my own elect from the four quarters of the earth, unto a place which I shall prepare; a holy city, that my: people may gird up their loins, and be looking forth for the time of my coming, for there shall be my tabernacle, and it shall be called Zion, a New Jerusalem.” These are the words of the Lord Jesus to Enoch in his (Enoch’s) day, (D. & C. 36:12.)

“And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seat, that the sun became blank as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; and the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. • And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together, and every mountain and island was moved out of their places.

And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bond man, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens, and in the rocks of the mountains, and said to the mountains and rocks, fall upon us, and hide us from the face of Him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb; for the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?” (Rev. 6:12-27.)

“And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his everlasting power; when he comes to be glorified in his saints and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.” (2d Thess. 1:7-10.)

“For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ, (those who have received and obeyed, and died in the faith of Jesus Christ) shall rise first; then those who are alive, shall be caught up together into the clouds, with them that remain, to meet the Lord in the air, and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” (1st Thess. 4:15-17.)

Now every one of these passages refer to the final coming of Jesus Christ to dwell with the saints a thousand years on the earth, or during the Millennium, and there is absolutely no evidence in any of these and various other passages, that Jesus is to come to the earth as the mighty and strong one, to gather and redeem scattered Israel, or turn away ungodliness from Jacob. For whatsoever is out of order, or ungodly, or impure, or unrighteous, or proud, or wicked, or that is not watching for him, or that is deceived, or has not received the holy gospel, or has not taken the Holy Spirit for their guide, or are gone asleep, (that is, has become slothful, or indifferent, or dilatory to duty, as in the parable of the ten virgins), will all be swept from the face of the earth at the coming of Jesus Christ. “Behold,” said he, “I come as a thief.” “Watch ye, therefore, for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, at the cockcrowing or in the morning, lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.” (Mark 13:35, 36.)

This sleep is not, of course, the natural sleep necessary to the rest and refreshment of the human system. It is the sleep of indifference, or disregard of duty. “Two shall be in the field; the one shall be taken and the other left. Two shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken and the other left; two shall be in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other left.” (Luke 17:34, 35.) Why not take the two, in each of those cases? Simply because only one is prepared and worthy, and the other is not. Where is the chance in all this for the belief that Jesus is to come and gather Israel, or redeem and set them in order? Jesus comes to “take vengeance on all that know not God, and obey not the gospel.” And Enoch says: “Behold the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed; and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” (Jude 14-15.)

All these things point unerringly to the one great and glorious event, the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, in the clouds of heaven, in flaming fire taking vengeance upon the wicked to commence his reign of a thousand years upon the earth, in righteousness, with his people, during which thousand years Satan shall be shut up in the bottomless pit, and will not have power to tempt any man until that period is finished. Then we read that he will be loosed out of his prison, and will have power to deceive some few of the nations for a little while. (Rev. 20.)

The “setting of the house of God in order” implies that its leaders have put it out of order. It implies usurpation by man-made prophets, who have led the people astray and put them at enmity one with another. As it has been the founders of all the sectarian churches who have set the whole so-called Christian world at enmity one with the other and caused many divisions among them, so it has been false teachers, with their false doctrines who have caused divisions, confusion and disorder among Latter Day Saints; and whoever God sends to set his people — his house — in order, must of necessity work among wicked men, and be opposed by them, for at least a time.

Our friend, G. D. Cole, seems to think that the great works to be accomplished in these latter days can only be accomplished by the Lord Jesus in his own person, but one thing he should remember, and that is, that “all who are ordained to this priesthood,” that is to the same office held by the Son of God, “are made like unto the son of God, abiding a priest continually.” (Heb. 7:3.) That being the case, there is no such thing as setting bounds to what may be accomplished by just such a person.

Moses was just such a person, and what evidence has he, or anybody else given that he could not have accomplished seven times more than he did accomplish, provided only that it were necessary to the redemption and protection of God’s people. Did not the ten plagues come upon, and depart from Egypt at the word of the Lord through Moses? Did not the sea open by the same word? And did it not shut up upon, and drown the Egyptians also, according to that word ? Did not the ground open and swallow up Cora, Dathan and Abiram, and all theirs at his word? And were plagues not brought in upon the rebellious? Was not the rock smitten, and did not the waters flow out of it, to quench the thirst of the mighty congregation ?

Were not myriads of quail brought into the camp to gratify the lustful appetites of those who murmured and complained because they had no flesh to eat? Could there be greater miracles wrought by any prophet, at any time, then were wrought by Moses? You say it cannot be shown that God ever said it would be a man that he would send to set in order the house of God. (Even. & Mor. Star, Dec., 1914, page 2.)

But we say that there is positive proof that it will be a man, like unto Moses whom God will send to gather and redeem his people, and set the order of His house among them, and here is the proof: “Behold I say unto you that the redemption of Zion must needs come by power” (must of necessity come by power), “therefore I will raise up unto my people A MAN, who shall lead them, LIKE AS Moses led the children of Israel; for ye (Latter Day Saints) are the children of Israel, and of the seed of Abraham, and ye must needs be led out of bondage by power, and with a stretched out arm, and as your fathers were led AT THE FIRST, SO shall the redemption of Zion be. Therefore, let not your hearts faint; for I say not unto you, as I said unto your fathers (in Moses’ day) mine angel shall go up before you, but not my presence; but I say unto you, mine ANGELS shall go up before you, and ALSO MY PRESENCE, and in time ye shall possess the goodly land.” (D & C 100:3.)

Supposing “the mighty and strong one,” is a different man to the man promised here. What more could he do than this man? he latter leaves little for any one else to do, for he leads the saints to Zion, and establishes them upon “the goodly land,” “no more to be thrown down,” and I am well satisfied that before he can establish them in their own land, he must set them “in order and arrange by lot their inheritances.”

S0, in contemplating this matter, how can we avoid the conclusion that the “one mighty and strong,” and this MAN that is to lead modern Israel like as Moses led ancient Israel, are one and the same identical person ? Remember that this modern Moses is to be RAISED UP; as, “therefore I WILL RAISE UP, unto my people, a man,” etc. Who could be more mighty and strong as a prophet of the most high God than Moses? As said before, what is there that he could not have done for Israel if it were necessary, and they had been worthy?

O says one, “Moses failed to bring Israel into the land of Canaan, and Joshua was appointed and led them in.” That is true, but whose fault was it? Not Moses’ fault certainly, for God says Israel in that day could not endure his presence; therefore He took Moses and the Holy Priesthood which he held from among them and left a lesser degree — a part of Moses’ honor —  upon Joshua, and that held by Eliezer, Aaron’s first born son. Moreover, David in the 106th Psalm tells us that it went ill with Moses for their sakes that they angered him at the waters of Strife, “so that he spake unadvisedly with his lips.” What it was that he said we do not know clearly, but they often provoked him. But he led them successfully to the promised land, and only he himself was not permitted to enter it.

They were delayed forty years in the wilderness, because of their rebellion, while otherwise they might have entered it in as many days. This modern deliverer is moreover to “come out of Zion,” and “turn away ungodliness from Jacob.” If it were Jesus that was to come, and do all this, he would come down from heaven, and not out of Zion. When Jesus comes he comes not as before demonstrated, to preach to and convert Israel, or any others to Godliness. He comes to destroy the ungodly and all those who know not God. and obey not the gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, “root and branch,” and to reign with his people, and reward them according to their works, and reveal to them all mysteries.

“Behold, now, (1831) it is called today, (until the coming of the Son of Man) and verily it is a day of sacrifice, and for the tithing of my people; for he that is tithed shall not be burned (at his coming); for after today cometh the burning. This is speaking after the manner of the Lord; for verily I say, tomorrow all the proud, and all that do wickedly shall be as stubble; and I will burn them up, saith the Lord of Hosts; and I will not spare any that remain in Babylon. Wherefore if ye believe me, ye will labor while it is called today.” (D & Cov. Sec. 44:4.)

There is no chance here for the supposition that Christ is to come, in person, and preach to, and convert, and turn men from ungodliness to righteousness, and then deliver them, and lead them to Zion. “Won’t send a man” to deliver his people in the time of their distress and bondage? Why, dear me, all the deliverers whom God sent since the days of Adam to deliver his people out of bondage were men. Even the Lord Jesus himself, in the full sense of the word, is a man — a perfect man. And the angels of God are resurrected and glorified men. And sure as you live, God himself is a man! “Man of Holiness is my name,” says God himself. The angels of God have once been prophets of God clothed with the priesthood after the holiest order of the son of God; or in other words, clothed with the same office order or degree of the priesthood held by the son of God, of which there is none greater. Hence they each, as he, “abide a priest continually.” (Inspired Heb. 7:4.) All these will be the great rulers in the Millennium; each one over the saints of his own generation, every man in his own order.

One thing must be noticed here in relation to these great and mighty prophets; the prophecies concerning their being raised up are liable to be misapplied. The whole sectarian world look upon the prophecy of Jacob, (Gen. 49:24.) “From thence, is the shepherd the stone of Israel,” as referring to Christ; while it is as plain as can be that he was talking of a shepherd, one that was to arise out of the tribe of Joseph, the patriarch in the latter days, and not in any other days. For said Jacob to his sons, in his last hours: “Gather yourselves together that I may tell you what shall befall you in the Latter Days.”

So Jacob goes on with his hands on the head of each one of his sons, beginning with the first born, and going down to the last born, pronouncing upon each what the spirit of God foretold, that was to happen, or befall the posterity of each one, in the latter days. When he comes to Joseph, he says: “Joseph is a fruitful bough by a well, whose branches ran over the wall. The archers have sorely grieved him, and shot at him and hated him. But his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob; (from thence (the tribe of Joseph) is the shepherd, the stone of Israel.”)

Why then apply this prophecy anywhere, or to anyone, only to whom, and to where it belongs? The Lord Jesus does not want us to misapply or pervert the scriptures, in order to make them apply, or refer to him.

From the many things written and pointing that way, we feel fully justified and warranted in the belief that Joseph Smith was the promised “Shepherd and Stone of Israel,” that was to come out of the tribe of Joseph in these last days. The language will not refer to the Lord Jesus, because he came at another time than the last days, and came also of a different tribe. As Paul says: “It is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah,” etc. (Heb. 7:14.)

According to the prophets and the Psalms, Christ must come of the tribe of Judah and in the lineage of David. (Math. 22:42-44.) I also will make him (David) my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.”

In like manner, various prophecies of Isaiah, and Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, are all regarded by the Christian world as referring to Christ and his times, though they can by no means be made to fit the times of either his first or his second coming. For instance, the 11th chapter of Isaiah, “the branch” that is to grow out of the roots of the stem of Jesse, is one mighty, and very much in the likeness of the Lord Jesus, so far as his righteousness, wisdom and understanding, and faith, and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit of God is concerned.

This “branch” of the house and lineage of David, and of the tribe of Judah, you perceive, has a mighty work to accomplish while as yet the wicked are remaining on the earth, He gathers all Israel out of all lands; he sets up an ensign to the nations, and assembles the outcasts of Israel, and gathers together the dispersed of  Judah from the forequarters of the earth. He is to be a great advocate, defender and deliverer of the poor and needy, and the humble and meek of the earth, and “he will redeem their soul from deceit and violence, and precious shall their blood be in his sight.”

And surely such an advocate, deliverer and redeemer of the poor and needy and the oppressed, and one that smites the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips slays the wicked, will be “mighty and strong.” Yes, SURELY. You think, perhaps, that all this is too much for a man to do? O no, not too much for a man whom God calls with his own voice, and whom he anoints and ordains by the hands of angels. Was it too much for Elijah to smite the land of Israel with drouth, for three years and a half, and at the end of this period, to bring rain again to make the land fruitful? Is it going to be too much for the two witnesses of the Revelations of St. John (11:5-7) to shut heaven that it rain not; turn waters to blood, and smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will?

And now let me refer you to Inspired Genesis 14:26-33, so as to give a little insight as to what men who are made prophets of the Most High God, may, can, or will do; according to the circumstances, in which they and the people they are called to lead may be placed. “God having sworn unto Enoch, that every one being ordained after this order, and calling, should have power by faith to break mountains, to divide the sea, to dry up waters, to turn them out of their course, to put at defiance the armies of nations, to divide the earth, to break every band, to stand in the presence of God; to do all things according to his will, according to his command, to subdue principalities and powers; and now Melchizedec was a priest of this order,” etc.

Now before going further, I must say that if there ever was an age or generation when the poor and the needy and the downtrodden of all nations, exceeded in numbers those of any preceding generation, it is surely the present generation; and it would be well worthy the God of Israel to send them one mighty in wisdom and strength to redeem them. On the other hand, the rich are correspondingly wealthy and rich. Never were there known so many millionaires, and six figure fortunes, and all are hungry for more! How can the poor and the needy succeed where the present greed for wealth is so unsatisfied and restless?

I will now refer you to another prophecy that belongs to these latter days, but very commonly regarded as referring to the Lord Jesus and his day, but can by no means be made to fit into that time. “Listen, 0 isles, unto me, and hearken ye people from far; the Lord hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword in the shadow of his hand hath he HID me, and made me like a polished shaft; in his quiver hath HID me; and said unto me. Thou art my servant 0 Israel, in whom I will be glorified.”

This is undoubtedly a mighty prophet of God, named like Jacob of old ISRAEL or Prince of God. But he complains to God, and says: “I have labored in vain and spent my strength for naught, and in vain; yet he says he had been laboring and judging with the Lord, or for the Lord, and that the Lord said to him: “It is a light thing” — a small thing — “that ‘thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel; I will ALSO give thee for a light to the gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the ends of the earth.”

But by reading the chapter, that is, Isaiah 49, from beginning to end, we shall find that this man that God addresses, as his “servant, 0 Israel,” is the man by whom Israel will be gathered. Now it is not a marvelous thing that this great latter day prophet is a man despised by man, and abhorred by the nation, where he was raised up; also he is called “a servant of rulers;” as many of the prophets of the past have been. But it is certain that this great man is not the Messiah, from the words: “Thus saith the Lord, and his Holy One (Jesus) to him whom man despiseth to him whom the nation abhorreth,” etc., (verse 7) such is the common lot of all prophets of God.

Contemplating the great work to be accomplished by this great prophet and deliverer, Isaiah breaks forth: “Sing, O heavens, and be joyful, O earth, and break forth into singing O mountains; for the Lord hath comforted his people, and will have mercy upon his afflicted.”

“But Zion said, the Lord hath forsaken me, and my Lord hath forgotten me;” just as many in Utah and the Reorganized Church have been saying for a long time; they are in mourning; men of thought and reflection, who ponder and meditate in the promises of God find them unrealized in their leaders. They see plainly enough that the men whom they have trusted, and followed as the duly authorized leaders of the church have every one, turned out to be absolute failures. They are all prophets of no value, who prophecy not; all seers that see nothing; revelators that reveal nothing; translators that translate nothing. They never had the ministry of a heavenly messenger; never saw the Ancient Records, though the prophet Nephi said that these ancient records should go down from generation to generation, or from prophet to another, until God said otherwise; neither have they ever seen the Urim and Thummim, which goes down with the Ancient Records.

Their pretentions of being “the living oracles,” is enough to blight and turn the green leaves on the trees and vegetation brown with disgust. It is no wonder that the honest in heart, and the thinking say with themselves: “The Lord hath forsaken me, and my God hath forgotten me.” The Almighty never made MEN his oracles. His word given to his authorized, and anointed prophets, are his oracles, and this word is his only oracles. (See D. & C. 107:39; 87:2; Acts 7:38; Rom. 3:2; Heb. 5:12, 1st Pet. 4:11.)

All these show that the “living oracles” are the revelations of God, given through his holy prophets. God has said that the “duty of the president of the church, or the president of the high priesthood is to preside over the whole church and to be like unto Moses. Behold here is wisdom; yea to be a prophet, a seer, a revelator and a translator having all the gifts which God bestows upon the head of the church,” But it is not any man’s duty to do this, until he is called by the voice of God to do it, and is ordained under the hands of angels to do it. Nothing short of this can ever make a prophet of God; so it is no wonder that both Reorganized and Brighamite leaders are total failures.

They never can be what they were never lawfully called and ordained to be. So the honest in heart can only sigh and mourn until God sends the promised “one mighty and strong,” but he has not forgotten them any more than a woman can forget her sucking child. But when he comes it will be found that the branch from the root of Jesse (Isaiah 11:1) ,and the one so plainly pointed out in the 49th chapter of Isaiah, are one and the same person, identically. Not only so, but it will be found that this same person is spoken of in various other places not only in Isaiah but in Jeremiah, and in Ezekiel; and all these prophecies have located him in the latter days; and his ministry and labors are to be the gathering and redemption of the house of Israel from all lands, and the establishing of them in righteousness, justice and judgment throughout the earth.

“Behold, my servant shall deal prudently; he shall be EXALTED, and EXTOLLED” — magnified, praised — “and be VERY HIGH; as many were astonished at thee, (his visage was so marred, more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men, so shall he GATHER MANY NATIONS; kings shall shut their mouths at him, for that which has not been told them shall they see, and that which they had not heard shall they consider.” (Is. 62:13 to 15.) This is also commonly supposed to refer to Jesus Christ, but ii:.e all the other prophecies, quoted here, it will not fit in that time! The time of Christ’s ministry was a time when great calamities, judgments and scattering hung over Israel’s head, and awaited them, because of their wickedness, unbelief and rejection of the Messiah; whereas the time of this great servant of God is in a time directly the opposite in every point. This latter mighty prophet appears in a time when all Israel are everywhere in favor with God, and are at hand everywhere to be gathered and restored to their own lands, and to the entire favor of God. And this much praised, extolled, and exalted prophet is evidently the great instrument, by whom this great work of all works, is to be accomplished.

Jerusalem is commanded to “shake herself from the dust” — her mourning, and the daughter of Zion — the Latter Day Saints, are commanded to “loose herself from the bands of her neck,” or her bondage, and she is informed that she has sold herself for naught, but will be redeemed without money. When did she sell herself for naught? Simply when the people of Nauvoo chose and followed Brigham Young and his co-leaders. God had raised up James J. Strang by revelation through Joseph and ordination of angels to succeed him, and they without any reason rejected him, and were therefore driven out of that city; and the same God revealed it to Mr. Strang that in the same day that they left that city to go into the wilderness, where he had not called them to go, “in that very day were they rejected of me.” And that is as much as to say that from that day to this their works have been in vain; their mother, a spurious, or usurped and unauthorized priesthood having led them ever since, she is simply put away.

But before this redemption comes there will be a bondage and distress that will be as painful and as hard to bear as that under Pharaoh, or else I am blind indeed. And I do not think it will be any different with the Reorganized. At any rate, none but the humble and the honest in heart, the poor and needy, and the oppressed will be redeemed. Those who have despised and condemned and hated James J. Strang, and his appointment, or the revelations or translations given us by him as the word of the Lord, must perish, unless they sorely repent of their wickedness.

By the way, this “marred” one (Is. 52:14) has been the subject of much speculation in these days; but that it is he that is to gather all Israel in these latter days there should be no dispute among the followers of Joseph Smith at any rate; for the Lord Jesus when ministering here on this continent among the Nephites locates this marred one in the latter days, and tells us that he (the “marred” one) is he that is to gather all Israel and many of the nations of the Gentiles along with them. (See 3 Nephi, 9:10-11.) Some have said that Joseph Smith was the marred one; but that could not be, for Joseph Smith was of the tribe of Joseph, but the marred one is evidently of the tribe of Judah, and of the lineage of David. Moreover Joseph Smith’s work was not to gather Israel; but it is evident that it is the marred one that gathers all Israel and the hosts of the Gentiles also.

‘Now, Isaiah chapter 11 and chapter 49 and chapter 52:14-15, all bear witness of the coming forth of this one great and mighty man; and they all three locate him in the latter days, and they all three testify that it is he that is to gather Israel from all the nations of the earth, and give light to the Gentiles. It is but just to suppose that other great prophets of God have also spoken of this great and mighty prophet to arise in the latter days and lead out all Israel from all nations.

So Jeremiah says: “Behold the days come saith the Lord, that I will perform that good thing which I have promised, unto the house of Israel, and unto the house of Judah. In those days and at that time, will I cause the branch of righteousness to grow up unto David, and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land. In those days shall Judah be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely, and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, the Lord our righteousness. For thus, saith the Lord, David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel.” (Jer. 33:14-17.)

Now we know that this was not fulfilled in the time and ministry of Jesus Christ, for in those days Judah was not saved; for Jesus came to Judah, his own tribe, and they received him not; hence Judah was not saved, neither did Israel dwell safely, for they were all on the eve of being scattered in all lands for a long and dreadful period.

This “Branch of Righteousness” is spoken of in no less than four different places in the prophecies, twice in Isaiah and twice in Jeremiah. (Is. 4:1; 11:1; Jer. 23:5-6; 33:14-15.) In three of those places it is clearly stated that this Branch of Righteousness is of the house of David and consequently of the tribe Judah; and in all four of them he is associated with the gathering of the house of Israel in the latter days, and is the instrument in the hands of God by whom they will be gathered. There is no mistaking this great fact, by any man who seriously reflects or thinks.

There are various other places in the prophets which speak of this same man but they all agree and run together in locating him in the latter days, and pointing to him as the great deliverer of Israel, and not only of Israel, but the poor and the needy and oppressed of all nations. In the books of Ezekiel 20:33-37, we have almost the identical promise made in Doctrine and Covenants Sec. 100, Par. 3. “As I live, saith the Lord God, surely with a MIGHTY hand and a stretched out arm, and with fury poured out (upon the wicked) will I rule over you; and I will bring you out from the people, and will gather you out of the countries wherein ye are scattered, with a mighty hand and a stretched out arm, and with fury poured out, and I will bring you into the wilderness of the people, and throne of David. We are assured there will I plead with you face to face, LIKE AS I PLEADED WITH YOUR FATHERS in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so will I plead with you saith the Lord God. And I will cause you to pass under the rod, and will bring you into the bond of the covenant.”

Substantially this is in entire agreement with D. & C. 100:3, and is in entire harmony with all that I have quoted from Isaiah and Jeremiah in regard to time, and ministry and the work to be accomplished — the gathering of Israel from all lands, and their establishment in their own lands no more to be thrown down, and by one mighty in power and strength, of the tribe of Judah, and of the house and lineage of David.

Now, we have not the slightest desire to rob the savior of even the least of his honors. We only know too well that Jesus is the great leader, commander, inspirer and instructor of all the prophets, immediately under the Almighty himself. While we assert and maintain that the Lord Jesus and his Heavenly Father, are in the human form; rather that man is made after their image and likeness, we regard them as far above mankind in intelligence, wisdom, understanding and every excellence, as the sun is above the dimmest star in brilliancy and glory, and power and strength. It will be observed that all that is here quoted refers to the one great and glorious event, the gathering of the house of Israel, including the Latter Day Saints, by one mighty in the strength of God, clothed like Moses in the highest order of the priesthood after the order the son of God, and like the Lord Jesus, holding in addition, the kingly office of the throne of David, that nothing will be able to oppose or resist him.

He is compared to “a tempest of hail, a destroying storm, as a flood of mighty waters,” bursting forth that sweeps all things in its course; armies, mountains, rivers, seas, will be as nothing; the wisdom of man and whatsoever is not based on the Law of the Almighty must perish. I cannot hide it from myself, if I would, that the next ten to fifteen years will be a time of great judgments upon the wicked, and of the manifestations of the power of God in the fulfilment of many great promises made to his people. Many cry out that we are going to have a great reign of peace brought about by human wisdom and legislation. But God says, that notwithstanding all his goodness and mercies, and the display of his power in the behalf of his people, “there is no peace to the wicked.” (Is. 48:22.)

The wicked have had a good long opportunity — we may say from the days of Noah — to display their legislative power to bring about a reign of lasting peace and all round prosperity of mankind, but has been but one continued round of the strong against the weak; of mighty making right; of intrigues and invasions; of wars and of oppressions, of here and there a bright spot of learning and civilization, and drifting and lapsing again to barbarism, of wholesale robberies and murders, of pillage, freebooting and priestcraft. Always just about to be blest with a good time but never realized, or if realized, it has been but for a short and fleeting time.

The great boasts that now we are going to have no more wars, but an age of peace by means of arbitration and human legislation, is a mere empty boast. Human legislation and human wisdom will never bring about universal peace and happiness. It will always be the lion’s share for the great and the strong; it will always be the big estate, which could not be ridden over in a day, and the millions for the rich, and a hut and a rag and a bone for the unfortunate and helpless. When the time comes that the rich are willing to cast in their surplus wealth into one common fund or treasury, so that the honest and willing may be provided with a home, where he can produce the necessities of life and enjoy the common welfare, which is Jesus Christ’s plan, then we will have some faith in man’s regard for man; but so long as the rule is; for every man to work with an eye single to his own glory and welfare, get all you can and keep all you get, all patching and tinkering and tailoring up laws and statutes for man’s welfare will be vain. The outcome, or out working of all such work is revolution, and wholesale murder from time to time, as all history abundantly shows, ancient as well as modern.

God himself is about to take hold of the government of the nations, and rule them by his laws and statutes, and not man’s.

 

Sincerely, 

WINGFIELD WATSON.

Burlington, Wis., March, 1915.