The Fall of Joseph Smith: Part 1

“Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord,
but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall.”
—Revelation to Joseph Smith, July 1828 (D&C 3:9)

[Note: this post is intended as a follow up to the three-part series on Joseph Smith’s financial malfeasances. I recommend reading those posts firsts, but it’s not necessary. It was getting longer than I anticipated—shocking, I know—so I cut into two.]

Human beings are complex creatures and Joseph Smith is among the most complex I’ve ever encountered. Nearly 180 years after his death, we still obsess over him. Depending on one’s point of view, he’s either the Lord’s prophet of the last days, a beacon of righteousness and moral uprightness tutored by God and angels; or a wife-stealing, money-grubbing, pedophilic confidence man. We debate him, defend him and criticize him. We write books, make films and hold conferences about him. We sell busts and statues of him. The Jesus bust sells for $9.99 and the Joseph bust sells for $14.99. You can buy a First Vision keyring for $13.99, a “Joseph Smith Ring” for $34.99, or a print the First Vision for $400, if that’s your thing. (He’s not just the prophet, he’s good business.) There’s an organization and website dedicated to collecting all of his documents. 27 volumes have been published to date. An administrative building in Salt Lake City bears his name. Tens of millions of people have been baptized into a church he started in 1830 and govern their lives according to his claims and revelations. We call him “brother Joseph,” “the Prophet Joseph Smith,” or simply “the Prophet,” with a capital P.

Yet, the real Joseph Smith remains an enigma. He’s a mix of legend, myth and history as most prominent figures of the past are. Especially those cut down in the prime of life.  One of the major difficulties in producing an accurate picture of Joseph is that we only have about fifty-sixty pages of holographs, or documents in his own handwriting (early journals entries, letters and legal documents), so we are largely reliant on scribal records (journals and sermons) and contemporary accounts from those who knew him or claimed to know him. These sources are abundant, but the problem is that every source leads back to a human being. And because human beings are mostly emotional and irrational creatures with worldviews, motives and biases, perfectly accurate representations of Joseph are impossible. Enid S. DeBarthe accurately assessed the issue in her bibliography of Joseph Smith, noting that he,

“…was not the knave pictured by many writers. Neither was he unquestionably a saint. He was a man of high motives, immense energy and intent, intensely loved and intensely hated on both religious and political grounds—an enigma for historians and biographers” (p. 219).

And even some who met him were befuddled. Josiah Quincy recounted his experience meeting Joseph in Nauvoo in May 1844. He famously closed by writing, “If the reader does not know just what to make of Joseph Smith, I cannot help him out of the difficulty. I myself stand helpless before the puzzle.” Complicating issues, it is fact of history that many sayings ascribed to Joseph Smith are misrepresented, occasionally revised and/or doctored, and in some instances, fabricated. The “angel with a drawn sword” who commanded Joseph to enter into polygamy, for example, doesn’t appear in the narrative until nine years after his death. By the end of the 1800s, the sword became a “flaming sword.” I doubt Joseph Smith ever said this. When one reads LDS scholarship on the alleged union to Fannie Alger, we find phrases like “fragmentary evidence suggests” (Polygamy Essay), “a collection of late and second-hand reminiscences that may or may not give us clues” (Brian Hales), and “All that we do have is third hand accounts from people who did not directly observe the events associated with this first plural marriage, and most of them recorded many years after the events.” (FAIR.) That’s what we call hearsay. Polygamy is not the cut-and-dried issue most people believe it is. It doesn’t necessarily exonerate Joseph Smith, but it makes conviction much more difficult. The Alger incident, whatever it was, is in some ways a microcosm of Mormonism itself: part myth, conflicting stories, second and third-hand accounts, and varying interpretations of events. It’s a mess. A mess that begins with one man.

Despite the claim that “millions shall know brother Joseph again,” I don’t think we will. Nevertheless, I’ve spent the last several years trying to solve the enigma that is Joseph Smith by trying to get in his head. I wanted to understand his worldview, his motivations, and his movement within his historical, cultural and religious context. Most important to me was understanding why so many of his actions, doctrines and revelations are so perplexing, inconsistent, contradictory, and almost always at odds with the Book of Mormon. As I’ve written before, the Christology, doctrine and teachings of the Book of Mormon are fundamentally incompatible with Joseph Smith’s.

How does a man like Joseph Smith happen?

The first piece of the puzzle was understanding Joseph’s apocalyptic worldview. Religious visionaries are almost always drawn to the apocalypticism of The Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel and Matthew 24 (also known as “The Little Apocalypse“). Christopher Columbus, deeply influenced by the Revelation, wrote his own “Book of Prophecies.” Sir Isaac Newton wrote a 350-page book titled “Daniel and the Apocalypse.” Richard Brothers, claimed to be visited by an angel, declared himself to be “Prince of the Hebrews” (a literal descendant of the House of David), and published a book in 1794 titled “A REVEALED KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROPHECIES AND TIMES” that warns of London’s pending destruction. William Miller, one of Joseph’s contemporaries, used the Book of Daniel to predict Jesus’ return in 1843. When Jesus did not return, Miller revised his prediction to 1844, but again it didn’t happen. This led to “The Great Disappointment.” Seventh Day Adventists, and later Jehovah’s Witnesses, sprang from Miller’s original movement. More recently, David Koresh believed he had cracked the code of Revelation. We know how that turned out. In 1970 Hal Lindsey published The Late Great Planet Earth, in which he set out a timeline of “end-time events” based on his interpretation of Daniel, Ezekiel and Revelation. It sold 35 million copies by 1990.  The Left Behind series, based on the false doctrine of “the rapture,” has sold 63 million copies. The Apocalypse, like Joseph, is great business.

Joseph Smith was also heavily influenced by the Revelation of St. John. He cited it frequently, but he didn’t understand it. His revelations drip in apocalyptic language (war, bloodshed, scourges, fire, brimstone, the sun darkening, the moon turning to blood, stars falling, etc.) and he frequently weaves passages from the Revelation into his own (D&C 45 and 88, among many others). D&C 77 is a presented as Q&A on various passages from the Revelation, and as one might expect, all the “answers” are wrong. (The answers aren’t from God). In January 1833 he stated in the name of the Lord that the destruction of the wicked was imminent and those who didn’t flee to Missouri would be destroyed. Most everything Joseph did between 1830 and the early 1840s was focused on finding places of refuge (“inheritances”) for the great and dreadful day of the Lord. And here we are.

The third part of the puzzle began to emerge as I was working on the money blunders posts: Joseph’s mental state. I began to wonder about the whys of his gradual consolidation of power and control over the Saints. As I mentioned in the previous post, the Kirtland Dissention was a rebellion against Joseph’s growing totalitarianism. The dissenters’ reaction was justified. Despite the events in Kirtland that ultimately led to Joseph fleeing, he didn’t learn his lesson. Nauvoo-era Joseph was a quasi-dictator. As a refresher, by the end of 1843 he was,

• President of the church
• President of the high priesthood
• Prophet, seer and revelator to the church
• Trustee in trust of the church
• Mayor of Nauvoo
• General of the Nauvoo Legion
• Chief judge and magistrate
• Land agent for the church
• Presidential candidate

He had control of the administrative, the ecclesiastical, the sacerdotal, the financial, the civil, the military, and the judicial. Sure, at various times checks were set in place, but ultimately Joseph was in charge. The only thing he didn’t control was the women. More on that later. When I started digging into this subject, I found that Joseph’s tendency to assume power and control manifested even before the Church’s official organization. I also began to notice that as he consolidated control, the more grandiose his claims became and the more his doctrines departed from the Book of Mormon and Christianity. I don’t know if this is causal, correlative or unrelated, but it was at the zenith of his power in Nauvoo that Joseph introduced or fully developed the weird, esoteric and anti-Christ doctrines that came to define his movement: proxy baptism, eternal progression, plurality of gods, the endowment, apotheosis, divinization, etc. The Church frames this era as a time of Joseph’s “increasing spiritual maturity as he led the Saints to new and higher gospel insights,” but I don’t think that’s the case. (“Whoso declareth more or less than this, and establisheth as my gospel, the same cometh from evil.” —Jesus.)

We’re going to look at some of Joseph’s claims and revelations, as well as observations of him from the early years, the middle years, and then from the last few months of his life. I believe that when we measure the trajectory of these claims and events, we find the third piece of the puzzle: Joseph Smith suffered from grandiosity, perhaps fueled by intense religiosity. Grandiosity is a symptom of both narcissistic personality disorder and the manic states of bipolar disorder, and is described as,

 “…a subtype of delusion characterized by extraordinary belief that one is famous, omnipotent, wealthy, or otherwise very powerful. Grandiose delusions often have a religious, science fictional, or supernatural theme. Examples include the extraordinary belief that one is a deity or celebrity, or that one possesses extraordinary talents, accomplishments, or superpowers.”

I don’t believe Joseph was a full-blown narcissist, but he displays many of the classic characteristics. According to the DSM-5, narcissistic personality disorder traits include,

• a grandiose sense of self-importance (Joseph established himself as a new Moses through whom God exclusively spoke)
• a preoccupation with fantasies of success or wealth (yes), power (yes), beauty (no) or perfect love (no)
• a belief that they are “special” (yes) and can only be understood by other special people (no)
• a need for excessive admiration (I don’t think so)
• a sense of entitlement (yes), which may include an unreasonable expectation to be treated favorably or for others to comply with their demands and expectations (Yes and using “revelation” to achieve it)
• behavior that is exploitative and takes advantage of others to achieve their own ends (a resounding yes)
• expect special favors and expect other people to do what they want without questioning them (yes)
• a lack of empathy or an unwillingness to identify with the needs of others (yes and no, depending on the case)
• a tendency to be envious of others or a belief that others are envious of them (not that I’ve noticed)
• arrogance, haughty behaviors, and attitudes (yes)
• risky behavior, including promiscuity (probably), alcohol and drug abuse (maybe), compulsive spending (yes)

As someone whose family tree is populated with people who have struggled with various mental and emotional challenges, I’m sympathetic. This is not an attempt to slander Joseph or tarnish his reputation. Mental illness isn’t something to be mocked or ridiculed, if this is indeed the case. Lost in much of the discussion about Joseph Smith, particularly among post-LDS believers, is the fact that he was, in fact, human. I was recently talking with a friend about one of the money posts. He said he shared it with a small number of people who were “open to the idea that Joseph Smith was human.” It’s an extraordinary thing to say, but it’s true. Not too long ago I saw a Facebook post warning there were consequences of speaking against Joseph Smith. I don’t know what those consequences are, but there are people who believe that. Why did we grant this man a reputation of infallibility and righteousness?

I’m also aware of the difficulties, not to mention the ethics, of attempting a psychological evaluation of someone long deceased. That said, when I evaluate Joseph’s 15-year public ministry, it’s not hard to see many of these traits and characteristics manifest. This post is by no means comprehensive. I’ve chosen specific examples that I believe demonstrate Joseph’s grandiosity and narcissistic tendencies. Sure, there’s a fair bit of cherry-picking and I’m not discounting his virtues and good qualities, which he most definitely had. My primary concern is for those who have governed their lives based on Joseph Smith’s revelations, teachings and doctrines.

Are they from God, or are they from man?

IN THE BEGINNING

A revelation given to Oliver Cowdery dated June 1829 reads,

“Now behold, because of the thing which you have desired to know of me, I give unto you these words: Behold I have manifested unto you, by my Spirit in many instances, that the things which you have written (as Book of Mormon scribe) are true: Wherefore you know that they are true; and if you know that they are true, behold I give unto you a commandment, that you rely upon the things which are written; for in them are all things written, concerning my church, my gospel, and my rock. Wherefore if you shall build up my church, and my gospel, and my rock, the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.” (D&C 18:3-5. Emphasis added. Does “all things” mean “all things” or does it mean something different?)

Oliver apparently believed this was a mandate to write the Church’s founding document. Obedient to the call, he penned The Articles of the Church of Christ.  “Relying on the things that are written,” Oliver’s Articles, presented as revelation, draw from Book of Mormon passages and serve as a model for the young church. They include the proper method of baptism; the calling of priests and teachers; the sacramental prayers; fellowshipping; general exhortations to the church; and the call for all men to repent, be baptized and come to Christ. It’s simple and concise.

I bring up Oliver’s Articles because sometime in 1829 or 1830 Joseph Smith appears to have used them to write his own founding document titled The Articles and Covenants of the Church of Christ (later revised and canonized as D&C 20). Joseph uses the same Book of Mormon passages and adds information about his personal history. Perhaps most notably, Joseph’s Articles fail to mention the appearance of God the Father and Jesus Christ. Instead, he writes that God ministered to him “via an holy angel.” Joseph’s Articles were presented at a conference in June 1830 and adopted as the church’s governing document while Oliver’s were resigned to the dustbin of history. Oliver, however, was not pleased that Joseph added additional qualifications for baptism not found in the Book of Mormon. Oliver’s Articles used Moroni 6:1-3 as a source,

“And now I speak concerning baptism. Behold, elders, priests, and teachers were baptized; and they were not baptized save they brought forth fruit meet that they were worthy of it. Neither did they receive any unto baptism save they came forth with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, and witnessed unto the church that they truly repented of all their sins. And none were received unto baptism save they took upon them the name of Christ, having a determination to serve him to the end.”

Joseph’s version, however, added the words “and truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins.” Oliver considered this addition to be “priestcraft.” According to BYU professor and historian Grant Underwood,

“By including in Articles and Covenants an additional requirement not specified in the Book of Mormon, especially when Cowdery’s own 1829 ‘Articles of the Church of Christ’ hewed so closely to Book of Mormon wording, Joseph had, as Oliver saw it, overstepped his bounds. To Cowdery, such arrogation on Joseph’s part was nothing short of priestcraft.” (Emphasis added.)

Joseph, of course, took exception, “asking Cowdery ‘by what authority he took upon him to command me to alter, or erase, to add or diminish to or from a revelation or commandment from Almighty God.'” Joseph’s addition may seem like a trivial thing, and maybe it is (you’ll have to decide for yourself), but I think Oliver was correct in spirit and right to be concerned. Underwood writes, “in the young American republic, many ordinary people committed to the new democratic enterprise no longer felt they had to subject themselves to what they took to be corrupt priests pursuing their own desires under the guise of religion.”  Yet Underwood doesn’t spare Oliver the rod. After a dozen or so paragraphs lauding him for his genuine piety and devotion to God, Underwood writes that Oliver,

“…had a serious flaw, a fatal Achilles’s heel. It was his fiery independence of mind, and this was not the last time he would exercise it to challenge the Prophet Joseph Smith. Yielding to God was one thing; passivity and humility in the face of divinity was de rigeur for genuine Christians. But in true religion there was no place for fawning sycophancy. (‘We thank thee, O God, for a prophet, to guide us in these latter days!’ “Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah!”) No self-respecting citizen of the Republic, as Cowdery certainly saw himself to be, would allow it. Even a prophet could be suspect…” (Emphasis added)

Oliver’s approach to religion strikes me as very reasonable. As a descendant of Pilgrims, Oliver was acutely aware of “political and property controls exercised by the central Roman Catholic Church” that spurred the Reformation. He saw Joseph’s church taking a similar path and was rightly concerned because, as we will see, Joseph would eventually set out to establish the political kingdom of God with Joseph sitting at the top. I don’t consider his independent mind to be an “Achilles heel.” Within Mormonism the warnings against “trusting in the arm of flesh” never apply to Joseph Smith. And nowhere are we guaranteed the infallibility of prophets. We even have two revelations warning Joseph about the possibility of falling. We also read in the Book of Mormon,

“For these are they whose sins he has borne; these are they for whom he has died, to redeem them from their transgressions. And now, are they not his seed? Yea, and are not the prophets, every one that has opened his mouth to prophesy, that has not fallen into transgression, I mean all the holy prophets ever since the world began? I say unto you that they are his seed.” (Mosiah 15:12-13)

Underwood continues,

“The depth of Cowdery’s convictions on these matters is captured in a letter he wrote to his brother Lyman in 1834:  ‘The body may be confined in chains, racked upon the wheel, or consumed with the fagot, but still Mens Invicta Manet’ (The Mind remains unconquered). And thus we see the profound paradox that was Oliver Cowdery. Willing, even anxious, to expunge his own will to please God, but fearlessly demanding his independence in human affairs. Pious and pliant before the Lord, but sometimes defiant before his Prophet. (“His prophet?” Yikes.) For a season, Oliver’s independence and his republican indignation won out, and Oliver found himself eating husks outside the Church, but in the end, his devotion to God, his reliance on a deep inner spirituality, carried the day and carried him back into the Kingdom.”  (Emphasis added)

Devotion to God but suspicion of man isn’t a paradox, it’s wisdom. We all need a little more Oliver in us. These events, which happened very early in the church, established the pattern that define Mormonism for the duration of Joseph’s life: he was in charge, was free to add any new doctrines he felt inclined to add, revise revelations, and any challenge to his authority would immediately be put down. This became known as the “one-man power” or the “one-man leader.” To illustrate the point, when Hiram Page produced his own seer stone and began dispensing revelation, Joseph quickly responded with a September 1830 revelation instructing Oliver that,

“…no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses. And thou shalt be obedient unto the things which I shall give unto him, even as Aaron.” (D&C 28:2-3. In 1841 Joseph would reverse course, declaring, “I give unto [Joseph] for counselors my servant Sidney Rigdon and my servant William Law, that these may constitute a quorum and First Presidency, to receive the oracles for the whole church. [D&C 124:126])

It wouldn’t be the last time Joseph framed himself as the new Moses. I think what we see in Joseph Smith is a performance of what he believed a prophet to be. In the common slang we call this a “LARP” (live-action role play) or “LARPing.” John L. Brooke makes an interesting observation,

“A prophet succeeds in his quest by building on a shared culture with a prepared audience, in a sort of interactive performance or theatre. Quite obviously Joseph Smith succeeded in sharing his vision with a large and attentive audience, and by all accounts he was a gregarious, playful character. On the other hand, many among the early Mormons would turn away from Smith’s performance, dissenting from his testimony and rejecting him as a false prophet. And the evidence seems incontrovertible that Joseph Smith’s imagination and personality were driven by a series of overlapping, opposed dualities, dualities that involved virtue and corruption, purity and danger, and that may have been rooted in something approaching [an] identity crisis…” (The Refiner’s Fire, p. 180. Emphasis added.)

This rings true to me. The Saints were the spiritual heirs of the Puritans. The Puritans were more rooted in the Hebrew Bible than the New Testament. Mormonism itself is more informed by Ancient Israelite religion (priesthood, temples, covenants, etc.) than the Christianity of the Book of Mormon and New Testament. It makes sense that Joseph would view Moses as the epitome of a prophet: one talks to God, receives commandments, carries magical objects, serves as the sole authority figure, so on and so forth. It stands to reason that Joseph would performatively emulate what he believed a prophet to be. We see this in the adoption of the Mosaic role of “covenant mediator” when he and Rigdon introduced “the Law of Consecration” (a modern equivalent to “the Law of Moses”). Then prior to Zion’s Camp in the summer of 1834, he again compared himself to Moses (D&C 103-16-21) as leader of the “children of Israel” in preparation to reenact the Exodus to Missouri. On January 21, 1836, in preparation for the Kirtland Temple dedication, Joseph’s journal reads, “I then took the seat, and father annointed my head, and sealed upon me, the blessings, of Moses, to lead Israel in the latter days, even as moses led them him in days of old—also the blessings of Abraham Isaac and Jacob.” (Original spelling and grammar retained. Joseph Smith and the Saints were Gentiles, not Israelites.)

Yet, in the Church of Christ there was no such Mosaic position or title of authority, nor of “prophet, seer and revelator.” In An Address to All Believers in Christ, David Whitmer wrote,

“There is nothing in the New Testament part of either the Bible or Book of Mormon concerning a one-man leader or head to the church. Whoever claims that such an office should be in the church to-day, goes beyond the teachings which Christ has given us…Who was ‘Prophet Seer and Revelator’ to the church at Jerusalem? They had none. Who was ‘Prophet Seer and Revelator’ to the church upon this land? They had none. And we had no such office in the church in these last days for the first eight months of its existence, until Brother Joseph went into this error on April 6, 1830, after unwittingly breaking a command of God by taking upon himself such an office…”

The head of the church is Christ, not a man. (Who’s at the top of the LDS organization chart?) When Christ organized His church among the Nephites, the twelve disciples were sent to proselytize, just as they were in Jerusalem. There’s no mention of a “prophet, seer and revelator” acting as president of the Church who received commandments on behalf the church, nor a mention of “God’s Law” (the Law of Consecration). Moroni wrote that “elders, priests, and teachers were baptized,” but there was no hierarchy. (The LDS church is very much a hierarchical organization.) There was no high priest, Melchizedek priesthood, or Aaronic priesthood, either. It was just a community of believers and three offices: elders to shepherd the flock, priests to administer the Lord’s Supper, and teachers to teach. Simple and efficient. Whitmer continues,

“…in a few years those revelations were changed to admit this high office, which otherwise would have condemned it. They were changed to mean something entirely different from the way they were first given and printed in the Book of Commandments, as if God had not thought of this great and important office when he gave those revelations. Yet in the face of the written word of God, and in the face of all this evidence, the majority of the Latter-Day Saints will still cling to the revelations of Joseph Smith and measure the written word of God by them, instead of measuring Joseph Smith and his revelations by the written word.”  (Emphasis added.)

I love David Whitmer. He nailed it and his observation holds true today. Whenever I have presented someone with the recorded words of Jesus that contradict one of Joseph’s revelations or doctrines, that person sides with Joseph Smith. “But Joseph Smith said…” Every time. Without exception. (Or they just ignore it.) Harold Bloom made a similar observation that within Mormonism Joseph Smith “was and is a far more crucial figure than Jesus could be.” This, perhaps more than anything else, is Mormonism’s biggest problem. When it comes to doctrine, Joseph Smith supersedes Jesus Christ.

THE CHURCH OF JOSEPH SMITH

The LDS church upholds the Book of Mormon as its founding document. Joseph Smith allegedly said the Book of Mormon was “most correct of any book on this Earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than any other book.” Despite that claim, the Book of Mormon is neither the keystone nor the foundation of the LDS faith in any meaningful way. It’s merely symbolic. I’ve spent the past eight or nine years trying to find a recorded sermon in which Joseph cites, references, teaches from, preaches from, alludes to or speaks of The Book of Mormon. It doesn’t exist. Sidney Rigdon and W.W. Phelps reference the Book of Mormon far more that Joseph ever did. LDS apologist and BYU professor Daniel Peterson noted that,

“Studies of Latter-day Saint sermons and curriculum from the earliest period of church history well into the 20th century demonstrate surprisingly little use of the Book of Mormon to establish doctrines or as a text from which to preach. Many Saints were converted by reading it, but, thereafter, they tended to overlook its specific content. Early members, mostly converts, knew the Bible well and used it extensively in their teaching and missionary efforts, but the Book of Mormon served mainly as a kind of talisman, its sheer existence pointing to Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling…Even Joseph Smith used the Bible far more than he used the Book of Mormon in his sermons…Joseph seems somewhat detached from the book after its publication…He betrays little if any ‘pride of authorship.'”

This is a generous appraisal considering Joseph didn’t use the Book of Mormon at all. I’ll put out the challenge to anyone to find a Joseph Smith sermon that references doctrines, teachings or passages directly from the Book of Mormon. One may exist, but I haven’t found it. And believe me, I have looked. Peterson isn’t the only LDS source to comment on the issue. Richard Bushman noted,

“Alexander Campbell thought the Book of Mormon was Joseph Smith’s attempt to decide ‘all the great controversies,’ but neither Joseph nor the early Mormons used the book that way. Mormons were much more likely to seek revelation through their Prophet. Despite the effort that went into the translation, Joseph Smith did not make the book the foundation of the church.” (Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism, p. 142)

And Joseph Smith was happy to dispense revelation on demand (see D&C 33-35, for example). This illustrates the peril of a one-man leader. Rather than go directly to God, people will go to the man, especially if that man claims to be God’s mouthpiece. It seems to result in a strange spiritual co-dependence. Terryl Givens, senior fellow at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute of Religious Scholarship, notes that Joseph Smith’s history informs the reader that Moroni told Joseph that the “fulness of the everlasting Gospel was contained in [the Book of Mormon],” yet,

“It has often been pointed out, however, that those beliefs most commonly associated with Mormonism are nowhere to be found in that book. Those expecting an exposition of a peculiarly Mormon doctrine will be disappointed.” (By the Hand of Mormon, p. 186. Emphasis added. Givens, like Peterson, suggests that “the Book of Mormon served to alert the world of Joseph Smith’s prophetic claims” [p. 185]).

In February 1840 Joseph travelled to Washington D.C. to seek redress for the events in Missouri. While there, he had the opportunity to address congregations over several nights. According to accounts, Joseph spoke for two hours during the fourth and final session. We have two reports of his remarks. A journalist named Matthew Davis wrote in a letter to his wife that Joseph,

“…took up the Bible. ‘I believe,’ said he, ‘in this sacred volume. In it the Mormon faith is to be found. We teach nothing but what the Bible teaches. (That was truer in 1840 than it was in 1844.) We believe nothing, but what is to be found in this book…He closed by referring to the Mormon Bible, which he said, contained nothing inconsistent or conflicting with the Christian Bible, and he again repeated that all who would follow the precepts of the Bible, whether Mormon or not, would assuredly be saved. (Emphasis added.)

On March 6, the Christian Courier published its report and stated that,

“[Joseph] took good care, as there was an intelligent congregation, including several members of congress, present, to say but little about the ‘Book of Mormon.’ He averred, however that nobody wrote it but him, and that it contained nothing contrary to the Bible, or its virtue.”

Joseph had an opportunity to discuss the Book of Mormon and how it came to be. He could have boldly declared the Book of Mormon’s central message: that Jesus is the Eternal God. Aren’t prophets supposed to go boldly declare the truth? I don’t know why he didn’t, but I’d like to ask him about it. What attention Joseph did give the Book of Mormon came in the form of editorial changes to the 1837 Kirtland edition. He, or someone working under him, changed several crucial passages in the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 13 and 14), radically transforming its Christology. Fortunately, these “editors” didn’t find all the references to Christ as Eternal God. The baptismal prayer was also changed from “Having authority given me of Jesus Christ…” (3 Nephi 11:25) to “Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ…” (1835 Articles and Covenants, D&C 20:73) This change may have been made in response to the “great commission” Jesus gave to the disciples in Matthew 28:16-20.

Whatever the case, it demonstrates Joseph’s willingness to deviate from the book he claimed was “most correct.” Rather than adhere to the Gospel of the New Testament and Book of Mormon, he added priesthoods, authorities, hierarchies, rituals, powers, apotheoses, and delved ever deeper into the “mysteries.” He is quoted as saying, “it has always been my province to dig up hidden mysteries, new things, for my hearers.” One of the unfortunate truths I often see is that the Gospel as Christ taught it is insufficient for some people. We seem to always need more. I’m not sure why that is, but we seem to have a hard time accepting it on Christ’s terms. Joseph was no different. By the end of his life, the Mormon faith had become a fully-fledged Gnostic Mystery Religion. So, make no mistake about it: the church is nominally Christ’s, but it is, in fact, The Church of Joseph Smith.  As the editors of The Words of Joseph Smith wrote in their introductory essay,

“In the latter-day Restoration no individual stands taller than Joseph Smith, the Lord’s prophet. As the first prophet of the last dispensation, he commands the respect and attention of all members of the Church. An early revelation received by Joseph Smith declared, ‘This generation shall have my word through you” (D&C 5:10), and no one would dispute the validity of this statement: the Prophet’s teachings are the foundation of Mormon theology.”  (Emphasis added. “Through you” in D&C 5:10 was added for the 1835 version)

Joseph himself said as much. In November 1831, after a series of conferences, his history reads,

“In the last [conference], which was held at Brother Johnson’s in Hiram, after deliberate consideration, in consequence of the book of Revelations (the Book of Commandments), now to be printed, being the foundation of the church in these last days; and a benefit to the world, showing that the keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom of our Savior, are again entrusted to man… (Emphasis added.)

From the very beginning the Book of Mormon was treated as a witness of Joseph Smith. And it still is. To end this section, Ebenezer Robinson wrote of a curious event at the time cornerstone of the Nauvoo House was laid on October 2, 1841,

“After the brethren had assembled at the south east corner of the foundation, where the corner stone was to be laid, President Joseph Smith said: ‘Wait, brethren, I have a document I wish to put in that stone,’ and started for his house, which was only a few rods away across Main Street. I went with him to the house, and also one or two other brethren. He got the manuscript copy of the Book of Mormon, and brought it into the room where we were standing, and said: ‘I will example to see if it is all here,’ and has he did so I stood near him, at his left side, and saw distinctly the writing as he turned up the pages until he hastily went through the book and satisfied himself that it was all there, when he said: ‘I have had trouble enough with this thing,’ which remark struck me with amazement, as I looked upon it as sacred treasure.”

This is a late recollection (1890), but I don’t find any reason to disbelieve Robinson, who served in various leadership positions including clerk, and later member of, the Far West High Council. He has no reason to lie about this. The manuscript was placed inside sheet lead to protect it from moisture. Unfortunately, when the manuscript was removed from the cornerstone by Lewis Bidamon (Emma’s husband), “it had become a mass of pulp, and only small portions of it were legible” (The Return, August 1890, p. 316).

ESCALATING CLAIMS

Robert Millet, one of the faith’s most well-known scholars, made one of the most extraordinary claims about Joseph Smith I’ve ever read:

“There is another sense in which Joseph Smith was known to the ancients: he was schooled and tutored by them during his own mortal ministry. Save Jesus Christ only, the world has never known a more competent scriptural authority than Joseph Smith. A library containing everything the world knows about the Bible, for example, would not rival his understanding. It is one thing to read a book of scripture and quite another to be personally instructed by its authors. Who among the world’s scholars or divines can boast of having stood face to face with Adam, Enoch, Noah, Moses, Elijah, John the Baptist, and Peter, James, and John? Who can speak with authority about life in ancient America because of lessons learned from Nephi, Alma, Mormon, Moroni, and no doubt other ancient American Hebrews? (see JD 13:47; 17:374; 21:161–64; 23:362). While religious leaders were claiming the heavens were sealed to them, Joseph Smith was being personally tutored by these ancient prophets.”

Alexander Baugh of BYU documented seventy-six visionary experiences, adding “Joseph received so many that they became almost a commonplace for him.” (Is this how it works?) I believe this statement deserves brief attention because there’s a difference between what Joseph Smith claimed and what others have claimed for him. For example, it was many years after the Saints arrived in the Great Basin that George Q. Cannon and John Taylor suggested Nephi, Alma, Mormon and other American Ancient Hebrews tutored Joseph. Neither offered any evidence. Taylor also made the dubious claim that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Seth and the Nephite disciples also appeared to Joseph. Taylor, like most of the early SLC leaders, had a tenuous grasp on the truth. I feel comfortable we can disregard his and Cannon’s claims. We’ll instead focus on what Joseph claimed for himself. We’ll begin by looking at his 1832 history, which reads,

“A History of the life of Joseph Smith Jr. An account of his marvelous experience and of all the mighty acts which he doeth in the name of Jesus Christ, the son of the living God, of whom he beareth record; and also, an account of the rise of the Church of Christ in the eve of time according as the Lord brought forth and established by his hand. Firstly​, he receiving the testimony from on high, secondly the ministering of Angels, thirdly the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministering of angels to administer the letter of the Gospel, the Law and commandments as they were given unto him and in the​ ordinances; fourthly, a confirmation and reception of the high Priesthood after the holy order of the son of the living God, power and ordinance from on high to preach the Gospel in the administration and demonstration of the spirit the Keys of the Kingdom of God conferred upon him and the continuation of the blessings of God to him &c…” (Emphasis added. I did an admittedly brief search on the phrase “all the mighty acts” in contemporary literature and found them in reference to the works of Jehovah, God, or Jesus, not man. Also, he claimed he received the “keys to the kingdom” just as Peter did in Matthew 16:19. Is it all really just a giant LARP? Boy, it’s hard to think otherwise.)

His earliest written heavenly encounter is found in his 1829/30 Articles, which I mentioned only reference “an holy angel” (singular) who “gave [him] commandments which inspired [him].” I believe this happened. Angels, or messengers, are one of God’s two primary modes of interaction with mortals (the holy spirit being the other). His 1832 journal, the only First Vision account written in his own hand, mentions that the reason he prayed was for mercy and forgiveness of his sins. He then claims he had a vision of Jesus,

“…a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the ​Lord​ opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph ​my son​ thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy ​way​ walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory…”

This kind of vision, not uncommon in his day and age, was also apocalyptic in nature, as “The Lord” also reportedly said, “lo I come quickly,” a common expression in Joseph’s revelations. It’s been 204 years since this allegedly happened. In the 1835 account relayed to Robert Matthews (code name “Joshua”), God the Father joined Jesus, along with “many angels” after Joseph was seized by unseen forces and rendered unable to speak because of a swollen tongue. We also have the introduction of James 1:5 and the issue of not knowing which denomination was correct. In this same 1835 account, Joseph claims that Moroni said, “the indians were the literal descendants of Abraham.” (Which Indians? The Book of Mormon never makes this claim. Jesus, Mormon and Moroni all reference a “remnant” of Lehi, which is a “usually small part, member, or trace remaining” or a “small remaining group.” Some are descendants of Lehi. The Book of Mormon never claims the Jaredites, Nephites and Mulekites were the only people in the Promised Land, nor that anyone else ever arrived over the course of the Nephites 1,000-year history.)

The first publicly published First Vision account came in Orson Pratt’s 1840 pamphlet, A Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions, which states that Joseph “saw two glorious personages, who exactly resembled each other in their features or likeness.” Pratt likely heard Joseph tell this account or read the 1838 history prior to its 1842 publication.

In that 1838 account Joseph writes, “I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!”  There’s a monumental difference between a vision of “The Lord” in the 1832 account and “God the Father and Jesus Christ” in the in 1838 account. Why this monumental event was unknown for most of early church history is because it never happened. We read in the Book of Mormon that Jesus said, “the Gentiles should not at any time hear my voice—that I should not manifest myself unto them save it were by the Holy Ghost.” (3 Nephi 16:23). We read on the Book of Mormon’s title page that it would come “by way of the Gentile.” Joseph Smith translated the book. Joseph Smith is a Gentile. If the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, the First Vision is a fabrication.

We then come to the 1823 appearance of the Angel Moroni who informed Joseph of the plates.  The history continues,

“After telling me these things, [Moroni] commenced quoting the prophecies of the Old Testament. (Of course he did). He first quoted part of the third chapter of Malachi; and he quoted also the fourth or last chapter of the same prophecy, though with a little variation from the way it reads in our Bibles. Instead of quoting the first verse as it reads in our books, he quoted it thus: For behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly shall burn as stubble; for they that come shall burn them, saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch…

And again, he quoted the fifth verse thus: Behold, I will reveal unto you the Priesthood, by the hand of Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord…”

According to Wilford Woodruff’s report of a March 10, 1844 sermon, Joseph said “The spirit of Elias is to prepare the way for the greater revelation of God which is the priesthood of Elias or the Priesthood that​ Aaron was ordained unto.” D&C 84:18 reads that “the Lord confirmed a priesthood also upon Aaron and his seed, throughout all their generations,” which is ostensibly the “Aaronic priesthood” that John the Baptist restored in 1829. According to Joseph’s history, John said, “Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of the Messiah I confer the Priesthood of Aaron.” So, what’s the priesthood of Elijah? Your guess is as good as mine.

“He also quoted the next verse differently: And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming. In addition to these, he quoted the eleventh chapter of Isaiah, saying that it was about to be fulfilled. He quoted also the third chapter of Acts, twenty-second and twenty-third verses, precisely as they stand in our New Testament…He also quoted the second chapter of Joel, from the twenty-eighth verse to the last. He also said that this was not yet fulfilled, but was soon to be.”

To my knowledge, this is the first these words of Moroni were committed to paper. How does Joseph Smith remember these exact words verbatim, much less the alleged variations from the original Old Testament, 15 years later? As I’ve mentioned a number of times, the first mention of priesthood in any church documents is June 1831, so it’s very unlikely Moroni ever referenced any priesthood. Elijah allegedly appeared in the Kirtland Temple in 1836, but as late as 1840 Joseph mentioned a still-future return of Elijah. Moroni allegedly said Joel 2:28-32 was not yet fulfilled, but we read in Acts 2:14-15 Peter is quoted as saying at Pentecost, “For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel.” He then quotes Joel 2:28-32 (with minor variations.) So, was Joel’s prophecy fulfilled at Pentecost in the day of the original apostles or at the Kirtland Temple? Or was the Kirtland Temple dedication an LDS LARP of Pentecost? (David Whitmer called the dedication “a grand fizzle.”) In Pratt’s pamphlet we read the Angel Moroni said,

“…that the great preparatory work for the second coming of the Messiah, was speedily to commence; that the time was at hand for the gospel, in its fulness, to be preached in power unto all nations; that a people might be prepared with faith and righteousness, for the Millennial reign of universal peace and joy. He was informed, that he was called and chosen to be an instrument in the hands of God, to bring about some of his marvelous purposes in this glorious dispensation.”

It’s been over 200 years since the Angel Moroni appeared to Joseph. Further, nowhere in the Revelation or Book of Mormon does it say Jesus will personally reign on earth for 1,000 years. (Read Revelation 20 and you’ll find nothing suggesting Jesus will establish a 1,000-year kingdom on earth.) I do believe that Moroni appeared and told Joseph about the plates, but I don’t believe he quoted the Old Testament prophets nor said anything about the pending “Millennium.” To my eyes, Joseph’s history was highly influenced by intervening events and a slippery grip on reality.  It should be noted that the timing of Joseph’s 1838 History is significant, as it came in the wake of the Kirtland Dissention. The JSP editors note that after Kirtland Joseph engaged “in a reassertion of his prophetic authority in the land of Zion (Far West).” One way to do this is by embellishing or fabricating visionary claims.

But these were not the only embellishments and fabrications. The Nephite Interpreters, two stones set in silver bows, became the ancient biblical Urim and Thummim (they’re never called that in the Book of Mormon), further establishing Joseph’s priestly authority in the model of the Hebrew prophets. The “Urim and Thummim” were allegedly attached to a breastplate, though no breastplate is mentioned in the Book of Mormon. The Biblical Urim and Thummim, according to most traditions, was a piece of parchment within the folds of the high priest’s breastplate. They were used in cleromancy, or casting of lots, to determine a certain course of action. The Nephite Interpreters serve a completely different purpose from the Urim and Thummim and should be referred to by their proper name.

In the summer of 1830 Joseph shelved the Book of Mormon and decided to revise the Bible. As justification for such an ambitious project, Joseph wrote, “many important points touching the salvation of men, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled.” Wasn’t this the purpose of the Book of Mormon? According to the angel from Nephi’s vision,

“…these last records (The Book of Mormon), which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved…and the words of the Lamb shall be made known in the records of thy seed, as well as in the records of the twelve apostles of the Lamb; wherefore they both shall be established in one (1 Nephi 13:40, 42. “The son of” is not found in the original 1830 version. Also of note, there’s no reference to a Book of Commandments or a Doctrine & Covenants, or Book of Moses or Book of Abraham, etc, nor a restoration of the gospel or priesthood, for that matter).

Joseph Smith’s revision was never completed, but in 2017 Thomas Wayment of BYU and undergraduate Hayley Wilson-Lemmon published the results of a study showing parallels between Smith’s translation and Adam Clarke’s biblical commentary.  They contend that the parallels “are simply too numerous and explicit to posit happenstance or coincidental overlap” and “demonstrate Smith’s open reliance upon Clarke.” Unsurprisingly, they suggest Sidney Rigdon was likely responsible for urging Joseph to use Clarke’s commentary.

In 1832 he claimed a vision of a three-tiered afterlife (D&C 76). In describing the eternal misery of the wicked, the revelation reads, “Neither was it revealed, neither is, neither will be revealed unto man, except to them who are made partakers thereof; Nevertheless, I, the Lord, show it by vision unto many, but straightway shut it up again.” Is it revealed only the partakers, or is it shown in a vision unto many?

In 1835 Michael Chandler exhibited some ancient mummies and parchment in Kirtland.  One of Chandler’s pamphlets claimed the mummies “may have lived in the days of Jacob, Moses, or David.” Joseph acquired the mummies for $2,400 ($85,500) and wrote, “I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the [scrolls] contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc.”  Unfortunately for Joseph, the scrolls he had in his possession were the Hor Book of Breathing, a funerary scroll made for a Theban Priest name Horus, and the Ta-Sherit-Min Book of the Dead. In other words, the Book of Abraham is a fabrication. (I wrote a post on why the Book of Abraham should be rejected purely on theological grounds, namely that Joseph presents Jehovah and Jesus as two distinct individuals even though they are the same person according to the Book of Mormon.) In May 1844 Joseph lied to Josiah Quincy about the cost and acquisition of the mummies, which we’ll address in part two.

In 1834 and 1835 we have the first accounts of John the Baptist and Peter, James and John “restoring” priesthood authority. John the Baptist allegedly came on May 15, 1829, and while no one knows the exact date of the Peter, James, and John appearing, pro-LDS sources date it to May 29 of the same year. Why John the Baptist would restore a functionally obsolete “Aaronic priesthood” is a mystery to me. There’s no mention of this priesthood, or Melchizedek priesthood, in the Book of Mormon. The contemporary claim is that Jesus gave the disciples the “Aaronic priesthood” when He appeared at Bountiful, but why would he give them a priesthood was that was superseded by Christ according to Hebrews 7:12-26?

As for the appearance of Peter, James and John mentioned in the revised version of D&C 27 (they aren’t mentioned in the original version published in the Book of Commandments), B.H. Roberts noted, “there is no definite account of the event in the history of the Prophet Joseph, or, for matter of that, in any of our annals” that such an event took place.  The church claims the trio “appeared as resurrected beings,” but if we accept the authority of the Book of Mormon, John the apostle didn’t die,

“And [Jesus] said unto [the three Nephites]: Behold, I know your thoughts, and ye have desired the thing which John, my beloved, who was with me in my ministry, before that I was lifted up by the Jews, desired of me. Therefore, more blessed are ye, for ye shall never taste of death; but ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father unto the children of men, even until all things shall be fulfilled according to the will of the Father, when I shall come in my glory with the powers of heaven. And ye shall never endure the pains of death.” (3 Nephi 28:6-8)

If John didn’t die, he can’t be a resurrected being. (See what happens when we give Joseph precedence over Jesus?) So, at best we have two resurrected beings and one mortal, or transfigured, being “restoring” the priesthood. I’m not sure how that works. John would have had to take a boat over to Pennsylvania and meet up with his fellow apostles. Joseph might have made a more compelling case if he had claimed the three Nephites “restored” the priesthood since they would ostensibly already be on the continent. But according to 3 Nephi 28:27, these three would “be among the Gentiles, and the Gentiles shall know them not.” They didn’t have “the priesthood,” however, so they wouldn’t have been able to confer it anyway. Richard Bushman wrote in Rough Stone Rolling that “the late appearance of these accounts raises the possibility of later fabrication.” It’s not a possibility, it’s a certainty. These ordinations didn’t happen. Joseph Smith III, as I recall, expressed doubt such priesthood restoration took place. I’m 95% sure I remember reading that somewhere, but I can’t find it so don’t quote me on that.

On January 21, 1836, he allegedly saw a vision of “Father Adam, and Abraham and Michael, and my father and mother, my brother Alvin that has long since slept” in the “Celestial Kingdom.” It seems Joseph forgot that in the revised version of D&C 27 (1835) Michael and Adam are identified as the same person: “Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days.” (Again, “The Ancient of Days” in Daniel is God, not “Adam/Michael.”) The Church, aware of the problem, erased “Michael” from the published version you have in your current D&C 137. It now reads, “I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept.”  In this same vision he claims that the Lord told him that,

“All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; Also, all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom.”

In July 1838, Joseph was asked, “What has become of all those who have died since the days of the apostles?” He answered, “All these who have not had an opportunity of hearing the gospel, and being administered unto by an inspired man in the flesh, must have it hereafter, before they can be finally judged.” What happened to those who would have accepted it being ushered into the kingdom? Joseph could’ve just cited 2 Nephi 9, Mosiah 3 or Moroni 8 which explain that atonement covers all contingencies. Christ’s atonement is much broader than Joseph’s alleged revelation or his 1838 statement. It’s not contingent upon whether or not someone “would have received” the Gospel. If one never heard of Christ through no fault of their own, he or she is automatically covered by the Atonement. That was one of its purposes. Then in October 1840 he officially introduced the anti-Christ doctrine of proxy baptism.

D&C 110 (1836) declares that Jehovah, Moses, Elias, Elijah all appeared in the Kirtland Temple. Elijah and Elias are the same person. Elijah is the Hebrew and Elias is the Greek. Joseph makes a similar error in his priesthood chronology of D&C 84, in which “Esaias,” the Greek version of Isaiah, received the priesthood “under the hand of God” and “lived in the days of Abraham, and was blessed of him.” Abraham and Isaiah are separated by about 1,000 years, so that didn’t happen. There is some controversy over the authenticity of D&C 110, particularly because as late as 1840 Joseph referenced the future coming of Elijah and his alleged priesthood. However, given Joseph’s difficulty keeping his stories straight, I don’t find it implausible in the least that he would claim Elijah came in 1836 and four years later claim he hadn’t come yet.

We also have to take into consideration the visionary world of the Second Great Awakening in which Joseph lived.  Richard Bushman noted,

“…the famed revivalist Charles Grandison Finney for example who was living in Adams, New York in 1821, stole into the woods to pray privately for forgiveness and afterwards in his law office had a vision of the savior it seemed as if I met the lord Jesus Christ face to face,” he wrote in his autobiography. (Sound familiar?) Later in life he decided the vision was a ‘mental state,’ but at the time, he said ‘It seemed to me that saw him as I would see any other man. It seemed to me a reality that he stood before me, and I fell down at his feet and poured out my soul to him.'” (Emphasis added.)

At the time Bushman published his article, he had found “thirty-two pamphlets that relate visionary experiences published in the United States between 1783 and 1815.” If the people of Joseph’s time and culture were accustomed to such visionary claims, it makes one wonder why his were not known until many, many years later. The obvious answer, at least to me, is that they didn’t happen.

I could go on, but you get the idea. I think Joseph Smith fell into the habit of making visionary claims and dictating revelation. He often said it was “God’s will” or “the will of the Lord” whenever he wanted or needed something. It was natural as waking up in the morning. He rolled out of bed and started revealing the mysteries of the kingdom. He reportedly said, “it is my meditation all the day and more than my meat and drink to know how I shall make the saints of god comprehend the visions that roll like an overflowing surge before my mind.” Does this sound like a mentally well man? I think it’s a serious question we need to consider. What I feel we can say is that Joseph’s “mighty acts,” visions and revelations between 1830 and 1843 were but mere prelude to his two most audacious and grandiose acts: an attempt to establish the political Kingdom of God and accepting the title of “prophet, priest and king,” the munus triplix, or “three-fold office” traditionally given to Jesus Christ. Oh, boy.

We’ll jump into that in part two.