John Madison Chidester

It is time to introduce a new ancestor who joined the church.  I am afraid I am a little late.  John Madison Chidester joined the Church in June 1932 so I should have posted when we were studying section 84.  John Chidester is a pretty awesome ancestor.  He was part of all the major church events from the time he joined the church until he dies in Utah. He is an ancestor of my grandma, Letty Dewey Snow.

John Madisen Chidester was born in Pompey, NY in 1809, which made him four years younger than Joseph Smith. His father died when he was only six months old, so John spent his infancy in the home of his grandparents.  His mother remarried, and he and his mother moved to Michigan to join a blended family. John was apprenticed to a wheelwright and carpenter.  When he was twenty, he married Mary Josephine Parker  and they bought property in Summerfield Michigan where they had their first son (our ancestor). 

In the summer of 1832, David Patten, who had just been made an elder, returned to his home in Michigan and preached to his friends and family. John heard his message and accepted baptism. In 1834 John heard that Joseph Smith was organizing a group to go to Missouri to help the saints, and he, his wife, their two year old son and three month old daughter joined Zion’s Camp. One night after they had traveled 25 miles, they were about to set up camp but the Prophet announced he felt impressed to continue onward.  There was some dissension in the camp, but in the end they followed the prophet.  It was later reported that a large group of men had organized to attack them in their original campsite. 

After Zion’s camp, the young family settled in Liberty Missouri where they suffered persecution.  Two children were born to them in Missouri but both died of exposure and malnutrition. John was captured and accused of stealing a horse, a capital offence.  John scoffed at the charges and said he would “lay out” the first person who touched him. The mob decided to let him go. 

John was ordained a Seventy in 1837 and also served as a bodyguard to the Prophet Joseph Smith. John was with the Prophet when he was imprisoned and rebuked the guards for their foul language. 

When the Saints were driven from Missouri, John and his family moved to Quincy Illinois and then to Commerce (later Nauvoo). They lived happily there for a few years.  John served a mission to Michigan, and served as a lieutenant in the Nauvoo Legion. John and Mary were one of the couples who received their endowments in the Nauvoo Temple.

When the Saints moved west in 1847, John was asked to loan his wagon to Ezra Taft Benson and remain behind.  He did and built a ferry in Montrose to help the saints cross the Mississippi.  He later moved to Council Bluffs and built a grist mill, wagons, carts and living quarters for the Saints. 

Finally in 1850 he crossed the plains. Upon reaching Utah, his family moved to Bountiful, but were later reassigned to Palmyra, Spanish Fork, a ranch in Parley’s Canyon and a Cotton Mission in Southern Utah. Later he was asked to help build the St George Temple. He did hand carving on the balustrades, interior work, and doors.

He married at least two other women. Leah Jane Thompson was an unwed pregnant teen John married in 1857.  She died soon after the child was born and Mary raised the child. Ten years later he married a divorced women(?), Anna Charlotte Eldridge. Another woman, Mary Ann Pratt, is listed as a spouse on Family Search but there isn’t much other information about her. 

John died in Washington County, UT in 1893 at the age of 84.

The Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood

This week I taught a Sunday School class on Section 84 of the Doctrine and Covenants.  It contains the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood.  I must admit I have never really understood the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood.  Actually, from the passage in D&C 84: 33-39 it is pretty clear what the covenant of the priesthood is. This passage clearly outlines what each part of the covenant agrees to do: 

Priesthood Holder: 

v. 33: is faithful in obtaining the two priesthoods, and magnifies their calling
v. 35: receive the Lord, his servants, and the Father

The Lord
v. 33: sanctifies them to the renewing of their bodies
v. 34: they become the sons of Moses and Aaron, and the elect of God
v. 38: They receive the Father's Kingdom and all he has. 

So this is the covenant, and it is a wonderful one with close ties to the temple ordinances (which won't be revealed for several years after this revelation). My question is, what is the "Oath" part of the Oath and the Covenant. 

In the 1828 Dictionary of the English Language, an Oath is "A solemn affirmation , made with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed. It implies a call for God's vengeance if the declaration is false, or the promise broken." The word calls to mind the Oath of Office taken by the president at the inauguration or a new doctor making the Hippocratic Oath. 

 When does this oath happen and who is the one that makes it? There are two parties in the covenant, and either one could make the oath.  The people can swear to follow Jesus and Jesus can swear to bless them. I think most people assume that it is the priesthood holder that makes the oath. This makes sense since one part of an oath is that there is divine retribution if the oath is broken and verse 42 does outline consequences of breaking the covenant. However, in in the same verse, the Lord seems to be making a kind of oath of blessing, "which I now confirm upon you who are present this day." It is the most ceremonial sounding sentence. If an oath is happening on that day, this is the most likely candidate for the record of the oath. If it is the Lord who swears an oath to bless us if we are obedient to the covenant, that is a comforting thought indeed. 

If it is the priesthood holder who is making the oath, when does that happen?  It is not very satisfying to say it is merely implied (as does the church's Guide to Scriptures "Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood", but satisfying or not, that might be the case).  If it is an actual oath, sworn at a specific time in a specific place, the only time I can think where that happens is in the endowment ceremony in the temple.  At the time of this revelation, the endowment ceremony hasn't yet been revealed, but perhaps this is a foreshadowing.  It is possible that the endowment is synonymous to the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood.  If so, then both women and men take part in that Oath and Covenant.  There are a few more things that suggest this might be the case. The ceremony mentions of both the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood, and there used to be consequences mentioned. Even though this is a very satisfying thought, especially for the women in the church, I did not find any church resource that explicitly supports that idea. 

In some ways the Oath and Covenant of the priesthood is straightforward. There are required actions and promised blessing to those who live up the the covenant and curses associated with breaking it. Still, I don't feel like I yet totally understand it. I feel there is more insight to be gained by further study.

Section 77: Three Priests of the Temple

Last week we studied Doctrine and Covenants section 77.  It is a question and answer session with the Lord about the meaning of certain symbols in the book of Revelations. Most of it is pretty difficult to understand. 

There was one thing I heard in one of my podcasts that I wanted to record because I thought it was interesting.  It was in Talking Scripture and it was made by Bryce Dunford (Episode 329, I am quoting from the transcript).  Bryce's big thing is that he sees temple symbolism in everything.  In this context he was talking about the identity of Elias (v. 9)  He pointed out that Elias is the Greek form of Elijah (because in Greek if you end a name with an "A" sound it sounds like a girl's name).  I wanted to record it here so I could have it for future reference. He said, 

"I think Elias is a priestly figure.  Now I'm going to take you liturgically to the temple, and there's three priests.  There's the one who's standing outside, calling everybody to leave Egypt."

"And that typically is personified as Moses.  Then once they leave and they enter into the call or the holy place, there's a priest there that is inviting them to live a higher law.  And that is the Elias figure/"

"And so that's John.  John in the wilderness is an Elias. He is actually called that because he's speaking to people with ears to hear, and he's asking them to live a higher law."

... "And then finally, the third priestly figure is Melchizedek or Jesus.  And that figure is the one that invites us to cross the veil into the father's presence.  And so if you read it that way, John is standing as Elias, and he writing this work, and no one's going to get it except those who have ears to hear." 

I don't know where Bryce got the information about the three priests representing Moses, Elias, and Melchizedek, but I thought it was very interesting.  It helps explain all the different people who are called Elias in the scriptures. 

Section 76, The Vision

 When Joseph Smith received the vision that is recorded in Section 76 of the Doctrine and Covenants, it rocked the church.  It is a singular revelation.  I want to explain a little why it was so remarkable. 

Uniqueness in Christian Theology

It was a departure from all the prominent views of life after death held by Christian churches of the time and of today.  There were three main views of life after death held among Christians in Joseph Smith's time. 

There were the Calvinists who believed that, because God is all knowing and all powerful, nothing mortals can do will change God's plan for their destiny.  I have been reading the book of Romans in the Bible, and find that there is support for this idea in the writings of Paul. According to the Calvinists, a small number of God's elect will go to heaven, and everyone else is bound for hell. The Vision contradicts almost everything in the Calvinist beliefs because it claims people are assigned a glory because of their decisions. 

In opposition to the Calvinists there were the Universalists.  Joseph Smith's father was a Universalist.  They believed that it is unfathomable that a loving God would create people only to condemn them to eternal punishment.  Therefore, even though people will be punished for their sins, they will eventually be saved in heaven. This is closer to the ideas put forth in The Vision. In The Vision, almost all of the classes of people will receive a kingdom of glory, but the quality of that reward varies widely dependent on the person's decisions. The Vision also suggests there are some who will not qualify for any kingdom of glory, the sons of perdition, and this is not in line with Unitarianism.

The rest of Christians who had a dualistic view of the afterlife.  The righteous would earn a place in Heaven, and the wicked would be consigned to Hell. Catholics add a third destination, purgatory, which is like the suffering of the wicked until the final judgement mentioned in Section 76:85. The main difference between the Catholic view and The Vision is, again, the different levels of glory afforded. Also, in the Vision, it is implied, that a much smaller percent of people will merit eternal punishment. 

Uniqueness in Latter-Day Scripture

This doctrine of different degrees of glory is not found in any other scripture.  There is a hint of it in 1 Corinthians 15:40-50, but only a hint. There is no mention of this in the Book of Mormon.  Book of Mormon prophets saw the afterlife as dualistic. In Alma 40:11 Alma describes the temporary assignment to paradise or prison while awaiting judgement, (which isn't really stated here in Section 76, except for that the wicked will suffer for their sins) but there is no clue about Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial kingdoms.  In fact, the term "Telestial" is first introduced into the English language in The Vision.  It comes from a Greek word, "tele" which means far.  (as seen in our words telescope and telegraph.  So the Telestial kingdom is the one furthest from God.)

The Law of Witnesses

Because this doctrine doesn't appear anywhere else, God reveals it to two people.  God generally follows the "law of witnesses" which states, "in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established" (2 Corinthians 13). Section 76 was received by both Joseph and Sidney Rigdon, and in the presence of several other men.  During the vision one of the men would say, "I see....." and the other would respond, "I see it as well."  Having two people experience The Vision in the presence of others greatly enhances its credibility.

Incompleteness of The Vision

As remarkable as The Vision was, it is, in a way, incomplete.  There are verses in section 76 that seem to suggest that if a person doesn't have a chance to receive the Gospel in this life, he is consigned to a lower kingdom (v. 72-73).  One must remember that this revelation was given seven years before the principle of vicarious temple work for the dead was revealed in Nauvoo.  In Section 137 of the Doctrine and Covenants, Joseph Smith learns that those who die without the chance to receive the Gospel will have the chance in the next life (v. 7-9). This suggests the possibility of movement between kingdoms based on decisions made after death. 

The church has no official doctrine about whether people can progress between kingdoms in the afterlife.  Some church leaders have preached one way and others another. There was a letter that was circulated in the 1950's from the office of the first presidency that stated:

"The brethren direct me to say that the Church has never announced a definite doctrine upon this point. Some of the brethren have held that it was possible in the course of progression to advance from one glory to another, invoking the principle of eternal progression; others of the brethren have taken the opposite view. But as stated, the Church has never announced a definite doctrine on this point."

This is the only official statement to date on this topic.

Musings

My question about section 76 is this: Does it replace a dualistic view of the afterlife with one with just a few more divisions, or does it suggest a much more expansive view of judgement. I personally think that what it is really suggesting is that final judgement is tailored to individual personality and circumstances. I believe God knows us and loves us and will prepare a place for us and give us responsibilities that are perfectly suited for our happiness in the next life. The reward I receive will be different than what anyone else will receive, and that is OK. When I was young I was determined to qualify for the Eternal Life in the top third of the Celestial Kingdom.  I don't actually think about it much anymore. I now mostly just put myself in God's hands.  If he wants to prepare me for exaltation in the highest kingdom of heaven, I will try to go along. If, however, he needs some people to stay as support crew, that is also a very important and laudable station, and I will be content with that. I also personally believe that progression continues after death, with this life's experiences and growth only constituting one small part of a much bigger journey.  

Jackson County, Missouri

 In sections 59-63 Joseph Smith and other leaders arrive at Jackson County Missouri and dedicate a spot where a temple is supposed to be built.  The people of the Coleville branch, lead by Joseph Knight travel to Jackson County as the first settlers of Zion the new Jerusalem.  History tell us that things did not go well in Jackson county.  The saints are persecuted and the temple is never built.  Finally the saints are driven out and threatened with extermination by Governor Boggs.  

So the question is, why did the Lord lead them to Jackson County is the first place?  Didn't he know what would happen there?  Why did he ask them to build a temple, when he knew they would be unable? Finally, is Jackson County still chosen to be the place where the New Jerusalem will be built in some future date?

Of course, we don't have answers to these questions. The in some revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord said that Zion was not built because of the disobedience of the saints. (D&C103:4) In that revelation the Lord promises that Zion might yet be restored "after your tribulations" (v. 13) The church leaders form "Zion's Camp" to march to Missouri and escort the saints back to their lands.  But when they arrive it is too late.  All the members have fled.  In Section 105 the Lord says "Therefore, in consequence of the transgressions of my people, it is expedient in me that mine elders should wait a little season for the redemption of Zion." (v 9)  We know from other scriptures that "a little season" to the Lord can be a long time for we who are mortals.  These scriptures make us believe that eventually, Jackson County will be redeemed, and Zion, the New Jerusalem, will eventually be built on that site.

Later, after the saints have been driven from Missouri, and Joseph Smith has languished in Liberty Jail, the Lord rescinds the injunction to build a temple in Jackson County, "Therefore, for this cause I have accepted the offerings of those whom I commanded to build up a city and the house unto my name in Jackson county Missouri, and were hindered by their enemies, saith the Lord your God," (124: 50.) Instead they are commanded to build a temple in Nauvoo (v. 55) which they do. Some would argue that this verse removes the necessity of ever building Zion in Missouri. 

Church history buffs are split as to whether they think that Zion will eventually be built in Missouri, perhaps during the millennium.  Others say that section 124 nullifies the prophecies about building Zion in Jackson County.  I looked online and the church still owns land in Jackson County, but only about 15 acers near the temple lot.  They used to own more, but recently sold it off because residents complained that the church held all that land but didn't have to pay taxes on it. The church is certainly wealthy enough, that if they decided to, they could buy up much of the county any time they decided to.  However, it doesn't really seem to me that they are currently planning to transfer the center of the church to Missouri any time soon, and I, due to section 124, I am OK with the idea that they probably never will.

 

Prophecies of the Last Days in Section 45

 In section 45 of the Doctrine and Covenants we have some eschatological verses in which the Lord compares his second coming to the things that happened in Jerusalem after his death in the meridian of time and at the time of the American Civil War.  The thing is, it is kind of hard to tell what verses refer to the events in Jerusalem, or the Civil War,  and which refer to the last days.  I decided it might be helpful to do a breakdown. 

Jesus introduces the comparison in vs 16, "And I will show it plainly as I showed it unto my disciples as I stood before them in the flesh, and spake unto them saying..." In other words our minds should be transported back to when Jesus was with his disciples who had asked him about his return. The footnote there takes us to Matthew 24: 3-26. We are watching him prophecy to those disciples about the destruction of Jerusalem. "And now ye behold this temple which is in Jerusalem, which ye call the house of God, and your enemies say that this house shall never fall.  But, verily I say unto you, that a desolation shall come upon this generation as a thief in the night, and this people shall be destroyed and scattered among all nations." (v 18-19)  Then he goes on to prophecy of the destruction of the temple, and the scattering of the Jews. (v 20)  Finally he sums up the flashback by saying "And it shall come to pass, that this generation of Jews shall not pass away until every desolation which I have told you concerning them shall come to pass." (21).  

We know from history that this prophecy came true.  A false Messiah rose up and stirred the Jews up into revolt against Rome.  In retaliation the Romans desolated Jerusalem, tore down the temple, and scattered the Jews in 70 AD. 

In the verses that follow Jesus compares the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD to the time the Saints are currently in. He talks about the "times of the Gentiles" (v. 25) which will be characterized by "wars and rumors of wars, and the whole earth will be in commotion." (v 26)  But during these perilous times, "And when the times of the Gentiles is come in, a light shall break forth among them that sit in darkness, and it shall be the fulness of the Gospel."(28).  So what time period are we in now?  The time of the restoration of the gospel.  

He starts then to prophecy of about the generation existing in 1830. "In that generation shall the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. and there shall be men standing in that generation, that shall not pass until they shall see an overflowing scourge, for a desolating sickness shall cover the land." There were actually several epidemics that occurred during the 1830-1850s in the United States. There were Yellow Fever epidemics in 1833 and 1851 and Scarlet Fever in 1847 and 1885. For most of these, the Latter Day Saints were spared because they had already left the main body of the United States and were isolated in the West. "But my disciples shall stand in holy places, and shall not be moved." (v 32.)

He also prophecies of war, "...yet men will harden their hearts against me, and they will take up the sword, one against another, and they will kill one another." (v. 33)  It is easy to see this as a prophecy of the Civil War, especially because it says they will take up the sword "one against another," rather than against an invading army or an enemy. 

So far we have seen prophecies of the destruction of Jerusalem, and prophecies of the 19th century.  After these prophecies, God finally refers to the last days. These prophecies are much more vague. "...he that feareth me shall be looking forth for the great day of the Lord to come, even for the signs of the coming of the Son of Man.  And they shall see signs and wonders...And they shall see blood, and fire, and vapors of smoke." (v. 39-40.) 

"And before the day of the Lord shall come, the sun shall be darkened and the moon be turned to blood, and the stars fall from heaven." (v. 42) These descriptions sound a lot like the Book of Revelation symbolic prophecies, rather than the specific prophecies about the fall of Jerusalem and the Civil War. From here on out he describes Jesus' appearance in a cloud, (v 44) the rapture (v. 45) and the resurrection (v. 45).  He also describes the judgement on the wicked. Those who willfully rebelled shall be "hewn down and cast into a fire." (v.50)  The Jews will recognize their fallen Lord, (v. 51-52) and heathen nations, who had no chance to learn of Christ shall be redeemed (v.54)  Finally, he hints that he is merely recounting what has already been revealed in the New Testament (presumably the Book of Revelation) when he says, "And now, I say unto you, it shall not be given unto you to know further concerning this chapter, until the New Testament be translated, and in it all these things shall be made known." (v. 60).

In summary, not all the dire prophecies in D&C 45 are prophecies of the last days.  Some are about the destruction of the Jews in 70 AD, and some are about the coming Civil War in (1860).  The ones that are about the second coming and beginning of the Millennium echo the symbolic prophecies we already have in the Book of Revelations. That are meant to assure us that even though Satan fights against the Saints, the Lord and his disciples will ultimately triumph. 

The Law of Consecration

 This week in Come Follow Me, we are introduced to the Law of Consecration. What I hadn't remembered until this week was that some of the new converts to the church, the Campbelites, had already been living a version of the Law of Consecration based on passages from the book of Acts.  However, in their version all property was held in common.  In practice, if someone needed a tool, they could take any tool in the community and use it.  If someone needed a new shirt, and saw one in the community, they could take it as if it were their own.  Of course, this was problematic. People couldn't depend on things they needed being available to them at any specific time. Also, some people, just because of their personality, would be more likely to take things, and others more likely to be taken from. This could not help but cause hard feelings in the group.

The revelation in section 42 sets out a more functional form of consecration.  Verses 30-34 explains that the member of the church make a "first consecration " (v. 33) at which time they acknowledge that all they own belongs to the church. Then they are given stewardship over part or all of what they have consecrated. They have responsibility and control over that portion and are expected to use it to support themselves and meet their family's need, and then if there is any left over, it is given to the bishop and put in the storehouse to care for the poor and needy.  

This is a much more practical way to administer consecration, but still this ended up being problematic.  One of the biggest problems was that there were so many poor and needy in the early church.  When the original members who lived in New York gathered to Ohio, many arrived without enough resources to support themselves.  Some new converts in the Ohio area gave up great amounts of money and land to help the needy saints. Then a few years later new converts from England start to arrive, also without many personal funds or property, and the established saints were expected to help support them. Until the saints were established in Nauvoo, most were pretty poor. It must have been frustrating, once they were established and started to flourish in Nauvoo, to then be driven out again, left destitute again, and have to migrate again, this time to Utah. 

I have been thinking about my ancestors who joined the church during this period, and ended up as some of those who made and sacrificed their fortune several times over because of their belief in the church.  Why would then put up with that?  Some didn't.  Some came into the church, even migrated to Utah, and then became disillusioned and left. So why did the ones that stayed, stay?  All I can think is that they must have seen or felt something so powerful that it galvanized their testimonies. Without the witness of the spirit, without experiences that built and strengthened the early saints, the church would have withered and dried up like so many other utopian schemes that were rather popular in this time period.  But it didn't.  It grew and spread until it is starting to be a real force in the world. 

All those who take on temple covenants still promise to keep the law of consecration.  We do not, at this time, formally turn over all our worldly possessions to the church and then be assigned a stewardship.  The formal process is not the important part. The important part is that in our hearts we turn over all that we have to the Lord. We decide that we are only stewards over our income, possessions, time, and resources, and that we will use them to righteously support ourselves, and help those around us. I must admit I am not perfect in this. I try to be generous, and I try to keep God as the focus of my actions and decisions, but I am also selfish, and I feel ownership over my possessions. 

As we face upcoming reductions in our personal income, this has become an issue I have thought about more. Will I be as generous as I have been with fast offerings and donations to humanitarian projects once my personal income is cut in half, or even more than half? Do I need to be? Will I sacrifice a standard of living in order to remain generous? My standard of living will still be so much higher than many saints across the world.  I guess I need to seek guidance from the Lord in this matter.