Where has the idea that the 12 Apostles have SEEN Christ come from?

I recently saw a really good question on Facebook and decided that I would answer. My answer turned out to be quite lengthy, and so instead of leaving it on Facebook, I decided to turn it into my most recent blog post.  

Let me first state the question: "From listening to "The Boise Rescue", Elder Oaks mentioned D&C 107:23 that gave the definition of the 12 Apostles (emphasis added):

107:23:the twelve traveling councilors are called to be the Twelve Apostles, or special witnesses of the NAME of Christ in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling."

I found this scripture interesting...has this been misrepresented in the Church throughout the years?...has leadership over the years wanted the membership to believe that they have actually SEEN Christ? (perhaps to further supplant their authority)...where has the idea that the 12 Apostles have SEEN Christ come from?"

My best answer: Oliver Cowdery gave a Charge to the first 12 men called to the office in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints known as 'apostle' exclusively within the quorum of the 12. (There were men before that time who were called and ordained as apostles, but they were WAY more than 12 and it wasn't really an official organized group.) That charge instructed those men that their ordination to become apostles was not complete until after they had received a visitation with Christ while in the flesh. The foremost Mormon historian, Michael Quinn had this to say on the matter in his second book in the Mormon Hierarchy series,"Cowdrey told the new apostles: 'It is necessary that you receive a testimony from heaven for yourselves; so that you can bear testimony to the truth of the Book of Mormon, and that you have seen the face of God.'  Then he continued: 'That is more than the testimony of an angel ... Never cease striving until you have seen God, face to face.'  Cowdrey acknowledged that most of the new apostles had depended on visions of others for their faith and suggested that some might even be skeptical of visions.  Thus it was not necessary to see Jesus to be chosen as an apostle.  However, once ordained each man had a lifelong obligation to seek this charismatic experience: a vision of deity.  Some apostles from 1835 onward reported having had such visions before their ordination.  Apostles in the nineteenth century referred publicly to their visionary witness."

This was a well known and documented statement and idea maintained even outside of those who had been called into that quorum. Therefore the mainstream of the church had the expectation that, personal messianic ministrations were still occurring at least among that body of leaders.

That charge was recorded and subsequently given to each new member of that quorum -as they were called- until the early 20th century. At that time, due to feelings of inadequacy by an overwhelming majority of those who had been called to be apostles and yet never received any such audience with the Savior- that charge was dropped and new members of the 12 were from that point on referred to the scripture that you quoted in your OP.

However, publicly the dropping of that charge was never officially declared -in fact it has only been private journals from that time which have since been reproduced that revealed that this change even occurred.

What I have found is that little claim was made to that type of experience by the leaders of the church from Brigham Young down until the 1960's and 70's. In fact during the administration of Heber J. Grant, he was quite vocal that not only had he not received any such experience, he actually prayed not to have it, as he believed it would more than likely lead to deception and apostasy. (For a more in depth discussion on this matter, I would suggest reading Passing The Heavenly Gift, by Denver Snuffer, a local Utah attorney that has written quite extensively on both LDS church doctrine and history.)

What drummed the notion -that leaders were chatting with the Savior every Thursday- back into the mainstream thoughts of the church was, in my estimation something that is ultimately two fold:

#1-) The power grab by the David O. McKay administration, to not only be called the president of the church, but to be called "The Prophet." Before David O. McKay, the latter title was used only for Joseph Smith -but because Heber J. Grant was such an unpopular president, with whom many lay members (and even local leaders) disagreed and contended with, the McKay administration sought to subdue any resistance by laying hold on the title 'Prophet.' (The idea behind this addition is that one can argue and disagree with a president, but if you disagree with a prophet, then damnation is at stake! You can read more about this in David O. McKay And The Rise Of Modern Mormonism)

This obviously lead to the missionary propaganda that was spread forth wherein we boasted of having a 'Living Prophet' and it is pretty hard to assume that title without having the associated idea that a prophet receives messages from God. Thus leading to the idea that the president/prophet is speaking with God, and if speaking with Him, then of course at least occasionally He might drop in for tea and crumpets.

#2-) During the 60's and 70's the work that Jerald and Sandra Tanner (among others) stirred up began to really hit hard. A lot of stuff that had been partially buried for decades regarding a range of topics were brought out in order to try and combat much of what became labeled as 'anti-Mormon' information. That effort by the leaders of the church (specifically Bruce R. McConkie and his father-in-law Joseph Fielding Smith, who attempted to correlate church doctrine according to their own, personal views) to combat this 'anti' material, drug to light many teachings that had for quite some time been discarded. That is not to say that these teachings I am referring to had not been known, but just not in a uniformly digestible way that could be made to accommodate a religious organization as spectrally wide theologically as where the church had originated from. Among those were the teachings of Joseph Smith, that included having ones calling and election made sure, second anointing's and having a personal visitation with Christ.

At first, these teachings were paraded as a jewel from the King's closet, that once again could set us apart (read:above) from everyone else. Once the general membership got hold of such ideas there was a very positive reception that buoyed up the notion to further research and promulgate these ideas even further.

The love fest didn't last long however for these backward ideas, as leaders began to be barraged with questions every time an occasion presented itself of whether they had their calling and election made sure; what is that like; insight into how one could personally go about accomplishing that; what Jesus looked like; etc. In addition to those problems also came others (non-leaders) who began teaching regarding these ideas, and really made it seem like they (the non-leaders) were having these experiences. Which offended the leaders sensibilities because if a non-leader was speaking with Jesus, and the leader was not...what would that mean? (Which this is a whole other discussion.)

So in reaction to these new problems, the leaders attempted to slam the door on anyone speaking of these 'deep doctrines' and chastised any who did as being truer than true; looking beyond the mark; and even apostate.

However the damage had already been done, the teachings had spread wide enough that they couldn't be denied (which was heretofore the tactic employed anytime the administrators didn't want to address an issue.)

So they stopped talking about it hoping that it would go away...and largely it did. Except for the modern perception that General Authorities all have received their second anointings; thus they have had their callings and elections made sure and therefore regularly chatted with Jesus....or at least played in the annual Celestial Fall Equinox Golf For-Florida-Real-Estate-Charity Tournament that He sponsors each year...however this year, I have it on good word that He cancelled it due to the Shemitah. The only addition to those ideas is that, they are all to 'sacred' to even be acknowledged and so don't ask because they can't tell.

Evangelicals

So this picture is a little misleading for the content of my article...

The Evangelist

"An Evangelist is a Patriarch, even the oldest man of the blood of Joseph or of the seed of Abraham.  Wherever the Church of Christ is established in the earth, there should be a Patriarch for the benefit of the posterity of the Saints, as it was with Jacob in giving his patriarchal blessing unto his sons, etc." (June 27, 1839) [5 years to the day of Joseph's martyrdom]

From November 1838 to April 1839, Joseph Smith was held captive in jail.  Charged with crimes of which he was innocent.  Suffering in this capacity largely as a result of the Latter-Day Saints inability to get along, (See D&C 101:4-7) Joseph gained resolve to do what had alluded him before.  To teach -not according to what men would pick and choose, but rather according to what God wanted done in the restoration that He had originally planned for the Latter-Day Saints.  (see Moses 6:3-7)

3 months after absconding from the Missouri law that had improperly held him prisoner, Joseph began teaching boldly.  In a council meeting with the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Joseph taught about Faith, and how one can only receive it by hearing the message given to a messenger sent by God!

He taught that repentance was not something that should be practiced daily as are our daily transgressions.  He taught that Baptism was the channel by which the Holy Ghost would be given.  He taught that one must be COMPLETELY (wholly/entirely/without exception, etc.) righteous in order to have the ability to confer the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.

He taught that the Gift of Tongues was not necessary to preach or practice to the church, because whosoever has the Gift of the Holy Ghost, can speak in his own language and accomplish the same thing as what is done by preaching with the Gift of Tongues!  (This would have been especially hard to stomach for many of the Christians they were preaching to, who accepted the gift of tongues as THE ONLY means by which one could know they had been Born Again.)  

He taught that Resurrection and Eternal Judgement were of the first PRINCIPLES OF THE GOSPEL that should be preached when missionaries go out to exhort people.  

Then he started teaching things about which he had previously touched on but never had been very bold.  He taught of having ones calling and election made sure.  That not only was such a possibility but that after it occurred you then could have the opportunity if not only the obligation to have Christ come to you (Himself, in the flesh!) and minister to you.  That Christ would bring you to the Father and vouch for you there just as He said He would.  (See Matt 10:32; also Luke 9:26)

Joseph taught that the influence of the Holy Ghost, was not feeling felt through your emotions, but rather strokes of ideas that come to each and every one of us.  That by being obedient to these ideas, one would grow in light until you become perfect in Christ Jesus.

Focal Point

All of that leading to his final point: Evangelists...?

This may surprise you, as it did me.  However, there is a wise reason that I had never noticed to this, and in order to understand it, you must take in the topic in its entirety.  

In order to do just that, you must first understand that our best interpretations of the word Evangelist simply means a preacher.  Which is no doubt important.  But Joseph didn't emphasize that point AT ALL!!  He instead seems to create his own definition for that word, by changing it to mean a Patriarch...bold teaching, indeed?

Furthermore this is not the first time that the idea came up.  I won't pretend that I know when it first arrived in the teachings of Joseph, but I do know it landed before June 1839.  In fact my first finding of the teaching is nearly 4 years earlier!  However, when revealing it Joseph didn't overtly point out what was being taught at all.  

As a result of this indirect teaching, I have always glossed over the teaching as if it was just some random thought that had nothing to do with the context that followed.  So as to give you a more clear understanding to what I refer, I will quote some of the revelation (see D&C 107:39-57) that came to Joseph about the matter.

 It is the duty of the Twelve, in all large branches of the church, to ordain evangelical ministers, as they shall be designated unto them by revelation—the order of this priesthood was confirmed to be handed down from father to son, and rightly belongs to the literal descendants of the chosen seed, to whom the promises were made.  This order was instituted in the days of Adam...

What follows is a relation of what that order of priesthood (evangelical) looks like in a practical, real world application.  It starts with Adam.  He ordains his son (Seth) to this order of priesthood, (when Seth is 69 years old) and later blesses him just three years before his [Adam's] death.  

Which should cause us to wonder: what does the blessing of Seth by Adam 3 years before Adam's death have to do with the ordination by Adam of Seth, when Seth is 69?  

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints we have grown accustomed to receiving what we call 'blessings.'  These blessings can and are given for any number of reasons.  Sickness, preparation, callings, insight, strength, etc.  However in the modern church they are only given by one who has been set apart, (by another who has been duly authorized to do so) to hold priesthood.  

So if you interpret Adam's blessing of Seth as what is practiced in the LDS church, you may not get how it relates to [the evangelical] order of the priesthood.  So going out on a little bit of a ledge I am going to borrow what I believe are the ideas contained in that blessing to demonstrate that what actually happened was something different than what is generally practiced today.  

Just after relating the fact that Adam blessed Seth just three years prior to Adam's death, the account we receive from Joseph says, "[Seth] received: the promise of God, (by his father.)  That his posterity should be the chosen of the Lord, and that they should be preserved unto the end of the earth"

The night that Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith, to relate to him the location and coming forth of the Book of Mormon, he gave to him a reworded prophesy originally found in the Book of Malachi.  That prophesy states that because there is some group that is coming; when they come they shall burn up everyone on the earth.  That is however, if there is not a group who has the hearts of the fathers turned to them and they to their fathers.  (See Joseph Smith History 1:37-39)  

What is worse, however than being burned up when this group comes, is that as a result of the burning; those who are burned shall have neither root nor branch left to them!  

For many this may seem as if it is a scare tactic to get what few who will believe to fall in line.  However, what we find here is that it is an integral part of the Lord's promises that He invariably gives to those whom He blesses.  This is what we find in the account of Adam's blessing to his son Seth, regarding his posterity being found on the earth, at its end.  He shall not be one left without root nor branch.  

Such a promise is not made by some hope that Adam has that such should be the case.  It is a prophecy made by Adam, while under the administered comfort of the Lord which was given to him at that time (three years previous to Adam's death.) 

As an aside I have heard that that comfort, administered by the Lord to Adam, was that he was made young instantly so as to be able to prophesy all that should befall his posterity even until the very end.  The account doesn't state that.  As I understand that comfort it is not youthfulness, but rather the comfort that comes from gaining a promise from the Lord regarding ones own salvation and the salvation of those whom you love (i.e. Adam's posterity.)

So returning to the order of priesthood that Joseph described as evangelical, what we find is that this order of priesthood consisted in Adam's ability to ordain and then bless his son with promises given to him by God regarding his son's posterity.  

What follows from there is a relation of how there was at least one in each succeeding generation from Adam down to Methuselah, that also were ordained, and then blessed.  What is unique about this, is that each generational head from Adam, was blessed and ordained by Adam instead of by his natural (biological) father.  That is down to Lamech.  

Lamech received his ordination from Seth.  That is probably because Adam had already died when Lamech was thirty-two years old and was ready to be ordained.  That made Seth the next in line to perform the ordinations.  Despite the presence of 7 other priests, -one of which was Lamech's very own father- who had been ordained, blessed and given the promise of God, Seth was the one to whom this duty fell. ( See D&C 132:7, also re-read the quote at the top of this post.)  

Law Of Witnesses

So we find once that Joseph testifies of this order of priesthood in the which he associates it with Evangelists.  Then we find the Lord testifying of it in another revelation given through Joseph.  But what about the origin of the word?  Evangelists were discussed by both Luke and Paul in the New Testament, but in our best translations we don't find either author giving that word anything relating to something touching patriarchy.  

Or do we?  Let's look at the examples.

2 Timothy 4:2-6  "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.  For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.  But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.  For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand."

Here we find Paul first exhorting Timothy to Preach the word; and to exhort with...doctrine.  Later giving the commendation to do the work of an evangelist, Paul seems to correlate more with our interpretations of evangelism than what is contained in D&C 107.  

I am going to show how Paul's use of the word evangelist and Joseph's really isn't different.  It will be through the process of examining each use of that word and the context around it, but before we get to that point I want to show how the qualities of an evangelist exhorted by Paul here is of one who possesses already sound doctrine.  Which is opposite to those who heap to themselves teachers who satisfy their itching ears.  Which teachers, turn away their ears from the truth and unto fables instead.

It is for this reason that Paul exhorts Timothy to do the work of an evangelist.  This because Paul's time is at hand.  He seems to be saying that because he is no longer going to be able to do this work, Timothy needs to step up.  What is extra interesting to consider is the exhortation to Timothy to make FULL PROOF of thy ministry.  How is it that one can make FULL proof of their ministry as a preacher, if that is all that is meant by the term evangelist?

Next citation:

Ephesians 4:11-14 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

This can be a fast examination.  Paul is demonstrating that evangelists are an important part of the church.  That they are given in addition to the other officers, for the perfecting of the saints.  

In other words, that perfecting of the saints can not be had without anyone of the body parts listed.

Otherwise we are still as children(?) tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine.  By the sleight of men and cunning craftiness.  Whereby the enemy to our souls lies in wait to deceive...

Next citation:

Acts 21:8  

And the next day we that were of Paul’s company departed, and came unto Cæsarea: and we entered into the house of Philip the evangelist, which was one of the seven; and abode with him.

This seeming small verse contains a fairly difficult to understand teaching.  Is Philip an evangelist as a result of being one of 'The Seven?'  Or is he an evangelist and also one of 'The Seven?'

To gain some clarity I will demonstrate what is being referenced by this group of Seven

Acts 6:1-7

And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.  Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.

Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.  But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.

And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.  And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.

So what we find is that there was a murmuring among the disciples.  The poor among them were being neglected.  In this their conundrum, they believed that the God appointed method they should follow was appointing seven among them, by the voice of the people, who were full of the Holy Ghost and Wisdom to this business.  Now beyond their being dedicated to this caring for the poor and needy, something else happened.  The word of God increased.  The number of disciples multiplied.

A GREAT company of priests were obedient to the faith.

Why seven?  How does God's Word increase?  Why were the numbers of disciples multiplied?  Why did those who were priests suddenly decide to be obedient?  These milestones may certainly have been accomplished by the unburdening of the Apostles of the Lord to go out teaching instead of 'waiting on tables.'  But to me the text denotes a direct corollary with the laying on of hands on the Seven, and the increasing of the word of God, the multiplying of the disciples and the priests being obedient to the faith.

So why did they choose seven of these ministers to their poor and needy?  This is where I want to make the connection with Joseph's revelation of the Seven High Priests who are associated with being Evangelists or evangelical ministers (See D&C 107: 39, 53)  Certainly the ancient scriptures which were at most 4,000 years removed from their time, were more plentiful to the New Testament Church than they are to us, being 6,000 years removed.  Were they attempting to duplicate the same thing which they saw in scripture?  Did they understand what Joseph understood?

If you interpret that Philip was such a great preacher that he was known as an evangelist and just happen to also be one of this group called The Seven, then I would like to ask you why, when the Apostles recognized the need for preaching among the people, did they remove one who was known as such a great preacher, to instead go, 'wait on tables?'

Were the apostles acting out of jealousy?  Seeking to put up their own authority so as to keep people from hearing the word of God, from one who was known to preach it so plainly, so boldly that he had a title affixed to his name of PREACHER?

Or as common sense lies in the low, green valley, should we let the text inform us that these seven were now called to a position that in and of itself was what they understood to be evangelical?  That would mean that #1 they could preach the word of God, because as Paul stated to the Romans, they had been sent by God (see Romans 10:14-16); and #2 an evangelist is one who has an assigned duty to care for the poor among the people of God.

Connecting The Dots

Rightly, you may like to see some more evidence to support this line of thinking.  If the 7 High Priests that were called together by Adam, three years prior to his death, were the original priests after this (evangelical/patriarchal) priesthood, then we begin to get a glimpse of what Abraham was after when reading his account in the Book of Abraham.  

Abraham living on the other side of the flood from these original priestly fathers, and as a result he grew up in a world of apostasy.  He desired to reach back to the rights of that generation so that he, -like them- could continue this same priesthood lineage that had been promised by God to Adam, through his posterity.  This is what we find in the revelation that Joseph gave regarding The Book of Abraham, that has been so widely rejected as of late, by many.  

Abraham said, "finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right where unto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations, a prince of peace, and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers.

It was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time, even the right of the first born, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through the fathers unto me.  I sought for mine appointment unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God unto the fathers concerning the seed.  

As many as the sand on the seashore?

A father of many nations.  Why that is a very similar expression to the one promised by Adam to Seth that we read earlier.  If Seth is promised that his seed shall last to the end of the earth, then certainly that will encompass many nations.  Yet, beyond the confines of this mortal realm, I get the feeling that the many nations being expressed here has more celestial boundaries.

Abraham wanted to be one of these fathers that he read about, but which are not available to him for some reason.  So he saw that he had to find a new residence so as to make that connection with the fathers possible.

Which is what he did next.  He set out, following the voice of God that the Lord would fulfill to him this desire to be a greater follower of righteousness.  On his journey he seeks out a man known to us as Melchizedek.

The bible doesn't contain much of the proceedings of that meeting, only that we know Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek.  Joseph though, after the experience with Liberty Jail felt it necessary to reveal a portion of the rest of the story:

JST Genesis 14: 36-38 And this Melchizedek, having thus established righteousness, was called the king of heaven by his people, or, in other words, the King of peace.  And he lifted up his voice, and he [Melchizedek] blessed Abram, (being the high priest, and the keeper of the storehouse of God; him whom God had appointed to receive tithes for the poor.)

Now, most of Historic Christianity either has no idea who Melchizedek was, or they accept that Melchizedek was Shem.  Among Latter-Day Saints, there is dispute.  I believe Melchizedek was Shem, the son of Noah.  Having lived 98 years on the other side of the flood, Shem would have been acquainted with these fathers that Abraham wanted to be associated with.  Which is why Abraham looks him up.

Shem/Melchizedek having this connection from the fathers through his father Noah, (the son of Lamech discussed above, see D&C 84:14)  was the last remaining of the group, known as the father's, on the earth.  This is why Abraham can state that he received the rights conferred to the fathers -by God- from the fathers.

He was not posing.  He was not feigning.  He was not claiming something about which he had no knowledge.  He sought out the fathers and received his rightful appointment to that order of the priesthood.

What I find indicative is that Melchizedek, being one of the fathers, was in charge of the storehouse of God, in behalf of the poor.  Because of this, Abraham saw it proper to pay tithes to him.  Furthermore he was called the king of heaven, BY HIS PEOPLE.  You would think that such a title would need to come from God.  Yet it his people that we find laying on him this title.

But why king?  A king is one who governs.  But if Melchizedek and his people were taken into heaven, then shouldn't their king be The King of Heaven?  Why are they not condemned for the same idolatry later exhibited by the Israelites in the time of Samuel?

What is peace?  What makes peace?  Is it that they were able to have no poor among them?  Does this only mean poor in the sense of temporal things or does this mean poor in righteousness as well?
I am persuaded to believe that Melchizedek's being called the King of Heaven has more to do with those things than an idea that he is some ruler to whom his people bowed and gave obeisance by rule of a monarch.

In other words it was by the voice of the people in the days of Melchizedek that he was called king and this because he was able to justly have no poor among them.  This because of the way in which he administered the storehouse of God, the tithes for the poor,  It just so happens that this is the same pattern we find being emulated by the New Testament church in Acts chapter 6.

I was going to use a picture of Joel Osteen ™ but figured I'd
probably get sued...so here's this 'evangelical' ministry.

 Evangelical Ministry

I have demonstrated that Philip became an evangelist to the church, when he became part of 'The Seven' chosen by the people.  Let each find it as persuasive as she chooses.  I have demonstrated that the duty of an evangelist is to take care of the poor by assignment.  Let each find it as persuasive as he chooses.

What I have not yet done is demonstrate why they chose a name for that office that has as its root definition: preaching.  For this let us go back to what I had quoted from Joseph when he was in council with the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.   

Remember that in that discourse Joseph had brought up election.  In that he declared that it was possible to elicit from God a promise, "son, thou shalt be exalted.  When the Lord has thoroughly proved him & finds that the man is determined to serve him at all hazard. then the man will find his calling & Election made sure..."

Among Latter-Day Saints, it has been assumed by many that this would be the end-all, be-all.  Rather, from Joseph it seems to be far from the end.  After hearing this promise from God, "then it will be his privilege to receive the other Comforter which the Lord hath promised the saints as is recorded in the testimony of St John in the 14th chapter from the 12th to the 27 verses :

Note the 16, 17, 18, 21, 23 verses. 

(16.vs) ...I will pray the father & he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever; 

(17) Even the Spirit of Truth; whom the world cannot receive because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him; but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you & shall be in you. 

(18) I will not leave you comfortless. I will come to you 

(21) He that hath my commandments & keepeth them, he it is that loveth me. & he that loveth me shall be loved of my father & I will love him & will manifest myself to him 

(23) If a man Love me he will keep my words. & my Father will love him. & we will come unto him, & make our abode with him.

¶ Now what is this other Comforter? It is no more or less than the Lord Jesus Christ himself & this is the sum & substance of the whole matter, that when any man obtains this last Comforter he will have the personage of Jesus Christ to attend him or appear unto him from time to time." 

So receiving Calling and Election, is not the same as seeing, and meeting with the Lord Jesus Christ.  Rather that meeting is after the promise, as sequences go.  However, there is yet more.

"even [Jesus, our Lord] will manifest the Father unto him & they will take up their abode with him, & the visions of the heavens will be opened unto him & the Lord will teach him face to face & he may have a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of God, & this is the state & place the Ancient Saints arrived at when they had such glorious vision Isaiah, Ezekiel, John upon the Isle of Patmos, St Paul in the third heavens, & all the Saints who held communion with the general Assembly &Church of the First Born &c."

Calling and Election made sure, receiving our Lord, being introduced to the Father by our Lord.  Three degrees, Three heavens, and it is tied in with St. Paul's description of something referred to as the Third Heavens.  It has something to do with the General Assembly and Church of the First Born which is said to inhabit the Celestial world described by Joseph in Doctrine and Covenants 76.

Do you see something important to our discussion in that last quote, though?

Lets look at something related to that first and then come back to that.  Paul said, "How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?  And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?  And how shall they hear without a preacher?  And how shall they preach, except they be sent?  As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!"

In the same discourse we have been discussing, Joseph stated, "Faith comes by hearing the word of God through the testimony of the Servants of God, that Testimony is always attended by the Spirit of prophecy & Revelation."

Can a man call upon himself to be sent?  Can a group of people confer upon a man that he will always be attended by prophecy and revelation?  Do you think that being taught by the Lord face-to-face and having a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of God would be at all involved with this?  Would this make a person full of the Holy Ghost and of Wisdom?  How can we know that one is full of the Holy Ghost and Wisdom?  Does prophecy and revelation have anything to do with that?

Modern Application

Before The Church of Christ (the original name of the Church) was organized, there were already missionaries going out and preaching the gospel.  Hyrum Smith, -Joseph's brother- wanted to know if this is what the Lord would have him do.  Instead of the preaching, the Lord exhorts Hyrum to first obtain His Word.  He was told that after that, he would then have his tongue loosed, then he could have the Lord's Spirit, even the Power of God unto the convincing of men.  

Hyrum didn't go out on a mission.  He faithfully served the Lord by attending to the needs of the church, those of his younger brother and applied himself to learn the Lord's will.  In January of 1841, the office of priesthood AND PATRIARCH was given to Hyrum.  Even the Sealing Power about which the Lord had stated only one could hold on the earth at a time, was given to Hyrum.  (see D&C 124:91-96)  He was to be a Prophet, Seer and Revelator, as Joseph was!

After his decease, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints continued the practice as commanded by revelation, of conferring this priesthood from son to son, in each subsequent generation down from Hyrum; that is until 2013, when the final descendant to hold that office (Eldred G. Smith) from Joseph Smith Sr. (the original holder of that office) passed away, and those who had been commissioned to fill the office, refused to do so.  

The Lord declared that after having 'obtained' His word, then a person would be duly enabled and authorized to declare His word.  Whatever you might interpret to be contained in this word 'obtained' used by the Lord, you have to concede that this is what Paul had reference to when he said that in order for people to believe, they needed to hear the word of God from a preacher who was 'sent.'  

These evangelists, were precisely what was being described by both Paul and Joseph.  Having obtained the Word of God, they could preach to others about how to do so for themselves.  And following the truth ascribed to have fallen from the mouth of St. Francis of Assisi: they preached the Gospel at all times, and sometimes they even used their words.

The widow throwing her two mites into the storehouse of God

  Conclusion

I have attempted to teach -according to my understanding- what an Evangelist is.  This is according to the teachings of Joseph Smith, and the Holy Scriptures.  Being that I am not sent by God to preach to you as were those who have obtained the Word of God for themselves, I can only leave you with what I believe and you get to choose how persuasive you find it to be.  I do not have the power to convince men, other than by that persuasion.  Sometimes persuasion is enough.

To all the world, I ask: Where are your Evangelists?  Where are your Patriarchs?  Where is your priesthood passed down from The Fathers to the Children after the Order of the Son of God?

To the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I ask: Where are our Patriarchs possessing the Priesthood of the Patriarchs, passed down from Father to Son?  Lets read D&C 107:40, and then kindly teach me where that order that God established exists among us.  

It is the duty of the Twelve, in all large branches of the church, to ordain evangelical ministers, as they shall be designated unto them by revelation—the order of this priesthood was confirmed to be handed down from father to son, and rightly belongs to the literal descendants of the chosen seed, to whom the promises were made.

For a time we maintained this.  It was had in the form of the descendants of Joseph Sr., through Hyrum.  Whenever there was one not able to fill the responsibility the next closest kin would fill in, but it was always maintained.  

This has now been discontinued in the fourth descendant from Hyrum.  (John Smith, Hyrum F. Smith, Hyrum G. Smith, Eldred G. Smith)

An Evangelist is a Patriarch... Wherever the Church of Christ is established in the earth, there should be a Patriarch for the benefit of the posterity of the Saints...

We have maintained the office of Patriarch, but we have not maintained it from father to son as it was confirmed to be so.  

That priesthood was given to Hyrum.  Hyrum and Joseph were to share the gifts accepted by the church of prophesy, seership, and revelation.  However no such mention of sharing is made, and indeed per the conditions set forth in D&C 132:7 such a mention can not be made regarding the office of priesthood that Hyrum received, because only one could posses that office at a time on the earth anyway.

It could be claimed that D&C 132:7 flat out states that Joseph is the one that possesses this power, and being that D&C 132 wasn't transcribed until 1843 it seems to show that this power was still being held by Joseph as of 1843, which is after the revelation in 1841 that confers that same power on Hyrum.  

A few things that I would point out:

#1- despite being transcribed in 1843, there is no dispute now that Section 132 was actually received long before 1841.  (see the heading to Section 132)

#2- If you want to argue that the revelation states that only Joseph was the one to hold this power in the LAST DAYS, then you must ask yourself if that is the case, how would we have it now?

#3- If you want to claim that Joseph still holds the power, but that it is perpetuated by some mystical virtue of his office in the church, then we must ask, why wasn't that the case with Adam after he died?  Remember after he died it was no longer held by him but rather was held by the oldest living descendant of Adam from the chosen line: Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph.

Is there a way to reconcile this?  Only if you allow for the fact that Joseph originally held this power, and then in 1841 it was transferred to Hyrum, by the will of God and the desire of Joseph.  Remember that the Lord had stated to Joseph that he would have power to appoint another in his stead (See D&C 43:3-4).  He did that.  It was Hyrum.  

Does this have anything to do with The Fathers, mentioned in the prophecy of Malachi, reiterated by Moroni?  Perhaps the purpose of an Evangelist/Patriarch in the church is to secure the heart of The Father's to be turned to us.  Without that, we are going to be burned; left without root, nor branch.

Knowledge

“I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” (introduction to the Book of Mormon)

I was raised in a 'Mormon' family.  My mother is an adult convert to the Book of Mormon, and I might say that despite being raised in a Mormon family, my father is for all practical purposes a convert.  This because he went through a period of adolescence in the which he indulged a lifestyle that was antithetical to believing the Book of Mormon.

At around 19 years of age he decided that he wanted to know if he was making a mistake with his life or not and so he decided to pray about the Book of Mormon.  The logic was that if the Book of Mormon was truly what Mormons proclaimed it to be, then he was making a mistake and needed to repent.  But if it wasn't then he could indulge beyond his current lifestyle to do things that his conscience wouldn't at the time permit.

He actually struggled with this for years going back and forth on the issue.  Finally resolving that he NEEDED to know, he set out with what he described as real intent to know.  The result of that was something that he frequently recounted to me growing up.

I am not going to recount his experience because it is sacred to him and I don't feel that I have the right to mix up the details, as I most assuredly would; having not been there myself.

I only recount his part of the story so as to bring you now into mine.  Growing up, I never struggled with doubts about the Book of Mormon.  I have even tried.  I have read a lot of criticisms, debated with a lot of people -much smarter than I- about the Book of Mormon.  I feel like I understand any of the serious arguments against it.  Yet, they all have fallen back into disarray.  I find it impossible to seriously entertain these doubts.

This hasn't been due to social or peer pressures.  I guess it is more due to the love I have felt in my family.  I know that loving families are not an exclusive 'Mormon' property.  However, I have yet to see people as weird, nutty, offensive, and eccentric as those who make up my family, that can love each other as deeply, wholly and without reserve as can those in my family.

I believe that this is the result of lives lived in conformity with the truths contained in the Book of Mormon.  At least those fruits that my family has been able to find appealing enough to consume up to this point, (thus leaving the door open for even greater growth from the additional truths that as yet we still do not recognize.)



This isn't magic.  It's not: proclaim to believe the Book of Mormon to be the most correct book on the face of the earth, and you will have a guarantee to get the love that I am proclaiming is a result of doing so.  Rather it is a fruit of my fathers active, faithful exercise to go and get an answer from God, conform his life to the truth that was revealed and then raise his children up believing and living those same things.

At this point I should make something clear.  Despite my ability to not doubt the Book of Mormon, I have struggled deeply with my inability to replicate the experience my father had when seeking to know if the Book of Mormon is true.  I have believed that the promise contained in verses 3-5 of Moroni chapter 10, applied to securing from God a divine answer regarding the authenticity of the promise made by Joseph Smith, quoted at the beginning of this post.

Yet frequently I would wonder where my answer was.  On numerous occasions I would search, ponder and pray regarding this issue.  Yet nothing akin to what my father described, or really anything that I felt comfortable describing as giving me the power to say "I know" that statement is true, occurred.

This has caused me great stress in my own personal spiritual journey.  Largely because whenever I would read the scriptures and Joseph Smith's own account, the feeling would often come to me that, if so-and-so can do it, then so can I.  This contrast of reality vs. perception continued in spite of consistent counsel that significant spiritual manifestations were rare, and used by God only for 'special people in special circumstances.'

Perhaps these are the special people who get the special circumstances?

In August of 2011, I set out to read Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman.  Unique from the experience of many others who read that book, my faith was uplifted by that book.  Whereas I had spent my life comparing myself to Joseph Smith and the subsequent recognized Presidents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and feeling wholly inadequate to ever be in the same room as them.  That book exposed many of Joseph's weakest personal attributes and characteristics.

This had an amazing effect on my spirituality.  It fortified my faith in God and my personal belief that I could approach Him.  It caused me to believe that certainly if Joseph could encounter angels sent by God, who told him to stop 'treasure seeking,' and yet in his weakness continued; then there was still a chance that God could possibly be patient with my weaknesses consistently performed before Him in my life.  And if that was the case, then there was still reason to seek for authentic, divine answers from God to me, that would give me power to KNOW things about Him, instead of mere supposition.

Passing the Heavenly Gift

Within a month of reading that book, I was referred to another book by a close friend.  It was a book
that dealt with the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints™, by an author who I was vaguely familiar with from another book -that dealt with a VERY different topic- that I already owned.  The book that I had owned dealt with man's right and obligation to come closer to our Lord, indeed even to come to Him face-to-face and to have an audience with Him.

I had perused that book and had not endeavored to read it, due to a feeling that I wasn't at a point in life to be able to dedicate the time necessary to study the points made in the book.  So I had put it on the shelf.

However, with this new book -the one that dealt with the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints™, that was referred by my close friend- I had just got done reading Bushman's book, and was deeply interested in the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints™.  So I began reading it.

It was incredibly hard.  You should know that I was no slouch previous to this.  I had already read Michael Quinn's three book series on Church History.  I had even read some of Gerald and Sandra Tanner's material.  Yet for some reason, what I read in this book was incredibly much harder to deal with than anything before.

Here I should explain something.  What was hard about this book was not what I would call faith-challenging.  What I would define as faith-challenging is something that is deliberately bringing forth selective material for the intent to cause you to disbelieve central, core tenets of your current faith system.  Rather this book dealt with the hard issues associated with those who have been Mormons in the past, while exposing the doctrinal truths that required more diligent effort on the part of every individual Mormon.

I had never before considered that I wasn't living up to my part of the Covenant made by me, upon accepting baptism.  What I experienced in that book, was hard because it broke my heart about myself.  I had made SERIOUS logical errors about what I needed to do in this life in order to gain exaltation in the next.  This book had now exposed this personal dilemma.  I needed to be a better Mormon!

This book did something else as well.  The author testified, that he had met Christ.  Perhaps to a more sane person this might come off too weird.  Perhaps right then and there I exposed my own craziness by not claiming that, "God use to do things like that, but not anymore!"  However, being foolhardy, I was actually motivated by that testimony.

Once again, this declaration brought me back to believe even more than before that if miracles happened to others then I might be invited as well.  Perhaps God really did not have respect of persons.  To be clear, the author of this book was an attorney by profession.  He had held NO previous ecclesiastical authority other than as a father in his own home.  He had not even served an official mission for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints™!  So if our Lord could come and talk to a man who was nothing more than someone who believed the Lord -and an attorney to boot- then why should I not be invited?

I did consider that maybe he was lying.  Or perhaps insane.  Delusional?  He certainly wasn't dumb because the book that he produced was very meticulous in presentation of detail.

I decided that in order to get a better picture I needed to read more of what he wrote.  I wanted to find out what his slant was.  So I started reading the first book that he had written -which was the one I already owned.  I read it.  I was amazed at the doctrine contained!  The book was self-declared to be a manual on how to come unto the Lord, who is described as The Second Comforter.  If this wasn't totally preposterous it surely was presumptuous.

The Second Comforter

Yet despite the lofty claim by the author of the book to be a manual for such a thing, the principles were simple.  Nothing I had not heard or read before.  Just arranged in a manner to leave me with an even more enhanced sense that God not only left open the possibility of my coming to Him, but that He actually intended for that to happen.  God expected, while in this life for me to come into His presence and receive a remission of my sins! Just like Enos in The Book of Mormon.  (See Enos 1:1-5)

For me, this was unheard of.  Absolutely ground breaking principles that shattered my previous paradigm.  I decided then and there that I would not only read the rest of this author's books, but that more importantly I really did need to be a better Mormon.  With each book I read, Mormonism became more delicious to me.  Things I had been taught as a child now clicked in my head and heart.  Instead of finding it hard to do those things, they now became a delight.

Then love happened.  I began to love a lot more than I ever could previously.  Love for everyone.  People whom I normally looked upon with indifference or even disdain, now became people with whom I could completely empathize.  In some ways I became very liberally minded socially.  Even those who criticized me, opposed me, or ridiculed me could find no animosity in my heart to retaliate against.

I began to see King Benjamin's testimony of how I am a beggar being fulfilled.  This then caused me to love the beggars.  Even those I know/knew are/were gaming the system.  I didn't care.  I gave to them.  I tried to get to know them.  Their fears.  Their needs.  Their worries.  In whatever way I could I would help them.  Sometime this took on the form of donations.  Sometimes it was having a chat.  Other times it was giving a ride.  And sometimes it is nothing more than praying for them because I have nothing to give.

Some have told me that this is nonsense.  That I am doing more damage than good.  What they say I agree can be true.  However, the feelings that have come into my heart can not be changed.  I can not put them away now.  I believe I now know why.


Last night, after corresponding with a friend about these things, my wife and I read from Alma 32.  The words in that verse helped me see what knowledge is and that I had been missing the boat for a long time.

I want to share those verses with you, so that you can have knowledge too:

26 Now, as I said concerning faith-that it was not a perfect knowledge-even so it is with my words.  Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.

Faith is not knowledge. 

 27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

The Book of Mormon is exposing itself here and now as an interactive experience.  There is no use for you or I to read it if we are not going to interact with the designs of the book.  Here and now you are being taught how to know the truth of any proposition.

 28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

For this interactive experience to work you have to go along.  To know the truth of a proposition, you have to be willing to allow it to plant it in your heart to see where it is going to take you.  If you allow your unbelief (not lack of belief but something that actually removes belief) to cast it out, then it does you  no good to think that you are truly finding out if a proposition is true.

Now the next thing that I want to discuss is the difference between how truth is defined in The Book of Mormon and how we try to define it contemporarily.  You may think that science discovers truth through a process of experiments that produce verifiable and quantifiable results.  However, this is not truth.  While one does produce results that then can be sustained and repeated through the scientific method, it however does not produce truth.  In fact the purpose of the Scientific Method is to demonstrate what is not true.  However, because in this world truth is a contradiction of itself, the Scientific Method can never arrive at truth; only explores the options of what is not true.

So the proposition of what is being described here in these verses (how to come to KNOW something) is inherently antithetical to everything you experience in this world.  Therefore it should not come as a surprise to you that like seeing in another dimension the things expressed will be counter-intuitive to everything else in this world.

The first step to KNOWING something is after having given room and planted the thing that you want to know in your heart, it will begin to swell.  Swelling enlarges.  This indicates the possibility of life.  All life is generated by Christ.  Life is truth.  The Word of God is truth.  But not all swelling indicates life.  However, this swelling in your heart is delicious to your soul.

 29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

Because not all swelling indicates life, just because you have swelling, does not indicate that you have truth.  In order to be truth it needs to have life.  If it has life it will grow past swelling (providing you don't or haven't cast it out by unbelief.)

 30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.

Swelling, sprouting, and beginning to grow.  Now this indicates life.  If something causes your soul to stir, it is only moving.  That doesn't mean it has life.  However, if it makes itself manifest in this world, in a tangible, visible manner, then we now know that it has life.  This is sprouting.

For me this happened in the actions the Word gave to me, that changed how I lived my life.  I read something and it struck me as true, and as a result it became manifest in my actions.  

Beginning to grow is the step when it not only caused me to change the actions prescribed but also changed my heart.  Love for others grew as an outgrowth of the original sprouting.  

Swelling, Sprouting, and Beginning to grow.  IT IS BY THIS THAT ONE COMES TO KNOW!

 31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.

 32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

If after swelling, it doesn't sprout and grow, then cast it away.  

 33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

Think about it: This is Knowledge.  This is how to know Truth.  Not by going through the things that you should disbelieve (scientific method.)  Rather Knowledge comes by believing.  Allowing a place in your heart for truth to be planted.  Letting it grow and watching earnestly for it to sprout and grow after it has been planted.  

Why do you think that so much emphasis was placed by Christ proclaiming that you must BELIEVE, during His mortal ministry? (see Matt 9:28; 21:22, 25, 32; Mark 1:15; 5:36; 9:23; 11:24; 16:16; Luke 1:20; 8:12; 8:50; 22:67; 24:11, 25; John 1:7, 12; 2:11, 22-23; 3:12; 16, 18, 36; 4:42, 53; 5:24, 46; 6:29, 69; 7:31; 8:24, 30, 45; 9:35; 10:25-26, 38; 11:15, 25, 27, 45, 48; 12: 11, 36, 42, 44, 47; 13:19; 14:1, 12; 16:27; 17:8, 20, 21; 19:35; 20:25,27,29,31.  I hope you realize that I didn't waste my time looking up these references just to show that I could list a bunch of scriptures.  You should really look at these references....at least a few of them.)  

You don't need to believe in men.  You don't need to believe in an institution.  You need to believe that He is capable of clearing the way before you.  All of this if you will #1-) clear a place in your heart for the seed to be planted #2-) let it grow #3-) believe the results!

 34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.

Your faith is dormant!  This because Knowledge supplants faith.  Swell, enlighten, expand.

 35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

This is as real as this world gets.  You may enter into different realms above that of the plane upon which this world resides, but for the here and now, this is real.  It may be anecdotal, but it is nevertheless real.  At the day in which you go to meet God, you will not be able to deny that it wasn't.

Whatsoever is light, is good.  That because it is discernible.  From what?  The darkness which surrounds you.  This world is full of darkness.  Light swells.  Light brings life.  Therefore it grows.
   

 36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

 37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.

Nourish the plant.  The garden of Eden was a place where food grew spontaneously without labor on our part.  We are in the process of returning to that condition.  In order for that to happen, there must be a garden full of trees that produce fruit.

In the world to come I doubt there is a need for food to give energy to the physical body.  However, there will be need to feed that which is spiritual.  If you do not have the tree, you do not have the fruit.  Nourish the plant that it may get root, grow up and bring forth fruit.

 38 But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.

 39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

Is your ground barren?  Do you refuse to nourish the plant?  Regardless of whether your ground is barren, it can be made fertile if you will just nourish it.  This requires care.  Do you care?  Or do the cares of this world overrun and choke out the plant that grows to be the tree?  

Alma has been speaking metaphorically.  However, this is real.  It is a real tree that produces real fruit.

 40 And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the tree of life.

The Tree of Life that was in the Garden of Eden is guarded by a super ninja angel with a flaming sword!  When life hands you lemons, make lemonade.  When God cuts your path off to just walk up and eat of the Tree of Life, grow a new one!

Don't think that you are circumventing Him or His plan.  This is His plan.  This Tree is the Tree of Life, because it comes from Christ, the only One who has life!  He has made it possible for you to do this.

However you are circumventing His plan when through your disobedience or through the traditions of your fathers, you refuse to allow the seed that He freely gives out to grow!

Look forward with an eye of faith to the fruit that will one day grow in abundance due to your diligent labor in nourishing and caring for the tree.  Believe that it can and will happen!

 41 But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing up unto everlasting life.

 42 And because of your diligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the fruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst.

 43 Then, my brethren, ye shall reap the rewards of your faith, and your diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring forth fruit unto you.

This is not nor will it ever be easy.  It requires faith, diligence, patience and long-suffering.  The tree is the Mother of God.  (1st Nephi 11:9-15)  She produces children for God.  Children with Life!  That is what Christ came to do for you: to give you the opportunity to have life and that eternally!

He will do this if each of us will individually allow Him to do what He came to do.  What is described above is HOW I know.  I have shared this with you because it is part of my plant sprouting and beginning to grow.  I wanted to share with you, because the change in my heart compels me to do so.  I know it is so.  You can too.
God bless you!