The following is a guest post written by Morgan, a longtime BCC reader and friend of the blog.
If we start right, it is very easy for us to go right all the time; but if we start wrong, we may go wrong, and it be a hard matter to get right.”[1]
This sentiment of Joseph Smith’s (the actual words are an amalgam from the reports of Willard Richards, Thomas Bullock, and William Clayton) impresses me as one of his most simple yet profound insights. I have found it to be true at a very practical level on many occasions, and I’ll bet you have, too. Lots of examples come easily to mind—from something as common as making a first impression, to activities as diverse as designing a new home or a new website, setting up a mathematical equation to solve a story problem, or planning an academic course of study. The original context for Joseph’s insight, of course, is the King Follett funeral sermon that he delivered 7 April, 1844. On that occasion, Joseph advanced his remarkable claims about the nature of God as an exalted human being who had attained His position through a process that we, His children, could follow as well.
Joseph’s teaching was shocking to folks who had grown up with the traditional Christian understanding of an unembodied God who alone had been God from eternity, who had created out of nothing, and who was therefore absolutely sovereign over his entirely contingent creation. I hear in Joseph’s comment about starting right an answer to an implicit (and sometimes it was explicit) challenge to his teachings. It was the challenge of eighteen-plus centuries of Christian tradition demanding of him an answer as to how, after so many councils, so many wars over the Trinity, so many martyrs, so many sermons preached, and so very many readings of the Bible by so very many seekers after God—how could he now presume to stand Christian dogma on its head and dismiss so much of it as an error?
Joseph’s prophethood (and his offense to tradition) was grounded, I believe, in his willingness to courageously explore conceptual alternatives to tradition and see where they led. “I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine,” he said of the notion of heavenly pedigrees.[2] This openness to new ways of seeing, together with something the scriptures call grace, are the sine qua non of revelation. The openness began for Joseph very simply, with a desire to get something right. And grace came to him early, as a youth praying in the grove behind his home. It shook him awake, and he learned that he could commune directly with God and find relief from his sins. He learned that there was a source of wisdom beyond his own that was willing to be in relation with him, and that he could trust that source to guide him, even as an inexperienced and scantly-educated boy. And he learned what we all learn in various ways throughout our lives, that it is worth great effort to get something right at the outset.
At the beginning of a new year, this idea of starting right surfaces again for a lot of us, even though many of our so-called beginnings are more conceptual than formal. The only thing separating Jan. 1 from Dec. 31, after all, is the transit of the seconds hand into midnight. The problems facing the world don’t change, neither do the contents of our pantries or the names written in our hearts. But we are creatures in search of renewal, so we “begin” again.
In the Church, this means, among other things, a new theme in Primary, a new manual in Priesthood/Relief Society, and, this year, an entirely new curriculum for the youth. I am excited about this new, long-time-coming program of learning for our youth, and hope to share a few ruminations on each month’s topic during the coming year. This first post of mine here at BCC will count as the first installment in that series because, significantly, the new youth curriculum begins where Joseph began, with an inquiry into first principles, with a going back to the beginning to ask, once again, what kind of a being God is and what it is He expects of us. It is as good a question now as it ever was, and we should ask it as fearlessly and fervently in our days as Joseph did in his.
[1] Stan Larson, “The King Follett Discourse: A Newly Amalgamated Text,” BYU Studies 18, no. 2 (1978): 1–18 (6); cf. Joseph Fielding Smith, ed., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976), 343.
[2] Teachings, 373.
By Common Consent, a Mormon Blog 
I don’t think I have ever head that definition of grace and the application of it in quite that way, it was beautiful.
Thanks for this post, Morgan. It’s a great way to start the new year, and I’ll be using some of your points in my YM lesson on Sunday.
And FWIW, I think most of us are scared of the doctrine Joseph was describing…he gives us mortal humans way more potential than we want to be responsible for living up to.
From the Church’s News Website: “It is in the interests of the Church to play a constructive role in advancing the cathartic powers of honest and accurate history. In doing so, the Church strives to be relevant to contemporary audiences that operate under changing cultural assumptions and expectations. A careful, yet bold presentation of Church history, which delves into the contextual subtleties and nuances characteristic of serious historical writing, has become increasingly important. If a religion cannot explain its history, it cannot explain itself.” What are the chances that teachers of youth will allow the lessons to explore our real church history? To ask questions and explore what McConkie called “heresies” pertaining to the nature of God during the first month of this year? Or will the instructors be there to set off alarm bells when a youth asks why there were four different versions of the first vision? What is with the hat and peep stone? Why was the restoration of the priesthood not mentioned until years after it occurred? What’s the deal with the Book of Abraham? Why is it that our church/leaders seem to always be the last to have a “revelation” when it comes to every progressive movement whether civil rights, women rights, racial equality, and even the condemning of torture (still haven’t joined NRCAT)—and why do we seem to endorse every war of aggression that comes along? The last to condemn institutional racism (and still have not apologized for false doctrine)? What is up with gay issues? Could the youth really be allowed to have lessons that involve such issues if they so choose? Personally, I would allow such topics to be explored? What say ye?
Awesome, Morgan. I look forward to your thoughts. And I love me some April 7, 1844. I’m sad that my new year did not start right as the ward i was visiting this week did not sing Ring Out Wild Bells.
Stapley, there’s still this coming Sunday to redeem!
Masson I agree. Some friends and I were discussing this same dilema the other night and concluded that no longer can we afford to call poor teachers and how will the class content be monitored. Previously when we taught from the manuals we were instructed to use only that material. Do not teach from any other source but the scriptures and the manual. Now it appears that teachers/instructors are free to get their material from anywhere???
I think this is among the most important information
for me. And i’m glad reading your article. But want to remark on few general things, The website style is great, the articles is really great : D. Good job, cheers