Houses of God pt. 6 “Far West”

My views on temples is completely different than that of nearly anyone.

I have determined that there are three types of houses of God. I’ve classified them as such:

House of God

House/Temple of God

Temple of God.

Read the series to understand how I came to these conclusions.

Houses of God pt. 1 “The Fulness of the Gospel”

Houses of God pt. 2 “Kirtland”

Houses of God pt. 3 “Nauvoo”

Houses of God pt. 4 “The Redemption of Zion”

Houses of God pt. 5 “The Temple of Doom”

[Note: I recognize the series is kinda long. I recommend reading at least part 3-5 for context.]


In my opinion I have proven (though I changed no one’s mind) that it was the Nauvoo HOUSE that needed to be built in time before the church was rejected, and not the Nauvoo Temple.

I believe this is important, because Denver Snuffer is building a temple and not a house when a house needs to first be built in order to receive the fulness of the priesthood.

I reached out to Snufferites to challenge me, and none did.

The Anarchist of however took me for a fool.

He believes my contention to be laughable.

He also believes that the Nauvoo Temple was accepted by God.

I find THAT laughable. He thinks that an unfinished temple was enough to appease God.

This is what the Lord says about his houses:

Let them from that time forth labor diligently until it shall be finished, from the cornerstone thereof unto the top thereof, until there shall not anything remain that is not finished.

-Section 115:12

So to me it sounds like God isn’t interested in unfinished temples.

Joseph Smith said this: “Don’t deny revelation. If the Temple and Nauvoo House are not finished, you must run away. Our salvation depends on it.”

The Nauvoo Temple was not finished. The historical record PROVES THAT.

This is what Brigham Young said in admittance:

I met with the Council of the Twelve in the southeast corner room of the attic of the Temple. We knelt around the altar, and dedicated the building to the Most High. We asked his blessing upon our intended move to the west; also asking him to enable us some day to finish the Temple, and dedicate it to him, and we would leave it in his hands to do as he pleased; and to preserve the building as a monument to Joseph Smith. We asked the Lord to accept the labors of his servants in this land. We then left the Temple.”

Immediately after Brigham’s prayer, the temple caught fire and went up in flames.

This happened in 1846.

Even by then, they never finished the freaking temple…

The historical record shows that the apostles built a masonic temple and built themselves expensive brick houses during the time in which they should have put all efforts into the Nauvoo House and Temple.

The Nauvoo Temple was never accepted by God.

That should be sufficient to prove that the church was rejected by God by this time.

I take it a step further and say the church was rejected by 1842. I also take it another step further and say that the Nauvoo House was what was being commanded of God to build during that appointed time in Nauvoo.

My ideas make things more complicated and harder for people to digest, but they are nonetheless true. All my ideas support the fact that the masonic endowment and polygamy were ploys of Satan. My conclusions let everything fall into their proper place.

I also believe that the Nauvoo Temple was defiled by its occult symbols as well as the Moroni statue. The Kirtland House/Temple, which was accepted by God, had none of that.


Now with all of this mind, in regards to Far West I want to mention something I’m suspecting about Section 115.

I believe that in order to understand the D&C we have to remove ourselves from the historical context of each revelation.

For instance:

The Saints believed Section 124 was referring to the Nauvoo Temple– because that’s where they were doing baptisms for the dead– and the Saints believed Section 84 was referring to the temple in Missouri, not the Kirtland House/Temple.

We have to mystically observe God’s word without using the hindsight of an apostate church!

Section 115 gives the commandment to build a House in Far West–

Or does it?

I believe Section 115 was never meant to have anything to do with Far West.

Perhaps Joseph and the Saints believed it was, but I believe it was a foreshadowing of the future.

This is speculative, and I don’t really feel like explaining it. I can’t even get people to believe anything else I’ve written about temples! Email me and I’ll entertain you:

theworkofthefather37 @ gmail . com

This is the last I will write in this series.

Perhaps I will write a part seven when I receive word that we must go to the Kirtland House/Temple for the solemn assembly as part of the marvelous work and a wonder….

Until then, yours truly:


6 thoughts on “Houses of God pt. 6 “Far West””

  1. Okay, I will take a stab at this. After re-reading all your temple posts to see if I missed anything, I would like to introduce an interpretation of House that is not a building made with hands. Other than the first post, there is no mention of an alternative meaning of “house”, and you didn’t tie this usage into the rest of your thoughts on Houses of God and Temples.

    Jeremiah 31:31 “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah.”

    My belief is that throughout history, God has wanted his people to build a “house of God”, at the same time we know that “the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands” (Acts 7:48, Acts 17:24) This house of God could be interpreted as a people who are called by HIS name, who are one with God as Christ is one with the Father.

    I don’t know whether you would agree that tabernacle and temple are similar concepts, but the tabernacle seems to be more temporary. I will use the terms interchangeably to make my point. Here are some verses that illustrate the type of dwelling (tabernacle/temple) that God seems to prefer:

    “The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple.”(D&C 93:35)

    “For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay…”(Mosiah 3:5)

    With this preface, I do not argue with your assertion that the Nauvoo House was what God wanted build in Nauvoo. On what basis? Because that would be according to the “works of Abraham” which we should be doing. (D&C 132:31-33) What works are these? He lived by faith among a wicked people. He prayed for mercy upon the wicked cities. He set up his household along trade routes so that he might offer refuge to travelers. He was a friend to all people. This is the model I see in the command to build the Nauvoo House. (I recommend reading “The Blessings of Abraham: Becoming a Zion People” by E. Douglas Clark for a more comprehensive understanding of the legacy of Abraham.) Here is one small quote from the book, referring to an “Abrahamic heritage of kindness” –

    “The ‘followers of Abraham…possess three traits: generosity, simplicity, and humility,’ says Jewish tradition. And as a recent study observes, the ancient Hebrew practice of hospitality and mercy, of helping ‘the poor and disadvantaged — the sojourner (outsider), the fatherless, the widowed,’ was an Abrahamic heritage continued by all three Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam,” (p.239)

    Without the Nauvoo House to provide a place of refuge and learning, I doubt that completion of the Nauvoo temple would have accomplished anything more permanent than the completion of the Kirtland Temple, which the Lord did accept. The people were too divided in their loyalties and they were by no means equal in things temporal so that they could become equal in spiritual things at the time they were commanded to build. So, I return to my original point that the real house of God is a people who are called by His name, among whom He can dwell.

    Any thoughts?


    1. Ranae,

      With comments like that I’m thinking you should have a blog yourself!!!!!

      I think you are totally right in all of your assertions.

      I speak of the House and House/Temple–

      I never got into the Temple that was to be created in Zion. I believe the temple in Missouri is a body of followers!!!! Once we receive sanctification in Nauvoo, we will be raptured and brought down to Missouri as the body of Christ.

      “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God… new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven.”
      -Revelation 3:12

      We need to be sanctified to be Zion, which is the tabernacle of God.

      You get into some deep theology with Section 93. Man is spirit, which is not eternal. Only the elements are eternal. We will be eternal if we become one with God and become his Temple.

      You’re amazing!!!



  2. I suppose I could put my thoughts into a blog, if I ever got them organized enough. That’s why I try commenting when someone else seems interested in a topic I have been thinking about. I just hope that in an effort to study the scriptures and understand the basic purposes of the gospel, we can help each other see more clearly what God is willing to teach us. If my thoughts are inconsistent with scripture, I hope someone will be willing to show me because I am far from the scholar I would like to be.


  3. What about in malachi 3 when “the Lord will suddenly come to his temple”. Is it possible that the Lord will return and again take on another tabernacle? You believe joseph will return right? How will he return?


    1. Good question! i think it is possible, but don’t know for sure if that is how it will happen. D&C 49:22 says “the Son of Man cometh not in the form of a woman, neither of a man traveling on the earth”. That tells me that he will not come as a woman, nor as a wandering/traveling man, but whether “traveling on the earth” means spending time here as a mortal with a family and personal history, or simply moving from place to place without family or historical ties isn’t clear.

      What we have been told is that “inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”
      We know that the disciples on the road to Emmaus didn’t recognize him, although they may have known Jesus before the crucifixion, so the physical appearance of his mortal body seems rather irrelevant in recognition of the Lord.

      We know that at his final coming, the earth will be burned, but in the olive tree analogy given in Jacob 5, “the servants did go and labor with their mights; and the Lord of the vineyard labored also with them” (verse 72)

      I think the safest course is to keep our hearts and minds open to anything consistent with scripture. Abinadi was killed for saying that “God himself should come down among the children of men” (Mosiah 17:8), but he was right when he said it. Until we have the scriptures expounded and opened to us, as Christ did to the Nephites (including Malachi 3), we really don’t know what to expect.

      One more scripture to think about: “Behold, it is my will, that all they who call on my name, and worship me according to mine everlasting gospel, should gather together, and stand in holy places; and prepare for the revelation which is to come, when the veil of the covering of my temple, in my tabernacle, which hideth the earth, shall be taken off, and all flesh shall see me together.” (D&C 101:22-23)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s