Tuesday, July 28, 2015


I want to clarify that this blog is about things that interest me personally.  I claim no authority to speak for anyone but myself.  The name of this blog is not about me.  I chose the name because of an interest in the time period we are in and a belief that it corresponds to the time when the Lord would choose servants to help him with a final gathering.  I believe there are servants that are being called to minister to different groups of people around the world.  I do not claim to be one of those servants.  Rather, I am just someone who has an interest in events and happenings and I am interested in sharing what I have discovered and what I am discovering along the way on that journey.

5 Questions

5 questions regarding the claims that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy with over 30 wives:

(Important note:  I define polygamy as marriage to multiple women with whom the man has sexual relations.  This is very different than having someone sealed to you in the eternities to create links in a family of God - which is what I believe Joseph was actually doing.)

1.  How does a man in the prime of life have 9 children with his wife Emma and yet no children with any of the 30 wives (13 of which claimed 40-50 years later during the times the government was going after the LDS church for polygamy that they had sexual relations with him)? (Brigham Young had 56 children - none born until after Joseph's death)

(See chart below for results of DNA tests.)

2.  Why did Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith teach against the practice of polygamy right up to their deaths and Emma Smith and Joseph's son Joseph III say that Joseph never practiced polygamy?

One month and one day before Joseph's death, he said the following:

“What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one.” – Joseph Smith (LDS History of the Church, 6:410–411)

(See other quotes from Joseph below)

Do we really believe that the man chosen to restore the gospel and that was one of the dispensation heads was a liar and a deceiver in regards to polygamy?

3.  Why did Joseph Smith sue Chancee L. Higbee on May 24, 1842 under oath in the State of Illinois for slander regarding claims that Joseph was a polygamist?  Chancee was a lawyer.  Would it make any sense to sue an attorney in the state of Illinois regarding polygamy (which was illegal) for slander where truth is the ultimate defense to the charge of slander?  Would Joseph really risk going to jail in order to successfully pretend he wasn't a polygamist?

4.  Why were 380 men sent out from Nauvoo in September of 1842 throughout the United States with certificates and affidavits signed by many of Nauvoo's most prominent men and women denying polygamy in order to counteract damage done by Dr. John C. Bennett?  Was Dr. Bennett the one lying about polygamy or the prominent men and women who signed the affidavits against what they claimed were false accusations?

5.  Modified documents:  Why were journals altered to change what Joseph taught against polygamy to make it appear that Joseph was in favor of polygamy?  Why was section 101 of the D&C which stated that marriage was only to be between one man and one woman removed when section 132 was added in 1852 - eight years after Joseph Smith's death?  Why did Emma say she never saw section 132 even though William Clayton claims she not only saw it but threw it in the fire?  How is it that a copy just happened to exist (other than the one supposedly thrown in the fire by Emma) and ended up in Brigham Young's desk drawer many years later?  How is it that the altered parts of the journal entry from William Clayton contain some of the exact same words that appear in Section 132?  (See modified journal entry here)

1835 D&C 101:4
"Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."

Before the modification the entry read:

Evening at home and walked up and down the street with my scribe. gave inst[r]uction to try those who were preaching teaching or practicing the doctrin of plurality of wives. on this Law. Joseph forbids it. and the practice ther[e]of— No man shall have but one wife.

After the modification it read:

Evening at home and walked up and down the street with my scribe. gave inst[r]uction to try those who were preaching teaching or practicing the doctrin of plurality of wives. on this law for according to the law i hold the keys of this power in the last days, for there is never but one on earth at a time on whom the power? and the keys are conferred - and I have continually said Joseph forbids it. and the practice ther[e]of  No man shall have but one wife at a time unless the Lord directs otherwise.

DNA Testing Results:

Quotes Against Polygamy:

“The Prophet warned against ‘iniquitous characters [who] say they have authority from Joseph or the First Presidency’ and advising them not to ‘believe anything as coming from us, contrary to the established morals & virtues & scriptural laws . . .’  The sisters were urged to denounce any man who made polygamous proposals and to ‘shun them as the flying fiery serpent, whether they are Prophets, Seers, or Revelators; Patriarchs, Twelve Apostles, Elders, Priests, Majors, Generals, City Councilors, Aldermen, Marshals, Police, Lord mayors or the Devil, [they] are alike culpable & shall be damned for such evil practices. (Richard Van Wagoner, Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait of Religious Excess, p. 292)

"Was it for committing adultery?  We are aware that false and slanderous reports have gone abroad, which have reached our ears, respecting this thing, which have been started by renegades, and spread by the dissenters, who are extremely active in spreading foul and libelous reports concerning us; thinking thereby to gain the fellowship of the world . . . . Some have reported that we not only dedicated our property, but likewise our families to the Lord, and Satan taking advantage of this has transfigured it into lasciviousness, a community of wives [polygamy], which things are an abomination in the sight of God." (Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 126)

Journal entry regarding the campaign of elders sent out to undo damage done by Bennet due to false accusations of polygamy:

"One year since, I visited a settlement of Norwegians, in La Salle county, Illinois.... I returned to Nauvoo, where I found the whole country deluged with falsehood, from the pen of J. C. Bennet, and I immediately returned to La Salle, but the people there, looked upon him [Bennett] as a wicked designing man; his lies continued but a short time, when eternal disgrace fell upon his own head. I soon returned to Nauvoo, and in a few days was appointed by the special [church] conference, in August [1842], to travel through Illinois, to correct the misstatements of Bennet, in which journey I travelled through eighteen different counties. I was generally successful in convincing the people that Bennet maliciously slandered the innocent. (Times and Seasons 4 [May 15, 1843]: 195)

Links for further information and research:

Sunday, July 26, 2015

The Spokesman

A friend of mine had a very interesting observation which he shared regarding the spokesman of Joseph Smith.  He gave me permission to share it here:

---------------------------------- <<Start>> ------------------------------

In 2 Nephi 3:18 Lehi receives this promise:

"And the Lord said unto me also: I will raise up unto the fruit of thy loins; and I will make for him a spokesman. And I, behold, I will give unto him that he shall write the writing of the fruit of thy loins, unto the fruit of thy loins; and the spokesman of thy loins shall declare it."

Seems clear that the “writing of the fruit of (Lehi’s) loins” is the Book of Mormon.  So, the one raised up must be Joseph Smith.  Denver has made this point.  The question follows then, who is the spokesman?  The word spokesman appears twice in the D&C, both times in reference to Sidney Rigdon:

And it is expedient in me that you, my servant Sidney, SHOULD BE a spokesman unto this people; yea, verily, I WILL ordain you unto this calling, even to be a spokesman unto my servant Joseph.
And I will give unto him power to be mighty in testimony.
And I will give unto thee power to be mighty in expounding all scriptures, that thou MAYEST BE a spokesman unto him, and he shall be a revelator unto thee, that thou MAYEST know the certainty of all things pertaining to the things of my kingdom on the earth.
 (Doctrine and Covenants, 100:9-11)

In this verse the language regarding Sidney is subjunctive.  Sidney is called, but must make good on the calling.  The language regarding Joseph is unequivocal.  By 1841 Sidney had served many times as a spokesman for Joseph and to the Gentile followers. But, he had apparently not yet not become the spokesman he had been called to become.

And again, verily I say unto you, if my servant Sidney will serve me and be counselor unto my servant Joseph, let him arise and come up and stand in the office of his calling, and humble himself before me.
And if he will offer unto me an acceptable offering, and acknowledgments, and remain with my people, behold, I, the Lord your God, will heal him that he shall be healed; and he shall lift up his voice again on the mountains, and be a spokesman before my face.
Let him come and locate his family in the neighborhood in which my servant Joseph resides.
And in all his journeyings let him lift up his voice as with the sound of a trump, and warn the inhabitants of the earth to flee the wrath to come.
Let him assist my servant making a solemn proclamation unto the kings of the earth, even as I have before said unto you.
If my servant Sidney will do my will, let him not remove his family unto the eastern lands, but let him change their habitation, even as I have said.
Behold, it is not my will that he shall seek to find safety and refuge out of the city which I have appointed unto you, even the city of Nauvoo.
Verily I say unto you, even now, if he will hearken unto my voice, it shall be well with him. Even so. Amen.
(Doctrine and Covenants 124:103-110)

Sydney did, however, remove his family to the “eastern lands,” and did not remain with the Lord’s people.  Between Jan 1841 and October 1843 Sidney's participation in church administrative affairs was minimal. He lived in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania against the will of The Lord. By October 1843, Joseph attempted to replace Sidney in a special conference called to consider "the case and standing of Elder Sidney Rigdon". There were many allegations against him leveled by Joseph and others mostly related to communication with apostates like Bennett and even allegations of trying to get Joseph arrested.

So, did Sidney rise to the calling to which The Lord called him? We are currently inclined to conclude, NO, he did not.  His service was lackluster at best and apostate at worst during the years between the D&C 124 revelation and Joseph's death in June of 1844.  Nevertheless, just as Moses was given a spokesman in Aaron, the latter-day seer that brought forth the writing of the fruit of Lehi's loins would be given a spokesman – The Lord has said it would be so.

If Sidney failed in his calling, would the Lord have a “work-around” plan?  Did the Prophet’s spokesman necessarily have to be a contemporary?  If a man living today were in contact with heaven, and privy to the mind and counsel of the prophet Joseph, could he still act as Joseph’s spokesman?  Would such a man defend the prophet's honor, emphasize the Book of Mormon, and move heaven and earth to ensure the restoration does not fail?

---------------------------------------- << END >> ------------------------------------

To me, there is a person today that fits the description of the last few lines in this quote:  it is Denver Snuffer.  Even more important than being a spokesman for Joseph Smith; his message points those who receive it to the Savior.

On Courts of Love

The disciplinary councils that many friends have recently been subjected to are often referred to in the LDS church as "courts of love".  For me, this term brings an image of a group of men who get together to try and help persuade someone who has lost their way to come back.  The Love part would be in kindly helping the person see the error of their ways so they could make a course correction and repent.  An attempt at mutual understanding and reconciliation would be attempted.

Some may say, if it has come to a disciplinary council, then it is already past the point of reconciliation.  It is believed that disciplinary councils are only called after the leaders meet privately with the person to help them understand the error of their ways and offer them a way back but the person simply refuses to comply.

What a positive and wonderful thing it would be if these "courts of love" were something like this.  However, those who have been a part of these courts in the last year have experienced something quite different.

The Kangaroo Court:

kangaroo court is a judicial tribunal or assembly that blatantly disregards recognized standards of law or justice. (see

For the LDS church, are there recognized standards for disciplinary councils?  Yes.  The procedures to be followed detailing how the courts should function are laid out in the Doctrine and Covenants Section 102.

Some of the salient points include the following:

  • There should be an accuser.  This person is not part of the council itself.
  • The accused and the accuser shall have the right to speak for themselves.
  • To prevent injury and injustice, the accused should have access to half of the council.  In other words, half of the council should be seeking to defend the accused.  The other half of the council is for the accuser.
  • Two, four, or six of the councilors (depending on the difficulty of the case) shall be appointed to speak - half for the prosecution, half for the defense.
  • After hearing the accuser, the accused, and the councilors, the president shall give a decision and present it to be sustained.
  • If any on the council detect any error in the decision, they can bring it forth and a re-hearing is scheduled.
  • If either party is dissatisfied, an appeal for a re-hearing may be made to the traveling high council.
The official LDS website describes councils here.

The procedures set out in D&C 102 are no longer considered the standard to be followed.  Instead, the instructions in handbook 1 are now considered the standard by which councils should be conducted.

As of the time of writing this blog entry, there are two handbooks.  One which is made generally available to the members (Handbook 2) and one which is not (Handbook 1).  The instructions for church discipline are in handbook 1.  In theory, this means that the accused would not have access to the procedures to be followed so that they would be able to determine if the disciplinary council is being conducted in a just manner.

In reality, however, even though the LDS church seeks to keep handbook 1 hidden, it is available on the internet.  The chapter regarding church discipline can be reviewed here.

Some of the primary changes from D&C 102 include the following:

  • The stake president or councilors appointed by the stake president conduct a background investigation. 
  • The presiding leader decides the procedures and decides what evidence can be presented.
  • The presiding officer (or someone he appoints) presents the evidence against the accused.
  • Witnesses are only allowed one at a time and are told not to discuss the matter with each other while waiting outside.
  • After all the evidence has been presented, the appointed high councilors present their views of the matter. They are not prosecutors or defenders.
  • The decision of the presiding officer is binding, even if any of the counselors disagree. 

Under the procedures of D&C 102, the presiding officer (ie. Stake President) primarily assumes the role of judge.  He was not responsible for gathering evidence, he was not responsible for determining what the procedures would be or what evidence would be presented.  He did not present the evidence.  He would present his decision only after having heard the evidence and after having both sides presented in a fair and equitable manner.

Under the guidelines of the handbook, the presiding office becomes the investigator, the accuser, the judge, and the jury.  There is no longer any real accuser outside the council, the council no longer has a role to defend the accused or to try and determine an error in the proceedings.  The whole thing has been turned into a one man show.  And that is what it appears to have become - simply a show of power, authority, and control.

This type of system lends itself to abuse.  Putting all the power and all the roles in the hands of single individual is reminiscent of what happened during the period of the inquisitions:

"Early Medieval courts generally followed a process called accusatio, largely based on Germanic practices. In this procedure, an individual would make an accusation against someone to the court. However, if the suspect was judged innocent, the accusers faced legal penalties for bringing false charges. This provided a disincentive to make any accusation unless the accusers were sure it would stand. By the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries, there was a shift away from the accusatorial model toward the legal procedure used in the Roman Empire. Instead of an individual making accusations based on first-hand knowledge, judges now took on the prosecutorial role based on information collected. Under inquisitorial procedures, guilt or innocence was proved by the inquiry (inquisitio) of the judge into the details of a case." (see

It is now considered a part of history that the inquisitional system was fraught with abuse.  Much of this can be attributed to the changes in procedure.

Since the LDS church has decided to change its procedures as outlined in D&C 102 to those outlined in Handbook 1 - what has been the result?  What follows is a list of links that detail the recent stories of those who have gone through courts of love during the last year.  I will leave you to decide whether or not the nature of these courts deserves the appellation "Court of Love".


Denver Snuffer

Brent Larsen

Brian Beckle

Will Carter

Angel Cicero (In English)

Adrian Larsen

Rock Waterman

This is a just a sampling.  These and many more are listed here.


Only One Doctrine Matters

It is important to point out that in all of the cases above, those who were excommunicated all believe and have a testimony of the following:

1.  There is a God
2.  Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world
3.  The Book of Mormon is the word of God
4.  Joseph Smith was a prophet of God

But none of this mattered.  The church is full of hundreds of members who may have doubts about these four items, they may even publicly express their views.  For these things, they are not disciplined.  Not having a strong testimony of any of these four items is not considered an offense worthy of excommunication.

So what is it then?  What is the core doctrine that if you dare express a contrary viewpoint will land you in a disciplinary council?  If you read through these stories, you will see a pattern about what really matters: Fidelity to the current leadership.  Any hint that you don't fully believe that the current leaders are prophets, seers, and revelators will put you in the hot seat.  If you question whether or not the leaders are still in communication with heaven, you have betrayed the church.  If you receive a witness that others speak the word of God that are not these leaders, then again, you have betrayed the church and are worthy of a court of love.  If you believe in following the Savior only and do not subscribe to the mantra "follow the prophet" - well, you are probably not worthy to be a member anymore.

Denver Snuffer pointed out that we should only "follow" Christ while "receiving" the prophets or the message they bring and only then when it is from God.

He also pointed out that in the church, there is only one doctrine left.

A friend of mine summed up his experience acting as witness in multiple courts as follows:

"The only questions I was asked, were asked in this manner: "Do you believe like this accused brother, that...." Each of the questions were about the top 15 PSRs and whether I supported, sustained and recognized their authority. I thought they were just trying to learn who I was and what I believed before the real questions began. Those were the only questions I was asked. I was not allowed to testify on behalf of my brother. The whole thing, as far as witnesses for the accused, was a complete sham. Each of the six witnesses reported this same treatment."

Saturday, July 18, 2015

Why I left

This post is primarily intended for members of my home ward.  Some may have noticed I am not at church as often anymore.  For those who may not be aware of what has happened, I wanted to give an explanation:

On March 20, 2015, I sent a letter of resignation to LDS church headquarters.  They replied that they had forwarded my request to my local leaders.  Sixty days later, I received a letter from headquarters indicating that my resignation had been accepted.  This post is an attempt to explain how and why this happened.

I would like to talk about some potential reasons for leaving that don't apply to me.  There are a number of reasons that members usually ascribe to those who go inactive or those who leave to explain what happened.  Here are some of the ones that don't fit my situation:

Offense:  I didn't leave because I was offended.  I love the members in my ward.  Almost without exception, I have been treated with kindness and love during the last 10 years that my family and I have been in the ward.  I still value my neighbors as good friends and am thankful to be among them.

Sin:  We are all sinners.  Thus the need for the atonement.  Ether 12:27 tells us that we are given weakness so that we will be humble and come to Christ.  Sin can drive us away from God, but it can also allow us to come to him with a broken heart and a contrite spirit.  I believe the promise in Ether 12:27 that the Lord can make weak things become strong.  Through following the promptings that have led me on this path, I have experienced the fruits of having my heart changed.  Most of this I have experienced after being re-baptized.  I have found the promise in 2 Nephi 31:13 to be true.
I have seen God working within me to remove from me from the "works of the flesh" (Galatians 5:19-21) to the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23).

Testimony:  I believe in God.  I believe that Jesus Christ is the savior and redeemer of this world.  I believe that Joseph Smith Jr. was called of God as prophet to do a work for laying the foundations for Christ's second coming.  I believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.


The Reasons Why:

A short summary on a blog post cannot adequately tell the story of many years of studying and seeking to come closer to God and what has been involved throughout.  I can say that with me, the Lord first opened my eyes temporally to truths about our situation as testified in the Book of Mormon.  He then opened my eyes spiritually to truths about our situation which also are testified of in the Book of Mormon.

This short post cannot adequately explain the whole story.  Other posts on this blog explain the story a bit more.  So without being able to give a full explanation here, I am left to summarize what happened as follows:

I have found that there is reason to believe that the condemnation put on the LDS church for taking the Book of Mormon lightly in D&C 84 was never lifted and that in many cases we have failed to see what the message of the Book of Mormon really is.

I have learned that D&C 124 laid out an opportunity and a promise for the early members to receive a greater endowment from the Lord.  This section indicates what would happen if the early saints succeeded.  It also indicates what would happen if they failed.  When I look at and compare both lists and then compare them to what happened in history - it has opened my eyes to which of these (success vs. failure) actually happened.

I have come to see that we parallel the ancient Israelites in many more ways than I first realized.  Their story is our story.  Most of them couldn't see it in their time.  And it seems that it is just as difficult for us to see it in our time.

D&C 84 tells us more about this than we realize.  When Moses was taken out of their midst, the lesser priesthood continued and they were left with the preparatory gospel instead of the fullness of the gospel.  (D&C 84:23-27)

I have seen patterns showing that we now deny and even teach against the fullness of the gospel because we don't even know or realize what the fullness of the gospel is anymore even though the fullness of the gospel is demonstrated over and over again in the Book of Mormon. (See The Actual Message of the Book of Mormon)

Denying the fullness of the gospel was something that was foreseen and prophesied about in the Book of Mormon. (3 Nephi 16:10)

I have seen in recent events and signs that show that the fullness of the Gentiles has come in and that the Lord is setting his hand again a second time to accomplish his marvelous work and wonder.  The events that are prophesied (3 Nephi 16 and 21 and Jacob 5) relative to the fullness of the Gentiles coming in are happening before our eyes.

I feel that this blog entry from a friend does a pretty good job of laying things out.  There are many other blogs that explain this better than I do.  I have linked to them on the sidebar.

But Why Resign?

I wanted to share what I was learning.  I tried doing so on facebook during the fall of 2014.  Some who saw that were concerned and reported their concerns to the bishop.  I was called in to see the bishop.  Later I was called in to talk with the Stake President.  I was asked not to talk about or comment about these things in church.  There was no attempt to show me that these things were not true from the church leaders - simply that I should not be sharing them with others.  I was released from my callings as part of this.  I came to the realization that if I disobeyed and spoke of these things in church, I would be disciplined further and even excommunicated.  I felt it was better to resign rather than be excommunicated for wanting to share the items listed above.

A friend of mine in a similar situation, summarized it this way when talking with his daughter-in-law:

"Just finished explaining to my daughter in law why I had to leave the church. I asked her if I had stayed a member, could I discuss certain topics in GD class? Would I be allowed to kneel during the sacrament prayer? Could I question the succession to the presidency? She said no to all. I asked her what would happen to me if I stayed and did these things anyway? She said she thought I would be excommunicated or at least disciplined. I then asked her if she could understand how I couldn't remain a member where I was continually kept in silence? I think she started to get it."

So I hope that this explanation can also help you understand why I left.  I hold no ill-will toward the church.  I believe it is doing what it is meant to do and is playing its part in these winding-up scenes that we are in preceding the second coming.  I have not been offended and I hope that I have not offended you in my efforts to explain what has happened and foster a better understanding between us.


Bret Naylor

Edit:  A friend of mine recently resigned and gave his bishop a letter explaining why.  I feel this is a better summary of the issues.  His post can be found here.

Sunday, July 12, 2015

Moses 1 Chiasma

This is an old post from an older blog I used to keep that is no longer public.  I had a friend asking if I would share it - so I am moving it here:

As I was reading Moses 1 it appeared to me that it was a Chiasma.  It isn't exactly parallel in structure but if you look at the first 21 verses, you will find many elements that appear in the second 21 verses.

So I looked into Chiasma via google/wikpedia and found some things I found interesting.

1.  It comes from a Greek word meaning to shape like a letter X.  It is not too hard to picture the stucture at least somewhat like a V when reading - we start high on mountain top (verse 1) the Glory of God and his creations - then down to earth - then to the depths of hell (vs 21 - in the middle) the story then goes back up from earth to God and his creations and makes a final reference to the mount.
2.  On the wikipedia page for Chiasma it talks about how Chi or X of Chiasmus relates to Christ and the cross.
3.  Chiasma is often used to compare and contrast.  Moses 1 has the full gambit.  From the heights of the heavens and the glories and works of God to the Satan and the depths of hell.
4.  In human biology, Chiasma may refer to the optic chiasm.  It is the point where information from the left eye and information from the right eye are combined together.  I love the symbolism here.  In chiasmatic writin style, the two sides parallel each other in form and content.  The two eyes also are looking at the same thing in form and content.  It is the combination of this information that makes a 2d image become a 3d image in the mind.  I think in some ways, chiasmatic writing style helps us take what appears to be a simple narrative on the surface and add layers of depth to it.  That was my experience with Moses 1.  After noticing the chiasmatic structure of the writing, I started to see what appeared to be other layers of symbolism and meaning.

Here are some of the other layers that appear to be also present in Moses 1:

1.  The journey of the plan of salvation:  We start in God's presence.  We leave his presence and fall to earth.  We experience the temptation to worship Satan by yielding to his temptations.  We call on God for deliverance.  It is only finally through calling on God through the only begotten that one can cause Satan to depart.  We look up to heaven, are santified by the Holy Ghost, fulfill our mission's here on earth and return to God's presence.  All of these elements are in Moses 1.  We are told to apply the scriptures to ourselves.  Moses 1 is the story of our journey in the plan of salvation.
2.  The spiritual and natural man.  Look at how the words spiritual and natural are used throughout the chapter.  In the preexistence we are spirits.  Moses beholds God with his spiritual eyes, is transfigured.  After Moses falls to earth he receives his natural strength - this strength is not enough to overcome Satan.  He can behold Satan with his natural eyes.  Calling on God he receives strength.  The Holy Spirit changes him.  He is born again of the spirit.
3.  Prophets as symbols of Christ:  God tells Moses that he is in similitude of His Only Begotten.  The life of Moses has many parallels with the life of Christ.  In Moses 1, Moses is told his mission will be to free Israel from bondage.  Reference is also made to Joseph Smith being in similitude of Moses towards the end of the chapter.  The chapter tells how later, Joseph would restore these very writings of Moses which would be lost through the wickedness of the world.  The role of Moses was to free ancient Israel from bondage.  The role of Joseph is to free modern Israel from bondage.  Joseph restores like Christ restores us to our Father in Heaven.
4.  The Mission of Christ:  Moses 1 also tells us Christ's mission with Moses being in similitude.  Christ leaves God's presence.  He comes and faces Satan.  Overcomes and lives a perfect life.  Becomes the deliverer of Israel from spiritual bondage and paves the way for our return.
5.  The world timeline as a chiasma.  Moses 1 references Moses, Joseph Smith, and the Savior the parallel characteristics of their missions.  On the time line of earths history Moses seems to be on the left side of the earth time Chiasma,  Christ is in the Center in the meridian of time, and Joseph Smith is on the right side.
6.  X marks the spot.  Item 5 is useful in terms of thinking about chiasma because of some other interestings things about Chiasma.  In the optic Chiasm, the two images come together and are made one in the middle.  In genetics, the Chiasma is the point where two Chromatids are intertwined together in a cell.  It is the point where genetic material crosses over and is exchanged from two parallel Chromatids prior to the birth of daughter cells.  Chiasmatic writing is meant to focus the reader on the cross point, the middle of the narrative.  It is the middle that is the key point of reflection in the whole structure and message.  Christ came in the middle of time.  In the middle of Moses 1, it is the story of overcoming Satan through the Only Begotten.  The middle of this Chiasma seems to point to the atonement.  It is the center of the cross.  It is where the two parallel sides come together and become one.  It is the point of crossover in the journey.  Christ is the way that our crossover becomes possible and our rebirth through the Spirit becomes possible.

So Moses 1 is the story of the plan and salvation.  It seems to be full of many symbolic layers and right in the center of it all (via Chiasma) is the symbolism of Christ and the atonement - the key of the plan of salvation.