In the last of 15 articles on this website, entitled “Redemption of America,” the meaning of the parable of the Lord, found in D&C Section 101:43-62, is given as a gospel theory. That is, the meaning of the parable is theoretical, since no authoritative explanation of the parable has ever been provided by the authorities of the LDS Church.

Indeed, discussion of the meaning of the parable is entirely omitted from the church manuals used in Sunday School and Priesthood classes. The only discussion of it is found in the Church Educational System. In the “Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual” for Section 101, we read:

“It would seem that the parable is to be interpreted
in this way: the nobleman is the Lord, whose choice
land in His vineyard is Zion in Missouri. The places
where the Saints live in Zion are the olive trees.
The servants are the Latter-day Saint settlers, and
the watchmen are their officers in the Church. While
yet building in Zion, they become at variance with
each other and do not build the tower or Temple
whose site had been dedicated as early as August 3,
1831. Had they built it as directed, it would have
been a spiritual refuge for them, for from it the
Lord’s watchmen could have seen by revelation
the movements of the enemy from afar. This
foreknowledge would have saved them and their
hard work when the enemy made his assault.
“But the Saints in Missouri were svlothful, lax,
and asleep. The enemy came, and the Missouri
persecutions were the result. The Lord’s people were
scattered and much of their labors wasted. The
Almighty rebuked His people, as we have already
seen, but He commanded one of His servants (vs. 55),
Joseph Smith (103:21), to gather the ‘strength of Mine
house’ and rescue His lands and possessions
gathered against them.
“Subsequently, the Prophet and his brethren
in the famous Zion’s Camp did go to Missouri in
1834 in an attempt to carry out the terms of the
parable. Before they went, additional revelation was
received (see 103:21–28) concerning the redemption
of Zion. The brethren were instructed to try to buy
land in Missouri, not to use force; and if the enemy
came against them, they were to bring a curse upon
them. Zion was not redeemed at that time but we
may look for it in the not-too-distant future. . . . It
will be redeemed when the Lord wills it.” (Sperry,
Compendium, pp. 521–22.)
Though Joseph Smith followed the Lord’s
instructions to gather together the “strength of my
house” (D&C 103:22) by organizing Zion’s Camp to
redeem Zion, the Lord’s purpose in sending them
and His will concerning the redemption of Zion were
not fully understood by His people. The redemption
of Zion did not take place at that time. When the
servant in the parable asked when the land would be
possessed, the Lord responded, “When I will”
You also have various exercises to increase sperm count. buy cialis brand Hefner, all of these great artists were confined to discount cialis http://www.glacialridgebyway.com/windows/Prairie%20Woods%20Environmental%20Learning%20Center.html the underground of American society. Below are some food items that you must avoid taking levitra for sale online . However, at times there is no clear reason cheap viagra india for getting the purest ED medicine. (D&C 101:60).
The parable further states that all things will be
fulfilled “after many days” (v. 62), which indicates
that a long period of time would pass before Zion
would be redeemed. The redemption of Zion still
had not taken place even after the Saints had been
expelled from Missouri and from Nauvoo. The Lord
then told Brigham Young that “Zion shall be
redeemed in mine own due time” (D&C 136:18).
The redemption of Zion (meaning, the city of New
Jerusalem in Missouri) is still future, although it is
much closer now than it was when the Saints first
sought to regain their inheritance there.
The time of Zion’s redemption is referred to in
Doctrine and Covenants 58:44; 105:15, 37.

The text quoted above, beginning with the words “It seems…,” taken from Sydney B. Sperry’s Doctrine and Covenants Compendium, Published by Bookcraft, Salt Lake City, 1960, is the only interpretation of the elements of the parable that is taught to this day.

Dr. Sperry was a faculty member of Brigham Young University and a one time Director of the Division of Religion and of Graduate Studies at the university. He was a prolific author and a sought after speaker in Mormon circles.

However, since Dr. Sperry was never a general authority in the LDS Church, in spite of the fact that his writings were well respected, often quoted and incorporated into the curriculum of what later came to be called the Church Educational System, his interpretation of the parable is certainly open to challenge.

In other words, it is a perfect example of a revelation that should evoke a theoretical response for those going before the Lord seeking further light and knowledge on the subject. They should study it out in their minds and then ask the Lord if their understanding is right, and if it is right he promises to cause “that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.”

The differences between the interpretation of Dr. Sperry and that found in the article on this website are substantial. Whereas Dr. Sperry interprets the location of the vineyard and the Lord’s servants as we do, his interpretation of the olive trees and the watchtower, which was never built, is completely at odds with our interpretation.

The major reason for this difference is readily apparent: Dr. Sperry applies the parable to the small group of early Latter-Day Saints who tried and failed to redeem Zion, or plant the trees of the vineyard in Missouri, while we apply the parable to today’s LDS community, with millions of Latter-day Saints in many countries of the world.

The key to understanding why the modern day setting is preferred is found in the interpretation of the hedge in the parable, which is not even mentioned in Dr. Sperry’s interpretation cited above. If the hedge of the parable is interpreted as the right to the free exercise of religion in the U.S., as vouched safe in its constitution, then the coming of the enemy by night to break down the hedge and to take upon itself the fruit of the vineyard, becomes startlingly clear.

The Latter-Day Saints are now facing that precise situation, as the U.S. Constitution in general, and the right to the free exercise of religion and to free speech in particular, are widely recognized as severely threatened, if not already lost.

Once the hedge of the parable is recognized as the U.S. Constitution, protecting the work of the Lord’s servants, as they labor in the vineyard, gathering the fruit of the twelve olive trees to preserve it against the season, the remainder of our interpretation falls into place.

The twelve olive trees are the twelve offices of the Church apostles and the tower that was started, but never finished, is the discontinued Council of Fifty, that, far from a being a mere “debating society,” was an organization wherein the President of the Church, the watchman upon the tower, would have been able to study in depth and follow the developments of the great and abominable church, the whore of all the earth, which is now gathering its multitudes, which are upon all the face of the earth, to fight against the church of the Lamb of God, according to the Book of Mormon.

The President and Prophet can certainly study and understand these things, as they relate to the work of the Twelve, without the Council of the Fifty, but the reports, discussions and deliberations of the Council would have included others, even non-members of the Church, giving the standing members of the Council, the Prophet and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, a non-ecclesiastical, even secular perspective that they could never entertain in the upper rooms of the Temple, where they are want to meet in their ecclesiastical capacity.

As members of the Council, prominent scholars, politicians, economists and academics could have been at hand to help form the view of the movements and works of the great and abominable church and secret combinations, by teaching and informing the ecclesiastical leaders of things on the earth and under the earth, things that were, and things that are, the particulars of things abroad and at home, what is happening in the wars and perplexities of the nations and what the scholars know about the countries and kingdoms of the world.

Of course, all of this potential discourse in the Council of Fifty, over the decades of almost two centuries and over the lives of its many members, during that time, in the context of the living constitution of the Kingdom of God, would have enabled the servants of the Lord to see afar off and to make ready for the coming of the enemy by night and to remain alert and to not fall asleep, as they do in the parable, and to not suffer the Lord’s vineyard to fall into the hands of the destroyer.

Admittedly, such an interpretation is not going to be very popular among the saints. The prospect of the servants of the Lord arising and being “affrighted” and fleeing the vineyard is not what they are expecting. What will be their reaction, when the enemy destroys the works of the Lord’s servants, and breaks down the olive trees, as in the parable?

What happens to the flock, when the shepherd is smitten? They are scattered of course, but in this case, after they are scattered, perhaps they are penned up, penned up in the sheepfold of Bozrah.

However, the parable doesn’t end there. The Lord sends his servant to gather  the strength of his house, his warriors, to redeem Zion and avenge him of his enemies.