So to avoid the apparent connection between Jehovah and the crucifixion, Kirkland makes one assumption and one suggestion--he assumes that Jesus would not be addressed in
prayer as Father, and he suggests that Smith did not even distinguish between the Father and Son. D&C 109:4 reads:
"And now we ask thee, Holy Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of thy bosom, in whose name alone salvation can be administered to the children of men, we ask thee, O Lord, to accept of this house, the workmanship of the hands of us, thy servants, which thou didst command us to build."
It certainly appears on the surface that Smith is praying to the Father (of Christ). But consider v.6: “And as thou hast said in a revelation, given to us, calling us thy friends, saying—Call your solemn assembly, as I have commanded you...”
The revelation refered to is D&C 88:117. “Therefore, verily I say unto you, my friends, call your solemn assembly, as I have commanded you.”
The use of the term “friends,” begins at D&C 84:63: “And as I said unto mine apostles, even so
I say unto you, for you are mine apostles, even God's high priests; ye are they whom my Father
hath given me; ye are my friends...”
The use of the word “friends” is intended to include Smith’s circle into that of Jesus’ ancient apostles, and clearly indicates a relationship between the orator and Jesus: Smith was praying to Christ. When he addresses God as “Father” and “Jehovah,” it is simply proof that Smith had not recently decided--as Kirkland supposes--that Christ was not the Father, but rather that Smith feels it quite proper to pray to Christ, just as the Nephites did in the Book of Mormon.
And so Section 109 in fact provides background evidence, when properly understood, that Smith equated Christ with Jehovah. Just as the brother of Jared prayed to the Lord, and had his prayer answered by the same Lord, Jesus, so Smith prayed to the Christ, Jehovah, and had his prayer
answered by the same Jehovah.
But notice how circular is Kirkland's logic. First, he assumes that after 1833 Smith no longer considers Christ to be Father. Then he incorporates that assertion in his interpretation of D&C 109 to assert that Jehovah is not Christ. And what evidence does Kirkland have to support his contention (that Jesus is not "Father")? Simply that there are no more explicit statements such as those found in the Book of Mormon--if Smith doesn't remind Kirkland every few months of previously taught doctrine, Kirkland assumes Smith no longer believes it. But what is the reason for the lack of more explicit statements? It is simple mathematics: roughly (I haven't counted the pages) 90% of Smith's revelations predate 1833 so it is a simple matter of probability that the doctrinal statements Kirkland takes as indicators will not be found after the effective closing of the canon.
If Kirkland wants to use extracanonical teaching, that's OK, but he should look for contrary statements that are as explicit as the earlier canonized statements to buttress the notion that Smith has flipflopped, i.e., Smith should say, I used to teach that, but now I believe this, etc. The best that Kirkland is able to come up with is statements of followers who just don't understand what Smith really taught. The same goes on today. --Bosquero