<Satire>
Earlier this afternoon, a pair of missionaries representing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints knocked on the door of Provo skeptic Ben Robert Ottley. Knowing that these missionaries were likely keeping secrets about their enigmatic faith, Ben invited the Elders into his living room.
"I was totally shocked!" reported Ben. "I always heard that Mormons keep secrets about their church, even from their members... you know... just giving people the easy-to-digest bits and covering up their really bold claims... but these dudes must have missed that memo!"
Apparently, Elder Smith openly claimed that Joseph Smith was a literal prophet who saw God and even translated a book of ancient scripture called The Book of Mormon. The missionaries did not seem to care that Ben's roommates were in the back, and could have easily overheard these audacious claims.
"Not only did they totally share the boldest teachings of their religion," continued Ben. "But they also left me a copy of their book... you know... the Book of Mormon. And get this... they asked me to read it!"
Elder Jones explained that he should not just take the word of the missionaries that their message about prophets of Christ was true, but that he should pray for himself, promising that God would help him to know the truth.
"I thought they were supposed to keep all that stuff secret!" laughed Ben. "Well, joke's on them... I'm going to read through that book this week! Bet they'll be sorry then!"
</Satire>
Showing posts with label #bold. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #bold. Show all posts
Monday, August 26, 2019
Monday, March 18, 2013
Let your hypocrisy so shine before men
In Jesus Christ's most famous sermon, he declared "Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 5:14-16)
In the following chapter, Christ seems to completely withdraw this concept in favor of being secretive in doing good to avoid hypocrisy:
"Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly. And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him." (Matthew 6:1-8)
These two concepts seem mutually exclusive. On the one hand, God wants people to openly stand for what is right by doing good publicly... on the other hand, God wants us to hide our good deeds to be rewarded for them, and to avoid being as the hypocrites are. How can Christians reconcile these two points?
These points seem especially important in the field of missionary work. Every Christian has a responsibility to witness for Christ. Consider the words in the New Testament: "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ." (1 Peter 3:15-16) Also, these words from the Book of Mormon that expound on the commitment made in baptism: "...and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God..." (Mosiah 18:9) Also, contemporarily, consider the words in the Doctrine and Covenants: "Behold, I sent you out to testify and warn the people, and it becometh every man who hath been warned to warn his neighbor." (D&C 88:81)
If Christians follow the advice of Paul to Timothy when he said "be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity." (1 Timothy 4:12), how can we simultaneously heed the words of Christ to do good in secret?
More to the point, how can a Christian ask someone else to follow Christ when they themselves are guilty of not following him as well as they should? Did Christ not repeatedly and vehemently condemn such hypocrisy?
The answer is that he did condemn such hypocrisy. The Pharisees were frequently subjects of such condemnation. They openly prayed, gave alms, and fasted... which were all things that God had commanded. Christ pointed out that they paid tithes, but devoured widows' houses and tolerated swearing by altar, as long as they did not swear by the gifts on it. (Matthew 23)
Of course every person that encourages someone else to make correct choices except for Christ himself takes on a degree of the same hypocrisy that Christ condemned, because every other person is guilty of sin.
Fortunately, in the gospel of Jesus Christ, even hypocrites can be saved. Avoiding hypocrisy is not a valid excuse to put one's light under a bushel.
Consider the parable of the talents. (Matthew 25) The servant that had received one talent hid it in the ground for fear of losing it. When the Lord returned, he was displeased with the servant. He had not given that servant a talent to be buried away... but to be used. I suggest that the talent is symbolic of many things, and that one of them is knowledge of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The word gospel means good news... and news is meant to be spread, not to be buried or hoarded away.
Additionally, Christ declared that the greatest commandments were to love God and to love our neighbors as ourselves. (Matthew 22:37-40) When we arrive at the judgment bar of Jesus Christ, can anyone imagine that he would be pleased with those who refuse to share the message that cost his life and the lives of his Apostles? Can anyone suppose that a valid excuse for withholding knowledge that could bring peace, hope, and joy from others would be "I wanted to avoid being hypocritical"?
I do not believe that God wants people to wait until they have eliminated every flaw before they share the basics of the gospel of Jesus Christ with others. Of course, in connection with sharing the message that Jesus has power to save everyone, Christians are obligated to do all they can to eliminate those aspects of their thoughts, words, and deeds that are unchristian, but fulfilling the obligation is not prerequisite to sharing the message.
Furthermore, sharing the message of Christ does not require a Christian to loudly pray in restaurants or malls, or to announce their charitable contributions, or to babble in tongues before large audiences, or even divulging every personal spiritual experience. There are some experiences that are intended to emphasize the personal connection between an individual and God. Christ's power is not extended to the children of men to make them look good... it is extended to save them all.
The thing of which a Christian can be sure though, is that every person that they will ever meet has need of faith, penitence, and ordinances as prescribed by God. The thing of which a Christian cannot be sure is whether others already know this, or whether they may need some encouragement. Whether offered by men or God, it is a divine effort to make bad men good, and good men better.
In the following chapter, Christ seems to completely withdraw this concept in favor of being secretive in doing good to avoid hypocrisy:
"Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly. And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him." (Matthew 6:1-8)
These two concepts seem mutually exclusive. On the one hand, God wants people to openly stand for what is right by doing good publicly... on the other hand, God wants us to hide our good deeds to be rewarded for them, and to avoid being as the hypocrites are. How can Christians reconcile these two points?
These points seem especially important in the field of missionary work. Every Christian has a responsibility to witness for Christ. Consider the words in the New Testament: "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ." (1 Peter 3:15-16) Also, these words from the Book of Mormon that expound on the commitment made in baptism: "...and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God..." (Mosiah 18:9) Also, contemporarily, consider the words in the Doctrine and Covenants: "Behold, I sent you out to testify and warn the people, and it becometh every man who hath been warned to warn his neighbor." (D&C 88:81)
If Christians follow the advice of Paul to Timothy when he said "be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity." (1 Timothy 4:12), how can we simultaneously heed the words of Christ to do good in secret?
More to the point, how can a Christian ask someone else to follow Christ when they themselves are guilty of not following him as well as they should? Did Christ not repeatedly and vehemently condemn such hypocrisy?
The answer is that he did condemn such hypocrisy. The Pharisees were frequently subjects of such condemnation. They openly prayed, gave alms, and fasted... which were all things that God had commanded. Christ pointed out that they paid tithes, but devoured widows' houses and tolerated swearing by altar, as long as they did not swear by the gifts on it. (Matthew 23)
Of course every person that encourages someone else to make correct choices except for Christ himself takes on a degree of the same hypocrisy that Christ condemned, because every other person is guilty of sin.
Fortunately, in the gospel of Jesus Christ, even hypocrites can be saved. Avoiding hypocrisy is not a valid excuse to put one's light under a bushel.
Consider the parable of the talents. (Matthew 25) The servant that had received one talent hid it in the ground for fear of losing it. When the Lord returned, he was displeased with the servant. He had not given that servant a talent to be buried away... but to be used. I suggest that the talent is symbolic of many things, and that one of them is knowledge of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The word gospel means good news... and news is meant to be spread, not to be buried or hoarded away.
Additionally, Christ declared that the greatest commandments were to love God and to love our neighbors as ourselves. (Matthew 22:37-40) When we arrive at the judgment bar of Jesus Christ, can anyone imagine that he would be pleased with those who refuse to share the message that cost his life and the lives of his Apostles? Can anyone suppose that a valid excuse for withholding knowledge that could bring peace, hope, and joy from others would be "I wanted to avoid being hypocritical"?
I do not believe that God wants people to wait until they have eliminated every flaw before they share the basics of the gospel of Jesus Christ with others. Of course, in connection with sharing the message that Jesus has power to save everyone, Christians are obligated to do all they can to eliminate those aspects of their thoughts, words, and deeds that are unchristian, but fulfilling the obligation is not prerequisite to sharing the message.
Furthermore, sharing the message of Christ does not require a Christian to loudly pray in restaurants or malls, or to announce their charitable contributions, or to babble in tongues before large audiences, or even divulging every personal spiritual experience. There are some experiences that are intended to emphasize the personal connection between an individual and God. Christ's power is not extended to the children of men to make them look good... it is extended to save them all.
The thing of which a Christian can be sure though, is that every person that they will ever meet has need of faith, penitence, and ordinances as prescribed by God. The thing of which a Christian cannot be sure is whether others already know this, or whether they may need some encouragement. Whether offered by men or God, it is a divine effort to make bad men good, and good men better.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Be an American, not a troll...
The political debate in the United States has heated up as election day has approached. Every record not protected by law has been examined. Popular figures have thrown their support behind one candidate or another, and plead for Americans to do the same. Every idle word has fallen under scrutiny, and even the amount of scrutiny given has fallen under scrutiny.
People that had once posted only Farmville requests and videos of frolicking cats have added to their timelines support and opposition for political philosophies and candidates. Some of these posts are civil. Some less so.
Some conversations that appear in social media legitimately explore issues and logically attack or defend political candidates, but many have observed a decreasing amount of civility in these debates.
Ad hominem attacks label candidates and anyone who might dare to support them stupid, racist, un-American, hateful, or seditious at their best. At their worst, accusations of rape, incest, murder, burglary, treason, or any number of other criminal acts are slung back and forth angrily.
Some claim to legitimately examine both sides of an issue or positions on a candidate when in fact they are guilty of the "straw man" fallacy. They misrepresent the positions or candidates in a manner that makes them weaker, and then attack the vulnerabilities they helped create. To a lesser degree, this is done by representing the best arguments from one position, and pitting them against the weakest arguments from the opposing view.
The vile nature of the political atmosphere leaves many feeling disenchanted with the American government; after all... whoever wins will be hated and loathed by half the country regardless of what they do. Many people avoid politics altogether as a result. Of course the problem with this position is that the government of the United States is based on the participation of citizens. Uninformed citizens and/or citizens that refuse to engage in the political process are negligent in their duty.
There are others that, when confronted with an attack against their political views, feel compelled to counter-attack. This occurs whether or not the initial attack was a legitimate argument, or whether or not the initial attack was directed at them personally. Of course, the mud being slung makes it difficult not to take some attacks personally. A member of the Mormon church might be offended by people referring to Temple garments as "magic underwear" when what the real purpose of the attack was is "don't vote for Mitt Romney." On the other side of the spectrum, a liberal might be offended by portrayals of Democrats as perpetrators in rape tents with the Occupy Wall Street movement when the real purpose of such a portrayal is "don't vote for Barack Obama."
The nature of politics in any republic is also a contributor to such a climate. While serious analysts try to examine the business and/or government experience that candidates have, campaigns in almost all parties frequently delve into popularity games that are not so very different from the ploys used in elementary school class office races. "Longer recess" and "soda machines in the lunch room" won popularity and earned votes, even when the office for which the candidate was running did not have power to keep such promises.
Even promises that are valid and might be kept are sometimes thwarted by unforeseen events such as court rulings. People that honestly want to improve their government and country can become easily frustrated when they see people fighting so vehemently against them. Even pious religious leaders have been seen on both ends of the political spectrum demonizing views that they believe are immoral.
To add additional difficulty to the task of political engagement, the government has become increasingly involved in moral and/or religious issues in the past fifty years than they ever had before. Nearly every ideology is affected by government involvement. Those on the left are frequently telling the government to stay out of their reproductive systems, such as in attempting to ban abortions. Those on the right are upset that private doctors are not permitted to refuse treatments they view as unethical such as abortions. The Atheist feel unrepresented when a public servant says "God bless America." The Christian feels unrepresented when a public servant pulls down a cross that memorializes veterans. Ideologies are far less compatible today than they have been. It feels as though the amount of common ground that exists is shrinking.
The question becomes, in spite of the hostile climate, how does one fulfill their political responsibility without becoming a troll? The following list explores solutions:
The purpose of this post is not to persuade anyone to subscribe to my political views (although the world would undoubtedly be a much better place if everyone did). The main point is that it is ok to be politically involved, and even passionately so, as long as we do not become the vile things of which our opponents accuse us. Be an American, not a troll.
People that had once posted only Farmville requests and videos of frolicking cats have added to their timelines support and opposition for political philosophies and candidates. Some of these posts are civil. Some less so.
Some conversations that appear in social media legitimately explore issues and logically attack or defend political candidates, but many have observed a decreasing amount of civility in these debates.
Ad hominem attacks label candidates and anyone who might dare to support them stupid, racist, un-American, hateful, or seditious at their best. At their worst, accusations of rape, incest, murder, burglary, treason, or any number of other criminal acts are slung back and forth angrily.
Some claim to legitimately examine both sides of an issue or positions on a candidate when in fact they are guilty of the "straw man" fallacy. They misrepresent the positions or candidates in a manner that makes them weaker, and then attack the vulnerabilities they helped create. To a lesser degree, this is done by representing the best arguments from one position, and pitting them against the weakest arguments from the opposing view.
The vile nature of the political atmosphere leaves many feeling disenchanted with the American government; after all... whoever wins will be hated and loathed by half the country regardless of what they do. Many people avoid politics altogether as a result. Of course the problem with this position is that the government of the United States is based on the participation of citizens. Uninformed citizens and/or citizens that refuse to engage in the political process are negligent in their duty.
There are others that, when confronted with an attack against their political views, feel compelled to counter-attack. This occurs whether or not the initial attack was a legitimate argument, or whether or not the initial attack was directed at them personally. Of course, the mud being slung makes it difficult not to take some attacks personally. A member of the Mormon church might be offended by people referring to Temple garments as "magic underwear" when what the real purpose of the attack was is "don't vote for Mitt Romney." On the other side of the spectrum, a liberal might be offended by portrayals of Democrats as perpetrators in rape tents with the Occupy Wall Street movement when the real purpose of such a portrayal is "don't vote for Barack Obama."
The nature of politics in any republic is also a contributor to such a climate. While serious analysts try to examine the business and/or government experience that candidates have, campaigns in almost all parties frequently delve into popularity games that are not so very different from the ploys used in elementary school class office races. "Longer recess" and "soda machines in the lunch room" won popularity and earned votes, even when the office for which the candidate was running did not have power to keep such promises.
Even promises that are valid and might be kept are sometimes thwarted by unforeseen events such as court rulings. People that honestly want to improve their government and country can become easily frustrated when they see people fighting so vehemently against them. Even pious religious leaders have been seen on both ends of the political spectrum demonizing views that they believe are immoral.
To add additional difficulty to the task of political engagement, the government has become increasingly involved in moral and/or religious issues in the past fifty years than they ever had before. Nearly every ideology is affected by government involvement. Those on the left are frequently telling the government to stay out of their reproductive systems, such as in attempting to ban abortions. Those on the right are upset that private doctors are not permitted to refuse treatments they view as unethical such as abortions. The Atheist feel unrepresented when a public servant says "God bless America." The Christian feels unrepresented when a public servant pulls down a cross that memorializes veterans. Ideologies are far less compatible today than they have been. It feels as though the amount of common ground that exists is shrinking.
The question becomes, in spite of the hostile climate, how does one fulfill their political responsibility without becoming a troll? The following list explores solutions:
- Be informed. Nasty political advertisements are not effective against people who have already looked at the issues and come to their own conclusions. They target the uninformed. This leads into the next point which is...
- Choose reliable sources of information. There is no such thing as an unbiased source, since no source presents all of the information. The decisions regarding what to report and what to ignore are always based on the opinions of editors (and others) as to what is important or what will bring the most viewing.
- Don't get offended. This is of course easier said than done. Try to avoid sources of information that use images and language that will bother you. Unsubscribe to the posts of some of your Facebook friends. Stop following celebrities on Twitter. Of course, eventually you will find something that offends you. Resist the urge to immediately post something in rebuttal. Evaluate whether pursuing a dialog is for the purpose of informing or rebuking can prevent pointless debates. This leads into the next point which is...
- Avoid pointless debates. If you have already made up your mind and cannot be persuaded, talking to someone else who has made up their mind and cannot be persuaded probably wastes time. Debates are only helpful for weighing two opposing views. If you talk to someone who is unsure, being persuasive is perfectly fine. Being a little abrasive might even be ok, depending on the people involved and assuming that arguments presented are founded in facts and honest beliefs rather than clever fallacies.
- Prioritize your principles. Do you know what things you would be willing to compromise? Do you have ideals from which you cannot withdraw support? Candidates and platforms include so many issues, and it is possible that opposing parties might have some elements that are appealing. Those that most firmly support what is most important to you should have support. For Christians, the most important principles must be religious. Saving mankind by embracing good and denouncing evil is more important than saving whales. For environmental purists, saving whales is far more important than other economic or governmental concerns. Choices between platforms become easier when you know what is most important to you.
- Be consistent. Another way this point might be phrased is to examine your beliefs to see if there are any problems. This does not mean to go read everything from people that disagree with you and hate you... It also does not mean that if you find an inconsistency, you should throw out your principles immediately. Is there a better argument to support something that you believe in your heart? Are the arguments to believe something else more compelling? Everyone is guilty of some hypocrisy, but the effort to keep it to a minimum is a good thing.
The purpose of this post is not to persuade anyone to subscribe to my political views (although the world would undoubtedly be a much better place if everyone did). The main point is that it is ok to be politically involved, and even passionately so, as long as we do not become the vile things of which our opponents accuse us. Be an American, not a troll.
Monday, August 6, 2012
To Hold the Power of God
The Ark of the Covenant was the central and most important piece of worship in the ancient Tabernacle, and subsequently, in the Temple of Israel. A chest that contained artifacts of wonder such as the tablets Moses received from God containing the ten commandments, a pot of manna, Aaron's rod that budded, it has inspired the faith, fear, and imaginations of many people. (Hebrews 9:4) Perhaps one of the most famous fictional stories surrounding this relic is the first Indiana Jones film "Raiders of the Lost Ark."
Of course Indiana Jones is a fictional work, and much of the entertainment in it came from action scenes fighting Nazis rather than the Ark itself. Notwithstanding this, a main theme in the film involves a real power that appears to surround and protect the Ark. The idea that there exist powers beyond human comprehension was fundamental to Indiana Jones triumphing over Beloch and his Nazi allies. It is also worth noting that the power could not be captured or harnessed by the Nazis anymore than it was captured by the Philistines when they captured it from Israel. (1 Samuel 5)
Though fictional, the principal used for Biblical consistency is both accurate and pertinent to understanding the genuine power of God.
God's power cannot be captured. It cannot be bought. Emulating the rites of the priesthood do not produce power any more than Beloch's taped ceremony as he opened the Ark of the Covenant. Consider the following passage:
"For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec." (Hebrews 5:1-6, emphasis added)
Of course, excluding murderous Nazis from accessing the power of God is not likely to raise any concerns. If there are any special interests that were opposed to Nazis being portrayed as evil, or implying that they were unworthy in God's eyes, I am not aware of them. It is not only culturally acceptable, it is an understatement to say that individuals who behave as the antagonists in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" should probably not be called to be priests of God.
There are, however, many individuals and groups that have a problem with how Mormons did or do now exclude individuals from obtaining priesthood office.
Before even beginning to tackle this concern, there are a couple important points of which to be aware about the general nature of the Priesthood in the LDS church.
Those that take issue with this policy fall into two groups: those that are legitimately concerned that women are not as valued as men by the Church and/or God himself, and those that think the church should meet the currently established standards for what is politically correct. It is sometimes difficult for me, as a male, to determine who falls into what category since the question that is asked by either group is "why can't women hold the priesthood?"
There are many people within and without the church that attempt to answer this question. I have heard those within the church say that because women are more spiritual, men need the priesthood to become spiritual, or some other well meaning but misguided piece of supposition. I have heard people without the church speculate about polygamy coming back or other equally ridiculous conspiracy theory.
For those in the group that are eager to criticize an organization that does not seem to be up to date with the current cultural acceptability, I would say "you're asking the wrong question."
For those with legitimate concerns that want to know the truth, I would also say "you're asking the wrong question," but there would be more sympathy in my voice. At least I would attempt to be less abrasive than I can sometimes seem.
Another criticized exclusion from Priesthood authority revolves around a practice that no longer even exists: the exclusion of males of African descent. People eagerly label Mormons as racists because of this practice, in spite of the fact that the abolitionist views of many members were among the reasons that the residents of Missouri in the early 1800's wanted Mormons exterminated. The policy was reversed in 1979. The extension of the priesthood to all worthy males regardless of race or color is canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants as Official Declaration 2 (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2?lang=eng).
Those that take issue with this former policy fall into two groups: those that are legitimately concerned that the policy existed and/or that the policy which was followed by leaders in the church changed, and those that think the church should meet the currently established standards for what is politically correct. The question asked by those in both categories is typically "why couldn't blacks hold the priesthood?"
There are numerous individuals within the church that have speculated on the purposes for excluding blacks from priesthood office, but the church's official statement exposes these explanations for what they are: speculation.
"The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine." (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/race-church)
For those in the group that are eager to criticize an organization that does not seem to be up to date with the current cultural acceptability, I would say "you're asking the wrong question."
For those with legitimate concerns that want to know the truth, I would also say "you're asking the wrong question," but again, there would be more sympathy in my voice.
Looking further back in time, it becomes apparent that restricting access to the Priesthood is not a recent practice in the church of Jesus Christ.
Jesus himself had an experience with a woman from Canaan:
"Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour." (Matthew 15:21-28)
Only after impressive poise, faith, and humility after Jesus had called her a dog did she obtain a special exception for the policy of the day.
King Saul decided to take action when Samuel, the authorized Priest of God did not come when he was expected. "And Saul said, Bring hither a burnt offering to me, and peace offerings. And he offered the burnt offering. And it came to pass, that as soon as he had made an end of offering the burnt offering, behold, Samuel came; and Saul went out to meet him, that he might salute him. And Samuel said, What hast thou done? And Saul said, Because I saw that the people were scattered from me, and that thou camest not within the days appointed, and that the Philistines gathered themselves together at Michmash; Therefore said I, The Philistines will come down now upon me to Gilgal, and I have not made supplication unto the Lord: I forced myself therefore, and offered a burnt offering. And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the Lord have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever. But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the Lord hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the Lord hath commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that which the Lord commanded thee." (1 Samuel 13:9-14)
Saul acted as a priest and even though he was the King of God's chosen people, he was not of the correct tribe, and did not have authority to offer a sacrifice. God subsequently rejected him as king. This policy of exclusion went beyond non-African males, or even people of the House of Israel.
Going back further, in the days of Moses a man named Korah and several of his friends determined that Moses took too much upon himself to preside. As a consequence of their rebellion, God caused the earth to open up and swallow Korah and his followers. Subsequently, God prepared a demonstration to show the people who had Priesthood authority in the house of Israel. The princes of each tribe wrote their names on rods that they placed before the tabernacle. The next morning, Aaron's rod miraculously budded, blossomed, and brought forth almonds. This rod was kept in the Ark of the Covenant itself as a testimony against those who thought they could claim God's power. (Numbers 16-17)
Even further back, in the days of Israel himself, he and his elder brother Esau were the children of the patriarch Isaac. Although Abraham had more than one son, Isaac was the son promised him by God. (Genesis 17:15-16) This meant the priesthood could not be held by two brothers. Esau cared nothing for his birthright, and was willing to sell it for a mess of pottage. (Genesis 25:29-34) Eventually, when Isaac realized that he had bestowed his patriarchal blessing on Jacob instead of Esau, he would not take back what was done. (Genesis 27:37) Ultimately, it became clear that God had directed Jacob to receive the priesthood power when he extended the Abrahamic covenant to Jacob. (Genesis 28:13-15)
Passing the priesthood between a Father and only one of his Sons appears to have been the original method for accessing the priesthood. Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, and Shem seem to represent the ancient order of Priesthood patriarchs. (D&C 84:14-16) When two brothers of the same parents are not both eligible to receive the priesthood, it is difficult to imagine a system that is less exclusive.
With additional context, important patterns regarding the availability of God's power become visible. It was once extremely exclusive, and it has gradually moved toward a system of much greater inclusion over time. Additionally, these changes are not brought about because of the perceived needs or desires of people in any given time. Saul's acting as a priest was a sin, whereas in latter days, 16 year old boys can be authorized to bless the emblems of Christ's flesh and blood. Change came when God said it should come: not before, not after.
While there are contemporary pressures that can cause many to question why certain groups appear to be excluded, the context of history provides a vastly more important question: why is God calling so many more priests?
While he may be sensative to the changing needs of societies, God probably is not concerned with the modern standards of politcal correctness. If he were, then many of the standards of worthiness would have altered to be more inclusive of practices such as homosexuality. Also, he would not have started including all the sons of Aaron into priesthood offices, but would have continued with the system of passing authority from a father to one of his sons.
Knowing the exact reasons why certain groups have been excluded at various times is not likely to accomplish more than satisfy curiousity. If percieved inequality is the basis for judging whether God loves a particular individual or a type of individual, then knowing details for why some of his children seem to have so much more than others of his children may even do more harm than good. What some one else has or lacks has absoultely nothing to do with the fact that God loves you individually.
Understanding every reason for everything God does or has done is not likely to take place in a single lifetime. That having been stated, understanding some of the plans God will use to accomplish his goals can provide clarity and priority to revealed truth. God's plans for the last days are particularly important.
In the book of Daniel, God revealed to King Nebuchadnezzar that in the last days, "shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever." (Daniel 2:44)
Mormons are not unique in their assessment that humanity has entered the latter days. Jesus Christ promised that he would return. Prophets throughout the Bible have foretold that the messiah would reign, and that the earth would be changed such that even nature would exist in greater harmony than we currently understand. (Isaiah 11) The book of Revelation is filled with prophecies about the end of the latter days. John describes angels proclaiming "The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever." (Revelation 11:15)
With his goals and plans in mind, and with the context of an increasing number of priesthood holders throughout time, the importance of why a certain group seems excluded diminishes.
It does not matter why women are not called to be priesthood holders or why blacks have been generally called and accepted as priesthood holders for a relatively short period of time.
Speculating, distressing, or arguing about these details is like arguing about how Indiana Jones never actually went into the German submarine before it went to the secret Nazi base. And to keep with the theme, imagine the argument is taking place in a narrow tunnel, and a giant round stone is rolling down the tunnel toward the people arguing. Perhaps it would be smarter to stop worring about the details of a movie and get out of danger... (just a thought)
In the end, the boldest and most important truths of Mormonism regarding the priesthood are not about exclusion, they are about inclusion. Mormons claim that the priesthood found in their church is authority from Jesus Christ himself. Latter Day Saints claim that a resurrected John the Baptist who was resurrected restored the authority to baptise to the prophet Joseph Smith. We claim that the subsequent month, Peter, James, and John, the apostles that Jesus Christ personally chose, came and restored the high priesthood. All priesthood holders in the church trace a line of authority through this... and if these claims are true, then the power to baptise and to bless and to officiate is genuinely power given by Jesus Christ. And if it is the power of Jesus Christ, then he can pretty much distribute it to whoever he wants for whatever reason he wants... and he will never be wrong.
The claim about priesthood that is vital is that it is the authority to act in the name of God himself. God is calling more priests because he wants more people to have access to his power, whether that means baptism by an authorized baptist, or receiving a blessing of healing. Calling more priests means God may be anticipating more people needing help, and he is mercifully making that help a little closer.
Of course Indiana Jones is a fictional work, and much of the entertainment in it came from action scenes fighting Nazis rather than the Ark itself. Notwithstanding this, a main theme in the film involves a real power that appears to surround and protect the Ark. The idea that there exist powers beyond human comprehension was fundamental to Indiana Jones triumphing over Beloch and his Nazi allies. It is also worth noting that the power could not be captured or harnessed by the Nazis anymore than it was captured by the Philistines when they captured it from Israel. (1 Samuel 5)
Though fictional, the principal used for Biblical consistency is both accurate and pertinent to understanding the genuine power of God.
God's power cannot be captured. It cannot be bought. Emulating the rites of the priesthood do not produce power any more than Beloch's taped ceremony as he opened the Ark of the Covenant. Consider the following passage:
"For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec." (Hebrews 5:1-6, emphasis added)
Of course, excluding murderous Nazis from accessing the power of God is not likely to raise any concerns. If there are any special interests that were opposed to Nazis being portrayed as evil, or implying that they were unworthy in God's eyes, I am not aware of them. It is not only culturally acceptable, it is an understatement to say that individuals who behave as the antagonists in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" should probably not be called to be priests of God.
There are, however, many individuals and groups that have a problem with how Mormons did or do now exclude individuals from obtaining priesthood office.
Before even beginning to tackle this concern, there are a couple important points of which to be aware about the general nature of the Priesthood in the LDS church.
- The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does not have a professional clergy.
- A deacon that faithfully passes the sacrament to the congregation and assists in the collection of funds to help those in need (fast offerings) earns $0.00 for his work. A Bishop that may spend hours meeting with individuals and families as well as teaching lessons, fulfilling public speaking responsibilities, making financial decisions about the expenditure of funds, and visiting the members of his ward also earns $0.00 for his work. Having a higher office typically only results in more work. "Advancement" in the "hierarchy" does not increase salary since there is never any pay.
- Priesthood is not necessarily synonymous with leadership.
- While it is true that Apostles and Bishops and Teachers may be said to preside over others in different situations, this involves a concept called Priesthood Keys. This concept was established by Jesus Christ himself. "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:18-19) The concept of keys of the kingdom represents the authority and responsibility to do as Christ himself would do on behalf of a particular level of church organization. An Elders Quorum President is authorized to receive guidance and offer direction for the Quorum of Elders over which he presides. The President of the Church, as the Apostle Peter, has the keys of the entire Kingdom of God on earth.
Those that take issue with this policy fall into two groups: those that are legitimately concerned that women are not as valued as men by the Church and/or God himself, and those that think the church should meet the currently established standards for what is politically correct. It is sometimes difficult for me, as a male, to determine who falls into what category since the question that is asked by either group is "why can't women hold the priesthood?"
There are many people within and without the church that attempt to answer this question. I have heard those within the church say that because women are more spiritual, men need the priesthood to become spiritual, or some other well meaning but misguided piece of supposition. I have heard people without the church speculate about polygamy coming back or other equally ridiculous conspiracy theory.
For those in the group that are eager to criticize an organization that does not seem to be up to date with the current cultural acceptability, I would say "you're asking the wrong question."
For those with legitimate concerns that want to know the truth, I would also say "you're asking the wrong question," but there would be more sympathy in my voice. At least I would attempt to be less abrasive than I can sometimes seem.
Another criticized exclusion from Priesthood authority revolves around a practice that no longer even exists: the exclusion of males of African descent. People eagerly label Mormons as racists because of this practice, in spite of the fact that the abolitionist views of many members were among the reasons that the residents of Missouri in the early 1800's wanted Mormons exterminated. The policy was reversed in 1979. The extension of the priesthood to all worthy males regardless of race or color is canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants as Official Declaration 2 (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2?lang=eng).
Those that take issue with this former policy fall into two groups: those that are legitimately concerned that the policy existed and/or that the policy which was followed by leaders in the church changed, and those that think the church should meet the currently established standards for what is politically correct. The question asked by those in both categories is typically "why couldn't blacks hold the priesthood?"
There are numerous individuals within the church that have speculated on the purposes for excluding blacks from priesthood office, but the church's official statement exposes these explanations for what they are: speculation.
"The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine." (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/race-church)
For those in the group that are eager to criticize an organization that does not seem to be up to date with the current cultural acceptability, I would say "you're asking the wrong question."
For those with legitimate concerns that want to know the truth, I would also say "you're asking the wrong question," but again, there would be more sympathy in my voice.
Looking further back in time, it becomes apparent that restricting access to the Priesthood is not a recent practice in the church of Jesus Christ.
Jesus himself had an experience with a woman from Canaan:
"Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour." (Matthew 15:21-28)
Only after impressive poise, faith, and humility after Jesus had called her a dog did she obtain a special exception for the policy of the day.
King Saul decided to take action when Samuel, the authorized Priest of God did not come when he was expected. "And Saul said, Bring hither a burnt offering to me, and peace offerings. And he offered the burnt offering. And it came to pass, that as soon as he had made an end of offering the burnt offering, behold, Samuel came; and Saul went out to meet him, that he might salute him. And Samuel said, What hast thou done? And Saul said, Because I saw that the people were scattered from me, and that thou camest not within the days appointed, and that the Philistines gathered themselves together at Michmash; Therefore said I, The Philistines will come down now upon me to Gilgal, and I have not made supplication unto the Lord: I forced myself therefore, and offered a burnt offering. And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly: thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord thy God, which he commanded thee: for now would the Lord have established thy kingdom upon Israel for ever. But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the Lord hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the Lord hath commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that which the Lord commanded thee." (1 Samuel 13:9-14)
Saul acted as a priest and even though he was the King of God's chosen people, he was not of the correct tribe, and did not have authority to offer a sacrifice. God subsequently rejected him as king. This policy of exclusion went beyond non-African males, or even people of the House of Israel.
Going back further, in the days of Moses a man named Korah and several of his friends determined that Moses took too much upon himself to preside. As a consequence of their rebellion, God caused the earth to open up and swallow Korah and his followers. Subsequently, God prepared a demonstration to show the people who had Priesthood authority in the house of Israel. The princes of each tribe wrote their names on rods that they placed before the tabernacle. The next morning, Aaron's rod miraculously budded, blossomed, and brought forth almonds. This rod was kept in the Ark of the Covenant itself as a testimony against those who thought they could claim God's power. (Numbers 16-17)
Even further back, in the days of Israel himself, he and his elder brother Esau were the children of the patriarch Isaac. Although Abraham had more than one son, Isaac was the son promised him by God. (Genesis 17:15-16) This meant the priesthood could not be held by two brothers. Esau cared nothing for his birthright, and was willing to sell it for a mess of pottage. (Genesis 25:29-34) Eventually, when Isaac realized that he had bestowed his patriarchal blessing on Jacob instead of Esau, he would not take back what was done. (Genesis 27:37) Ultimately, it became clear that God had directed Jacob to receive the priesthood power when he extended the Abrahamic covenant to Jacob. (Genesis 28:13-15)
Passing the priesthood between a Father and only one of his Sons appears to have been the original method for accessing the priesthood. Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, Noah, and Shem seem to represent the ancient order of Priesthood patriarchs. (D&C 84:14-16) When two brothers of the same parents are not both eligible to receive the priesthood, it is difficult to imagine a system that is less exclusive.
With additional context, important patterns regarding the availability of God's power become visible. It was once extremely exclusive, and it has gradually moved toward a system of much greater inclusion over time. Additionally, these changes are not brought about because of the perceived needs or desires of people in any given time. Saul's acting as a priest was a sin, whereas in latter days, 16 year old boys can be authorized to bless the emblems of Christ's flesh and blood. Change came when God said it should come: not before, not after.
While there are contemporary pressures that can cause many to question why certain groups appear to be excluded, the context of history provides a vastly more important question: why is God calling so many more priests?
While he may be sensative to the changing needs of societies, God probably is not concerned with the modern standards of politcal correctness. If he were, then many of the standards of worthiness would have altered to be more inclusive of practices such as homosexuality. Also, he would not have started including all the sons of Aaron into priesthood offices, but would have continued with the system of passing authority from a father to one of his sons.
Knowing the exact reasons why certain groups have been excluded at various times is not likely to accomplish more than satisfy curiousity. If percieved inequality is the basis for judging whether God loves a particular individual or a type of individual, then knowing details for why some of his children seem to have so much more than others of his children may even do more harm than good. What some one else has or lacks has absoultely nothing to do with the fact that God loves you individually.
Understanding every reason for everything God does or has done is not likely to take place in a single lifetime. That having been stated, understanding some of the plans God will use to accomplish his goals can provide clarity and priority to revealed truth. God's plans for the last days are particularly important.
In the book of Daniel, God revealed to King Nebuchadnezzar that in the last days, "shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever." (Daniel 2:44)
Mormons are not unique in their assessment that humanity has entered the latter days. Jesus Christ promised that he would return. Prophets throughout the Bible have foretold that the messiah would reign, and that the earth would be changed such that even nature would exist in greater harmony than we currently understand. (Isaiah 11) The book of Revelation is filled with prophecies about the end of the latter days. John describes angels proclaiming "The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever." (Revelation 11:15)
With his goals and plans in mind, and with the context of an increasing number of priesthood holders throughout time, the importance of why a certain group seems excluded diminishes.
It does not matter why women are not called to be priesthood holders or why blacks have been generally called and accepted as priesthood holders for a relatively short period of time.
Speculating, distressing, or arguing about these details is like arguing about how Indiana Jones never actually went into the German submarine before it went to the secret Nazi base. And to keep with the theme, imagine the argument is taking place in a narrow tunnel, and a giant round stone is rolling down the tunnel toward the people arguing. Perhaps it would be smarter to stop worring about the details of a movie and get out of danger... (just a thought)
In the end, the boldest and most important truths of Mormonism regarding the priesthood are not about exclusion, they are about inclusion. Mormons claim that the priesthood found in their church is authority from Jesus Christ himself. Latter Day Saints claim that a resurrected John the Baptist who was resurrected restored the authority to baptise to the prophet Joseph Smith. We claim that the subsequent month, Peter, James, and John, the apostles that Jesus Christ personally chose, came and restored the high priesthood. All priesthood holders in the church trace a line of authority through this... and if these claims are true, then the power to baptise and to bless and to officiate is genuinely power given by Jesus Christ. And if it is the power of Jesus Christ, then he can pretty much distribute it to whoever he wants for whatever reason he wants... and he will never be wrong.
The claim about priesthood that is vital is that it is the authority to act in the name of God himself. God is calling more priests because he wants more people to have access to his power, whether that means baptism by an authorized baptist, or receiving a blessing of healing. Calling more priests means God may be anticipating more people needing help, and he is mercifully making that help a little closer.
Monday, July 9, 2012
Why Mormons Say Their Church Is 'True'
A friend of mine recently described his dislike of a practice among many Mormons: the practice of describing their church as 'true'. It seems an odd term for describing a church. It seems equally confusing for describing many other things. Can a stone be 'true'? Or perhaps it can only be 'true' if it is a literal stone and not a figurative one? The term can be confusing.
The most common time when hearing the affirmation "I know this church is true" in an LDS meeting is during a testimony. On the first Sunday of each month (with some exceptions for conferences or other special occasions), in place of calling upon members to speak (which can be its own problem), members of the congregation are invited to come to the pulpit and share a brief testimony of what they know to be true regarding the gospel of Jesus Christ. While there are people that do not follow this council, many people stand and declare that they know that Jesus is real, that Joseph Smith is a prophet, that the Book of Mormon is true, that God answers prayers, and a variety of other topics. Almost without exception, individuals include in their testimony that they 'know this church is true'.
The phrase is so often used that it seems more a cultural practice than a statement of actual testimony. In many cases, "I know this church is true" amounts to vain repetition. (see Matthew 6:7)
For those that do not operate under the assumptions that Jesus Christ is real and the Bible is correct, the concept can be even more confusing. This is probably due to the inclusion of the term "know." An agnostic or atheist would point out that knowledge when used by a Christian is not actual knowledge. A Mormon might mean that they have strong faith, or they have been convinced of the reality of something rather than actually knowing it.
This is not entirely inaccurate, but only when accepting that humanity is not capable of knowledge.
Even in a scientific sense, proof relies on trusting tangible sources of information. A secularist trusts the information they see, hear, touch, taste, or smell, and assume that their senses are giving them the truth. More complicated scientific evidence is generally accepted if the tools used in gathering the evidence are trusted. Even mathematical formulae are based fundamentally on assumptions. Trust is often placed in instruments and senses when experiments are able to be duplicated, although in truth, duplication can only be shown to be precise. Accuracy involves either knowing the truth, or showing respect to established assumptions.
With this understanding, a person cannot know that the earth is round. A person can however trust that satellites, airplanes, ships, explorers, and the evidence collected by them via measurements, photographs, logs, or other sources enough to be convinced that the earth is round.
For those that do not trust the Bible or spiritual sources of information, it is not likely that the rest of this post will be fulfilling. I do trust the Bible and prophets as sources of correct information. I can only emphasize that if these sources are correct, then the knowledge derived from these sources is more important than any other knowledge. They should be carefully and seriously considered by everyone.
For those that do trust the Bible and spiritual sources of information, the term true can still be confusing, particularly with its use among Mormons. Its use did not begin as vain repetition. In the introductory section of the Doctrine and Covenants, Jesus Christ declares "And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased..." (D&C 1:30)
This reveals an important implication of the term 'true'. It implies that other churches are not 'true'. While is is bold, and may even seem presumptuous, it is consistent with the origin of the church.
Before Joseph Smith became a prophet, he lived in an area and in a time of great religious revival. Different churches competed one with another for membership, and many people were concerned what church God would want them to join. Joseph searched the Holy Bible for answers when he came across a verse that represented the key to finding the truth. The verse is in James 1:5: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."
Joseph Smith went to a quiet grove of trees and prayed to God that he might know what church was right. Our Heavenly Father and his son Jesus Christ appeared in answer to his prayer. Joseph explains what Jesus said by saying "I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong" (JSH 1:19)
While this may seem harsh to call all other churches wrong in the age of modern political correctness, churches traditionally have been very exclusive. Protestants were not only excommunicated from the Catholic church, but in many cases were labeled heretics and killed. Protestants could be equally cruel in their treatment of others.
While the efforts of individuals to purify the religion of their fellow men are easily labeled as simplistic and barbaric today, these efforts were in some cases honest and based on a pattern laid by God himself. Consider the example of Korah in the Old Testament. He gathered several men of renown and peacefully came to Moses telling him he should share his power and not lift himself over the congregation of Israel. In modern times, this might have seemed a sensible and legitimate request, but God disagreed. He caused the earth to open up and swallow up these men and their families and their belongings. (Numbers 16)
Even in New Testament times, God recognized only those that legitimately had power given of him, not those that claimed it of themselves. Consider the story of the seven sons of Sceva who tried to emulate the Apostle Paul. Paul had cast out devils in the name of Jesus Christ. These sons of Sceva found a man possessed of an evil spirit and said "We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth." (Acts 19:13) The evil spirit was not compelled by them, and answered saying "Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?" (Acts 19:15) They were then stripped and beaten by the possessed man.
Jesus himself warned of false prophets. (Matthew 7:15, 24:11) Those that follow his true Apostles and prophets follow him. (Matthew 28:19-20)
This forms the basis for calling a church 'true'. The concept might more clearly be expressed. Instead of saying "I know this church is true," perhaps Mormons should say what they actually believe. We are saying that Jesus Christ himself leads the church. We are saying that his true priesthood is in the church. We are saying that his true prophets and apostles guide the church.
It is bold statement, but it should not be so strange to Christians. If Jesus Christ is real, and the Bible is true, would he be accepting of a conglomeration of bickering sects that doctrinally contradict one another? Or would it be as his Apostle Paul taught, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." (Ephesians 4:5) If a person believes that he is the way, the truth, and the life, would it not be prudent to find out what he wants and if he has a church? (John 14:6)
Ultimately, everyone ought to be on a quest to find the truth. Everyone ought to be searching for trustworthy sources of information. I truly believe that all truth will eventually lead to an accepting of Jesus Christ, and his true church.
The most common time when hearing the affirmation "I know this church is true" in an LDS meeting is during a testimony. On the first Sunday of each month (with some exceptions for conferences or other special occasions), in place of calling upon members to speak (which can be its own problem), members of the congregation are invited to come to the pulpit and share a brief testimony of what they know to be true regarding the gospel of Jesus Christ. While there are people that do not follow this council, many people stand and declare that they know that Jesus is real, that Joseph Smith is a prophet, that the Book of Mormon is true, that God answers prayers, and a variety of other topics. Almost without exception, individuals include in their testimony that they 'know this church is true'.
The phrase is so often used that it seems more a cultural practice than a statement of actual testimony. In many cases, "I know this church is true" amounts to vain repetition. (see Matthew 6:7)
For those that do not operate under the assumptions that Jesus Christ is real and the Bible is correct, the concept can be even more confusing. This is probably due to the inclusion of the term "know." An agnostic or atheist would point out that knowledge when used by a Christian is not actual knowledge. A Mormon might mean that they have strong faith, or they have been convinced of the reality of something rather than actually knowing it.
This is not entirely inaccurate, but only when accepting that humanity is not capable of knowledge.
Even in a scientific sense, proof relies on trusting tangible sources of information. A secularist trusts the information they see, hear, touch, taste, or smell, and assume that their senses are giving them the truth. More complicated scientific evidence is generally accepted if the tools used in gathering the evidence are trusted. Even mathematical formulae are based fundamentally on assumptions. Trust is often placed in instruments and senses when experiments are able to be duplicated, although in truth, duplication can only be shown to be precise. Accuracy involves either knowing the truth, or showing respect to established assumptions.
With this understanding, a person cannot know that the earth is round. A person can however trust that satellites, airplanes, ships, explorers, and the evidence collected by them via measurements, photographs, logs, or other sources enough to be convinced that the earth is round.
For those that do not trust the Bible or spiritual sources of information, it is not likely that the rest of this post will be fulfilling. I do trust the Bible and prophets as sources of correct information. I can only emphasize that if these sources are correct, then the knowledge derived from these sources is more important than any other knowledge. They should be carefully and seriously considered by everyone.
For those that do trust the Bible and spiritual sources of information, the term true can still be confusing, particularly with its use among Mormons. Its use did not begin as vain repetition. In the introductory section of the Doctrine and Covenants, Jesus Christ declares "And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased..." (D&C 1:30)
This reveals an important implication of the term 'true'. It implies that other churches are not 'true'. While is is bold, and may even seem presumptuous, it is consistent with the origin of the church.
Before Joseph Smith became a prophet, he lived in an area and in a time of great religious revival. Different churches competed one with another for membership, and many people were concerned what church God would want them to join. Joseph searched the Holy Bible for answers when he came across a verse that represented the key to finding the truth. The verse is in James 1:5: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."
Joseph Smith went to a quiet grove of trees and prayed to God that he might know what church was right. Our Heavenly Father and his son Jesus Christ appeared in answer to his prayer. Joseph explains what Jesus said by saying "I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong" (JSH 1:19)
While this may seem harsh to call all other churches wrong in the age of modern political correctness, churches traditionally have been very exclusive. Protestants were not only excommunicated from the Catholic church, but in many cases were labeled heretics and killed. Protestants could be equally cruel in their treatment of others.
While the efforts of individuals to purify the religion of their fellow men are easily labeled as simplistic and barbaric today, these efforts were in some cases honest and based on a pattern laid by God himself. Consider the example of Korah in the Old Testament. He gathered several men of renown and peacefully came to Moses telling him he should share his power and not lift himself over the congregation of Israel. In modern times, this might have seemed a sensible and legitimate request, but God disagreed. He caused the earth to open up and swallow up these men and their families and their belongings. (Numbers 16)
Even in New Testament times, God recognized only those that legitimately had power given of him, not those that claimed it of themselves. Consider the story of the seven sons of Sceva who tried to emulate the Apostle Paul. Paul had cast out devils in the name of Jesus Christ. These sons of Sceva found a man possessed of an evil spirit and said "We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth." (Acts 19:13) The evil spirit was not compelled by them, and answered saying "Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?" (Acts 19:15) They were then stripped and beaten by the possessed man.
Jesus himself warned of false prophets. (Matthew 7:15, 24:11) Those that follow his true Apostles and prophets follow him. (Matthew 28:19-20)
This forms the basis for calling a church 'true'. The concept might more clearly be expressed. Instead of saying "I know this church is true," perhaps Mormons should say what they actually believe. We are saying that Jesus Christ himself leads the church. We are saying that his true priesthood is in the church. We are saying that his true prophets and apostles guide the church.
It is bold statement, but it should not be so strange to Christians. If Jesus Christ is real, and the Bible is true, would he be accepting of a conglomeration of bickering sects that doctrinally contradict one another? Or would it be as his Apostle Paul taught, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." (Ephesians 4:5) If a person believes that he is the way, the truth, and the life, would it not be prudent to find out what he wants and if he has a church? (John 14:6)
Ultimately, everyone ought to be on a quest to find the truth. Everyone ought to be searching for trustworthy sources of information. I truly believe that all truth will eventually lead to an accepting of Jesus Christ, and his true church.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)