Miracles seem to be found throughout the scriptures. Who can forget the stories of the Red Sea dividing, or fire falling from heaven on Elijah's sacrifice? The healing of Naaman the Syrian and manna that fed the Israelites are also miraculous.
The New Testament is also filled with miracles, particularly those performed by Christ himself. He healed the blind, the deaf, the lame, and even brought the dead back to life.
The Book of Mormon also contains accounts of miracles. The Liahona that appeared seemingly from nowhere guided Lehi's family to the land of promise. The escape of Alma and those that had followed him from bondage only came when their captors miraculously slept soundly one day. The 2000 young warriors fighting under Helaman helped obtain victory without losing the lives of even one among them. Of course, Christ himself came and performed miracles as he had during his mortal life in Judea.
Mormons in theory believe that miracles still occur. In fact the Book of Mormon rhetorically denounces those that claim otherwise by asking "has the day of miracles ceased? Or have angels ceased to appear unto the children of men? Or has he withheld the power of the Holy Ghost from them? Or will he, so long as time shall last, or the earth shall stand, or there shall be one man upon the face thereof to be saved? Behold I say unto you, Nay; for it is by faith that miracles are wrought; and it is by faith that angels appear and minister unto men; wherefore, if these things have ceased wo be unto the children of men, for it is because of unbelief, and all is vain." (Moroni 7:35)
In practice however, there seems to be a trend of devaluing miracles. In a class I recently attended, there were a number of participants that commented to the effect of declaring that miracles are unimportant.
This is not limited to simply a recent class, I recall hearing many people over the past fifteen years within the Mormon church declare that because spiritual witnesses are superior to the witnessing of miraculous happenings, miracles are nice but unimportant.
It is true that spiritual evidence is of vital importance to Christianity. It is also true that many people who witnessed amazing miracles seemed unconvinced of the truths of the gospel or the teachings of God's prophets. Some of the same children of Israel that walked across the Red Sea on dry ground were found a short time later worshipping a golden calf. The same Kingdom that saw fire fall on Elijah's sacrifice and proclaimed "The LORD, he is the God!" did not take down the idols that were put up by Jeroboam the son of Nebat. In the Book of Mormon, Laman and Lemuel who were directly told by an angel that they were to return to Jerusalem and obtain the brass plates immediately doubted that they could prevail against Laban.
Given such examples, it is not difficult to understand why Mormons would put a low priority on miraculous happenings.
However understandable the conclusion may be, it is totally incorrect.
If miracles were so ineffective and never made any significant difference, then why are there so many examples of them recorded throughout the scriptures? Why would Jesus have spent so much time doing things that cannot yield permanent results?
The truth is that miracles can have a profound impact. Miracles show that God has power to do things that no one else can. Miracles fuel the hope that in the end, God really will make everything right.
Belittling miracles is belittling the power of God himself. His acts of power and mercy ought not be marginalized by those that have not seen or recognized miracles ought not assume they are unimportant.
While he may not perform miracles at the whim of every person that wishes to see one, or their purpose may not be to prove himself to those that doubt him, it is wrong to think that they are unimportant. It is also incorrect to believe they have ceased. He is capable of doing great things, and he does them regularly even if they are not always visible to everyone.
In the end, God's miracles will be visible to all. When he comes again, he will remove every disease and infirmity; he will heal every wound and take away every pain. All those that have died will live again. All those that have suffered will find relief. For his greatest miracle, he will save us all... and that is no small feat...
Monday, July 30, 2012
Monday, July 23, 2012
When God approves of stealing, kidnapping, and killing...
Recently and tragically, a man named James Holmes opened fire in a crowded theater during the premiere of the movie "Dark Night Rises." 12 individuals were killed, and 58 others were injured. (Foxnews)
Reaction to this news has been relatively similar among people I know: shock, horror, and the lingering question of what could drive a person to do this. Everyone to whom I have spoken believes that this was a grossly immoral act. Many people believe that officials would be right to seek the death penalty in this instance, but others are opposed to this, believing that more killing cannot bring good.
For some, events such as these are faith-shaking. If God is loving, if he is real, and if he is as powerful as believers claim, then how could such a tragedy be allowed to happen?
There are people that use these events as evidence to support a conclusion that any one of these things is untrue of God.
Those among the Westboro Baptist Church crowd have already posted a video (that I have admittedly not watched) entitled "God Sent The Shooter...Again!" For people in this group, God is real and powerful, but not loving.
There are those in atheist groups who believe this is evidence that God is not real.
There are those in groups of believers that will conclude that God is not powerful enough to stop this under the guise of "God has to let people make their own choices." For these people, God is real and loving, but he is apparently unable to stop people that make these tragic choices.
The truth is that all three of these attributes is true of God. He is real - and he is aware of the events that transpire in every theater and city. He is loving - he sacrificed his only begotten son to spare us pain. He has power to prevent and to stop acts of violence or other tragedies - he knows the past, present and future, and he could have made James Holmes have a fatal heart attack prior to him carrying out his awful plan.
For many people of faith, some of the most important truths that require reconciliation are the reality of tragedy and the omniscience and omnipotence of God.
If we operate under the assumption that God is real, all-knowing, and all-powerful, then tragedies force the conclusion that God's goal is not the prevention of tragedy, and that tragedy is not able to prevent his goals from being realized. The real question then becomes 'what does God want?'
This question must be handled delicately. Simply because something has occurred does not necessarily mean that God wanted it to occur in that way. Failure to remember that leads down the path of the Westboro Baptist crowd where the question of 'what does God want?' seems to be answered by 'tragedy.'
God does not want tragedy to befall men, and the life of Jesus Christ himself provides abundant evidence of this:
If God does not want us to suffer tragedy, surely he has provided some mechanism to protect against crime and nurture those in need. A careful examination will reveal several methods:
Reaction to this news has been relatively similar among people I know: shock, horror, and the lingering question of what could drive a person to do this. Everyone to whom I have spoken believes that this was a grossly immoral act. Many people believe that officials would be right to seek the death penalty in this instance, but others are opposed to this, believing that more killing cannot bring good.
For some, events such as these are faith-shaking. If God is loving, if he is real, and if he is as powerful as believers claim, then how could such a tragedy be allowed to happen?
There are people that use these events as evidence to support a conclusion that any one of these things is untrue of God.
Those among the Westboro Baptist Church crowd have already posted a video (that I have admittedly not watched) entitled "God Sent The Shooter...Again!" For people in this group, God is real and powerful, but not loving.
There are those in atheist groups who believe this is evidence that God is not real.
There are those in groups of believers that will conclude that God is not powerful enough to stop this under the guise of "God has to let people make their own choices." For these people, God is real and loving, but he is apparently unable to stop people that make these tragic choices.
The truth is that all three of these attributes is true of God. He is real - and he is aware of the events that transpire in every theater and city. He is loving - he sacrificed his only begotten son to spare us pain. He has power to prevent and to stop acts of violence or other tragedies - he knows the past, present and future, and he could have made James Holmes have a fatal heart attack prior to him carrying out his awful plan.
For many people of faith, some of the most important truths that require reconciliation are the reality of tragedy and the omniscience and omnipotence of God.
If we operate under the assumption that God is real, all-knowing, and all-powerful, then tragedies force the conclusion that God's goal is not the prevention of tragedy, and that tragedy is not able to prevent his goals from being realized. The real question then becomes 'what does God want?'
This question must be handled delicately. Simply because something has occurred does not necessarily mean that God wanted it to occur in that way. Failure to remember that leads down the path of the Westboro Baptist crowd where the question of 'what does God want?' seems to be answered by 'tragedy.'
God does not want tragedy to befall men, and the life of Jesus Christ himself provides abundant evidence of this:
- Worried about the hunger of those that had come to hear him teach, he fed 5000 people using his power. (Matthew 14:15-21)
- Sympathetic to a lame man who had no one to help him into the pool of Bethesda, the words of Christ gave him the power to walk (John 5:5-9)
- Compassionate to a pair of blind men, Jesus touched their eyes, restoring their sight (Matthew 9:27-31)
- With emotion, Christ raised Lazarus even though he had been dead for days (John 11)
If God does not want us to suffer tragedy, surely he has provided some mechanism to protect against crime and nurture those in need. A careful examination will reveal several methods:
- Families: The fundamental unit of society is designed to nurture and provide for people. Every human being at one point was a child. When born, humans are incapable of communication except to cry when something seems amiss. Babies are not able to move on their own, or even hold up their heads properly. In spite of the weaknesses of young children, there are no fiercer defenders, providers, or instructors than loving parents. When tragedy strikes, a child has a right to a mother and father that will loyally assist them to the limits of their abilities. (http://www.lds.org/family/proclamation/) While the assistance of family should not be limited to young children, the importance of family influence is most obvious in these cases.
- The State: God approves of governmental concepts (not necessarily specific governments). (D&C 134:1) Governments have the power to help defend citizens, and to prosecute the commission of crimes. Guilty individuals can and should suffer the consequences of justice according to the law. The state is treated differently than an individual in God's eyes. In other words, there are cases when God approves of stealing, kidnapping, and killing.
- While it is wrong for an individual to seize property from another, a government in honestly striving to uphold justice may take property. It is common sense to attempt to take from a thief what was stolen and to restore it to its proper owner. For an individual it is stealing; for a government, it might be tax or lawful seizure.
- While it is wrong for an individual to take a person against their will and imprison them, A society appropriately puts those guilty of several types of crimes in prisons and removes their liberties. For an individual, it is kidnapping; for a government, it is imprisonment.
- While it is wrong for an individual to kill another except in self defense, a society is able to take convicts and execute them. This is not the same as a mob, such as the French Revolutionary government that sent people to the guillotine in droves for being aristocrats. This is a government that is preventing a person that is not capable of being rehabilitated from inflicting any further harm. Life-long imprisonment for such individuals cannot guarantee against escape, and does little to prohibit the influence of such toxic persons from affecting inmates that are eligible for rehabilitation and will be returned to society. A person guilty of murder or child abuse is an example of someone that can never be trusted or rehabilitated, even if God may forgive them in the next life. For an individual, it is murder; for a government, it is capital punishment.
- The Church: The State cannot make people good, it can only defend against crimes of commission. Suffering from tragedies may require generosity and kindness, for which there can be no legislation made. No one should expect to stand before God and expect entrance to his kingdom in exchange for the many government programs that were funded using paycheck deductions. This is not charity. Churches and charitable organizations provide real mechanisms of organization for doing good. The generous giving of alms, the provision of service for those in need, the hand of fellowship and brotherhood: these are ideals that are almost universally promoted by all churches. The persuasion to do good can and should come from the conscience-stirring influences found in places of worship.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Keep hands, feet, and personal experiences to yourself!
While many people fear public speaking, there is one huge advantage over a more interactive teaching approach: the public speaker controls every word. A person giving a talk or a speech never has to worry about someone raising their hand in the congregation and interjecting unpredictable content.
In Mormon worship services, the first hour is devoted to the observance of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and to the presentation of public speakers on various religious subjects. The subsequent hours feature a more interactive style of instruction where teachers present material, and frequently invite class members to answer questions or offer comments and insight to complement the main subjects. While this method can provide value to what might otherwise be a monotonous lecture, there is a risk in audience participation.
There are various offenses that occur when class members contribute:
1. The stupid question - There are some who believe there is no such thing as a stupid question. They are wrong. The off topic question may only be a distraction, but it can be much worse. An instructor teaching about faith is not likely to be able to assist a class member decipher the mysteries of facsimile number 2.
2. Deep doctrine diving - Maybe Adam and Eve had belly buttons. Maybe women will have hairy legs in heaven. Maybe the class member that brings up subjects like these should have kept their mouth shut.
3. Redundant, repetitious statements that have already been said - Faith is important, but everyone understood that the first time it was mentioned. It is OK to say 'never mind' if you had your hand raised and someone else gave your answer.
4. The Filibuster - It is not always easy to be concise, but the class member that takes ten minutes to get to a point can probably shorten their comment. There may be on the rare occasion a person that is able to present a complicated and well-thought out point that takes some time to explain properly... but when class members are actively comparing their Angry Birds scores on their phones, take a hint and wrap it up.
5. What the? I Don't Even - Albuquerque; snorkel; lasers; tofu; steam rollers; concrete; purple; Sherlock Holmes. See? I can do it too!
As bad as all of these things are, perhaps the most annoying crime against humanity that occurs in the classroom is:
6. The personal experience - Perhaps somewhere in the personal experience, there may be a nugget of worth. Finding it can be similar to finding the good chunk of meat in a slab that is crawling with maggots. They are always filled with completely unnecessary details. Here is an example of a hypothetical personal experience that represents the typical (perhaps slightly exaggerated) recitation with commentary in parenthesis:
So I actually have an experience with sharing the gospel. (Please be short, please be short)
There's this guy I met who is actually from Minnesota... (Hold the phone!!! Minnesota!?! I'm sure that is pertinent to sharing the gospel.)
...and he came here to go to school... (Perhaps you could also tell us about his application process. What were his SAT scores? How does the cost of tuition and living compare to those found in Minnesota?)
...and he's actually going to the University of Utah... (Yes, but where does he park his car? I'm not sure I have enough details here.)
He's majoring in liberal arts... (Because major affects his eligibility for salvation apparently...)
...and he's really athletic, you know kind of a jock type? Ha ha ha ha! (I'm sorry, was that supposed to be funny?)
So I started talking to him about two weeks ago. Well actually it was more like two and a half weeks. Well, two weeks and three days... (I'm not sure I can appreciate this personal experience unless you tell me what time it was.)
Yeah, we work at the same place doing sales. So he's really outgoing like me! (Is he really outgoing? We don't really know unless you give us his the results of his personality test, his horoscope, and the last three messages he had in his fortune cookies...)
So anyways, he saw me being all righteous, you know... not drinking Dr. Pepper... and he was like, "I want to be like you man, you're always so happy!" (Yeah... who wouldn't want to be like you?)
So I didn't really think about it for a while, but a few days later I was eating lunch and I ran into him. I was like "Hey what's up?" Then we started talking about the weather and his school... (I wonder if there's something more enlightening on Facebook. Good thing I have a smart phone!)
And we were talking about how hard it is to go to school and work, and I told him about one way I deal with stress... you know... drinking Coke and listening to Godsmack or actually hip hop, which is my favorite... (That is a great tweet! I'm glad I follow Adam Baldwin on Twitter...)
But the other thing I do to deal with stress is to read the Ensign magazine... because the prophets give me comfort and peace. I don't mean they make me fall asleep though... Ha ha ha ha ha!! (Unlike your personal experience... I really wish I had a pillow...)
And anyway, it was a good talk, and I felt like I was being a good example to him, and I followed the promptings I received. (Please be wrapping up, please be wrapping up)
So I haven't talked to him since, so I don't know what he thought about it. So anyway, I'm still trying to do missionary work by my example... (So the story has almost no point? Well at least he's done now...)
And so that's an important lesson I learned. I learned that even in Utah County there are still people that need to learn about the Savior. I learned that we can be examples everywhere we go. I learned that... (Are you seriously still going on!?!?! Unbelievable!!!)
...you've got to have that faith and that example. You've got to have that spirit of missionary work. You can't be afraid to open your mouth... (I really wish you would shut your mouth.)
You can make a difference, because you never know when you'll meet someone from Minnesota who needs to hear the gospel. (As opposed to people from other states who I guess are OK?)
So anyway, I'll keep working with him, and who knows? Ha ha ha ha! (.............)
All hyperboles aside, it may actually be possible to share a personal experience in a manner that is concise, appropriate, and positive. This takes a degree of skill that few have achieved. For the vast majority of class members, the following tips can help prevent you from ruining a lesson:
1. Be concise - Unless you have an accent or otherwise entertaining voice, most people probably do not want to hear the sound of you talking.
2. Stay on topic - Details that you think are important such as schools, occupations, hobbies, carpet colors... they aren't actually important. Reinforcing universal general principals closely associated with the lesson topic should be the goal of all participants.
3. Think before you speak - In class, look to your left and right. Realize that there are people there. Would they be enlightened, uplifted, or edified by what you're thinking of saying? Does your comment or question provoke thought, provide clarity, or enhance context? Consider keeping your hand down and your mouth shut if in doubt. (Proverbs 17:28)
In Mormon worship services, the first hour is devoted to the observance of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and to the presentation of public speakers on various religious subjects. The subsequent hours feature a more interactive style of instruction where teachers present material, and frequently invite class members to answer questions or offer comments and insight to complement the main subjects. While this method can provide value to what might otherwise be a monotonous lecture, there is a risk in audience participation.
There are various offenses that occur when class members contribute:
1. The stupid question - There are some who believe there is no such thing as a stupid question. They are wrong. The off topic question may only be a distraction, but it can be much worse. An instructor teaching about faith is not likely to be able to assist a class member decipher the mysteries of facsimile number 2.
2. Deep doctrine diving - Maybe Adam and Eve had belly buttons. Maybe women will have hairy legs in heaven. Maybe the class member that brings up subjects like these should have kept their mouth shut.
3. Redundant, repetitious statements that have already been said - Faith is important, but everyone understood that the first time it was mentioned. It is OK to say 'never mind' if you had your hand raised and someone else gave your answer.
4. The Filibuster - It is not always easy to be concise, but the class member that takes ten minutes to get to a point can probably shorten their comment. There may be on the rare occasion a person that is able to present a complicated and well-thought out point that takes some time to explain properly... but when class members are actively comparing their Angry Birds scores on their phones, take a hint and wrap it up.
5. What the? I Don't Even - Albuquerque; snorkel; lasers; tofu; steam rollers; concrete; purple; Sherlock Holmes. See? I can do it too!
As bad as all of these things are, perhaps the most annoying crime against humanity that occurs in the classroom is:
6. The personal experience - Perhaps somewhere in the personal experience, there may be a nugget of worth. Finding it can be similar to finding the good chunk of meat in a slab that is crawling with maggots. They are always filled with completely unnecessary details. Here is an example of a hypothetical personal experience that represents the typical (perhaps slightly exaggerated) recitation with commentary in parenthesis:
So I actually have an experience with sharing the gospel. (Please be short, please be short)
There's this guy I met who is actually from Minnesota... (Hold the phone!!! Minnesota!?! I'm sure that is pertinent to sharing the gospel.)
...and he came here to go to school... (Perhaps you could also tell us about his application process. What were his SAT scores? How does the cost of tuition and living compare to those found in Minnesota?)
...and he's actually going to the University of Utah... (Yes, but where does he park his car? I'm not sure I have enough details here.)
He's majoring in liberal arts... (Because major affects his eligibility for salvation apparently...)
...and he's really athletic, you know kind of a jock type? Ha ha ha ha! (I'm sorry, was that supposed to be funny?)
So I started talking to him about two weeks ago. Well actually it was more like two and a half weeks. Well, two weeks and three days... (I'm not sure I can appreciate this personal experience unless you tell me what time it was.)
Yeah, we work at the same place doing sales. So he's really outgoing like me! (Is he really outgoing? We don't really know unless you give us his the results of his personality test, his horoscope, and the last three messages he had in his fortune cookies...)
So anyways, he saw me being all righteous, you know... not drinking Dr. Pepper... and he was like, "I want to be like you man, you're always so happy!" (Yeah... who wouldn't want to be like you?)
So I didn't really think about it for a while, but a few days later I was eating lunch and I ran into him. I was like "Hey what's up?" Then we started talking about the weather and his school... (I wonder if there's something more enlightening on Facebook. Good thing I have a smart phone!)
And we were talking about how hard it is to go to school and work, and I told him about one way I deal with stress... you know... drinking Coke and listening to Godsmack or actually hip hop, which is my favorite... (That is a great tweet! I'm glad I follow Adam Baldwin on Twitter...)
But the other thing I do to deal with stress is to read the Ensign magazine... because the prophets give me comfort and peace. I don't mean they make me fall asleep though... Ha ha ha ha ha!! (Unlike your personal experience... I really wish I had a pillow...)
And anyway, it was a good talk, and I felt like I was being a good example to him, and I followed the promptings I received. (Please be wrapping up, please be wrapping up)
So I haven't talked to him since, so I don't know what he thought about it. So anyway, I'm still trying to do missionary work by my example... (So the story has almost no point? Well at least he's done now...)
And so that's an important lesson I learned. I learned that even in Utah County there are still people that need to learn about the Savior. I learned that we can be examples everywhere we go. I learned that... (Are you seriously still going on!?!?! Unbelievable!!!)
...you've got to have that faith and that example. You've got to have that spirit of missionary work. You can't be afraid to open your mouth... (I really wish you would shut your mouth.)
You can make a difference, because you never know when you'll meet someone from Minnesota who needs to hear the gospel. (As opposed to people from other states who I guess are OK?)
So anyway, I'll keep working with him, and who knows? Ha ha ha ha! (.............)
All hyperboles aside, it may actually be possible to share a personal experience in a manner that is concise, appropriate, and positive. This takes a degree of skill that few have achieved. For the vast majority of class members, the following tips can help prevent you from ruining a lesson:
1. Be concise - Unless you have an accent or otherwise entertaining voice, most people probably do not want to hear the sound of you talking.
2. Stay on topic - Details that you think are important such as schools, occupations, hobbies, carpet colors... they aren't actually important. Reinforcing universal general principals closely associated with the lesson topic should be the goal of all participants.
3. Think before you speak - In class, look to your left and right. Realize that there are people there. Would they be enlightened, uplifted, or edified by what you're thinking of saying? Does your comment or question provoke thought, provide clarity, or enhance context? Consider keeping your hand down and your mouth shut if in doubt. (Proverbs 17:28)
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)