<Satire>
Tom, an attendee of the Second Non-Denominational Church, took to social media this past Sunday to attack Stephen, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, accusing him of worshiping Joseph Smith.
"You aren't even Christian!" accused Tom. "Your religion was started by Joseph Smith in the 1800's, not God!"
"Joseph Smith taught that mankind can only be saved through the atonement of Christ," replied Stephen. "The most defining events of Joseph Smith's life are shaped by revelations and commandments that he received from Jesus Christ."
"You're so blinded by your devotion to Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon that you've missed the point of the Bible!" retorted Tom. "Have you even read Romans? Corinthians? Galatians? Ephesians? How we are saved by grace, and not by works?"
"Yes," replied Stephen. "And I believe that."
"You say you do... but Joseph Smith got started reading in the book of James!" said Tom. "That's what your own missionaries teach!"
"... James is in the Bible too..." said Stephen.
"Of course a Mormon would say that!" said Tom. "Paul didn't write that, so it's not really cannon! And don't even get me started on the Old Testament!"
"Wait... not cannon?... they're legitimately in the Bible..." said Stephen. "I thought you believed it was the infallible word of God..."
"What Paul wrote is the word of God..." explained Tom. "I ripped the other bits out of my Bible."
"So... do you accept the Gospels?" asked Stephen.
"They give some context to help understand Paul," said Tom. "He's the one who was transformed on the road to Damascus."
"Yeah... by Jesus..." said Stephen.
"Agree to disagree..." said Tom. "And don't tell me what I believe! I'm just saying that if you don't accept our Lord and Savior Paul, you can't be saved."
"You realize Paul spent his life preaching Jesus?" asked Stephen.
"Idiot Mormons... first Joseph Smith, now Jesus!" said Tom. "You people are beyond saving!"
After the encounter Tom explained that he planned to return to worshiping Paul, and not a man like Mormons worship.
</Satire>
Showing posts with label #Joseph Smith. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #Joseph Smith. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 12, 2019
Monday, October 1, 2012
The Armor of God
I recall participating in an annual religious activity that was intended for high school students during spring break. The activity always spanned several days and would include a variety of activities, dances, and speakers. Called Youth Conference, this type of activity is not church-wide, but it or something like it was available to high school aged youth in many different places in the United States.
To keep the attention of youth, people employed a variety of techniques to try and communicate the spiritual importance of the theme for a particular year. One year, the theme was "Put on the whole armor of God," based on the passage in Ephesians 6 in the New Testament:
"Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" (Ephesians 6:11-17)
Unfortunately, that particular year, everyone had almost the same idea, which was to create homemade armor and put it piece by piece on a volunteer describing how to better implement a certain idea such as the breastplate of righteousness or shield of faith. There was also a video made by the church for seminary students that depicted the same basic concept, in which the conclusion portrayed a young man leaving for missionary service in an airport clad in armor. We wondered how he had made it though airport security even then, which was before the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the additional screening measures we see today.
While there were efforts made to get people to think about spiritual defense in different ways, ultimately, the ecclesiastical messages shared mostly focused on the metaphorical concept that correct choices protect individuals from the negative consequences that follow sinful behavior.
That message was probably the most appropriate message for the majority of teenagers that attended Youth Conference, since many of the teenagers were primarily there to flirt with one another; any spiritual information that was even accidentally absorbed represented an accomplishment of the instructors and counselors. While I too had social ambitions in participating, I found the repetitive "spiritual dress-up" to be tedious and shallow.
Since then, I have thought about how much emphasis is put on the metaphorical armor or metaphorical shield, or metaphorical fiery darts of the wicked. In fact, there seems to be an abundance of metaphorical content with respect to spiritual matters. Of course, much if it is correctly portrayed as symbolic such as the allegory of the olive trees in the Book of Mormon (Jacob 5) or the comparison of faith in the word of God to the nourishment of a seed (Alma 32). Christ himself taught many things metaphorically, explaining that he had "living water" (John 4) and that he was the"bread of life". (John 6)
The problem comes in when the literal aspects of spirituality are lost. I have heard people claim that Jesus was resurrected only "spiritually." I have heard people explain away powerful miracles such as the dividing of the Red Sea as a symbolic delivery from Egypt, or Noah's ark and the flood as a symbolic escape from wickedness. There are those who so love metaphors that they see them in things that are meant to be taken literally.
The Armor of God certainly has metaphorical elements. Righteousness can act as a breastplate, sparing the heart from the pain that accompanies wickedness. Faith can act as a shield, helping those that exercise it to overcome trials that they might not otherwise be able to overcome. It seems obvious that the Apostle Paul spoke symbolically when he taught the Armor of God concept.
While symbolism can be rich and powerful, I believe the greatest strength in spirituality is not based on metaphysical concepts or psychological strength, but in literal power. While the metaphorical Armor of God can provide protection, there is in my opinion to little emphasis placed on the literal Armor of God.
The fact that there is a literal Armor of God may conjure up images of other relics of divine importance, such as the Ark of the Covenant, the brazen serpent, or even the Holy Grail. The literal Armor of God is not composed of a helmet, a breastplate, a shield, a sword, leggings and boots. There is a powerful example showing its power that comes from the story of the restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ.
A fourteen year old boy named Joseph Smith was conflicted in determining what church truly represented God's kingdom, as each of them in his area claimed to be exclusively correct, and condemned the others. Wanting to ensure he was following God, he retired to a secluded grove of trees near his home and prayed to God. His account of the end result of this prayer is well known to members of the Mormon church, but there is an element that is frequently dismissed. In his own words, Joseph Smith said:
"After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction. But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being" (Joseph Smith History 1:15-16)
Many people, even in the Mormon faith, tend to describe Satan as a concept rather than a person. The devil is taught as a metaphor to describe "the natural man" or "human nature" or perhaps wickedness in general. The apostle Paul did not describe him that way in the original passage in Ephesians, but described the "wiles" of the devil, and his attacks as fiery darts. Joseph Smith was quite clear that the force that attacked him was not a concept, it was "the power of some actual being from the unseen world..."
Convinced that death was about to come, at that moment, he was suddenly saved:
"...just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me. It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!" (Joseph Smith History 1:16-17)
To keep the attention of youth, people employed a variety of techniques to try and communicate the spiritual importance of the theme for a particular year. One year, the theme was "Put on the whole armor of God," based on the passage in Ephesians 6 in the New Testament:
"Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" (Ephesians 6:11-17)
Unfortunately, that particular year, everyone had almost the same idea, which was to create homemade armor and put it piece by piece on a volunteer describing how to better implement a certain idea such as the breastplate of righteousness or shield of faith. There was also a video made by the church for seminary students that depicted the same basic concept, in which the conclusion portrayed a young man leaving for missionary service in an airport clad in armor. We wondered how he had made it though airport security even then, which was before the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the additional screening measures we see today.
While there were efforts made to get people to think about spiritual defense in different ways, ultimately, the ecclesiastical messages shared mostly focused on the metaphorical concept that correct choices protect individuals from the negative consequences that follow sinful behavior.
That message was probably the most appropriate message for the majority of teenagers that attended Youth Conference, since many of the teenagers were primarily there to flirt with one another; any spiritual information that was even accidentally absorbed represented an accomplishment of the instructors and counselors. While I too had social ambitions in participating, I found the repetitive "spiritual dress-up" to be tedious and shallow.
Since then, I have thought about how much emphasis is put on the metaphorical armor or metaphorical shield, or metaphorical fiery darts of the wicked. In fact, there seems to be an abundance of metaphorical content with respect to spiritual matters. Of course, much if it is correctly portrayed as symbolic such as the allegory of the olive trees in the Book of Mormon (Jacob 5) or the comparison of faith in the word of God to the nourishment of a seed (Alma 32). Christ himself taught many things metaphorically, explaining that he had "living water" (John 4) and that he was the"bread of life". (John 6)
The problem comes in when the literal aspects of spirituality are lost. I have heard people claim that Jesus was resurrected only "spiritually." I have heard people explain away powerful miracles such as the dividing of the Red Sea as a symbolic delivery from Egypt, or Noah's ark and the flood as a symbolic escape from wickedness. There are those who so love metaphors that they see them in things that are meant to be taken literally.
The Armor of God certainly has metaphorical elements. Righteousness can act as a breastplate, sparing the heart from the pain that accompanies wickedness. Faith can act as a shield, helping those that exercise it to overcome trials that they might not otherwise be able to overcome. It seems obvious that the Apostle Paul spoke symbolically when he taught the Armor of God concept.
While symbolism can be rich and powerful, I believe the greatest strength in spirituality is not based on metaphysical concepts or psychological strength, but in literal power. While the metaphorical Armor of God can provide protection, there is in my opinion to little emphasis placed on the literal Armor of God.
The fact that there is a literal Armor of God may conjure up images of other relics of divine importance, such as the Ark of the Covenant, the brazen serpent, or even the Holy Grail. The literal Armor of God is not composed of a helmet, a breastplate, a shield, a sword, leggings and boots. There is a powerful example showing its power that comes from the story of the restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ.
A fourteen year old boy named Joseph Smith was conflicted in determining what church truly represented God's kingdom, as each of them in his area claimed to be exclusively correct, and condemned the others. Wanting to ensure he was following God, he retired to a secluded grove of trees near his home and prayed to God. His account of the end result of this prayer is well known to members of the Mormon church, but there is an element that is frequently dismissed. In his own words, Joseph Smith said:
"After I had retired to the place where I had previously designed to go, having looked around me, and finding myself alone, I kneeled down and began to offer up the desires of my heart to God. I had scarcely done so, when immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction. But, exerting all my powers to call upon God to deliver me out of the power of this enemy which had seized upon me, and at the very moment when I was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction—not to an imaginary ruin, but to the power of some actual being from the unseen world, who had such marvelous power as I had never before felt in any being" (Joseph Smith History 1:15-16)
Many people, even in the Mormon faith, tend to describe Satan as a concept rather than a person. The devil is taught as a metaphor to describe "the natural man" or "human nature" or perhaps wickedness in general. The apostle Paul did not describe him that way in the original passage in Ephesians, but described the "wiles" of the devil, and his attacks as fiery darts. Joseph Smith was quite clear that the force that attacked him was not a concept, it was "the power of some actual being from the unseen world..."
Convinced that death was about to come, at that moment, he was suddenly saved:
"...just at this moment of great alarm, I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me. It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!" (Joseph Smith History 1:16-17)
The pillar of light that descended upon Joseph freed him from a genuine attack that had nearly killed him. Miraculous protection from genuine harm is not limited to Joseph Smith's first vision. Consider the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. Determined not to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar's golden image on the plain of Dura, these three faithful men refused to obey the king. Provoking his anger, they found themselves thrown into a burning fiery furnace. To the surprise of all those who saw, they were not harmed. At Nebuchadnezzar's request, they walked out of the furnace completely unharmed. (Daniel 3)
The Apostle Paul who wrote concerning the Armor of God found himself shipwrecked on an island he called Melita on his journey to Rome. A poisonous viper emerged from the fire by which he warmed himself, and latched its fangs into Paul's hand. To the astonishment of those who watched him, the venom did not affect him at all. (Acts 28:3-6)
There is no shortage of examples in which God provided literal protection from harm of all sorts. Though God does not always protect every individual from every harm that might fall upon them, there is a literal Armor of God that can prevent any ill effect, spiritual, physical, or otherwise.
There are actual malevolent forces that actively and constantly seek the corruption and destruction of humanity, and that there are more powerful benevolent forces that seek to exalt mankind. This is not a metaphor or a symbol. Joseph Smith may have encountered a "spiritual" attack, but it had real power to bind him and cause him to think he would be destroyed. While Mormons describe his experience with the pillar of light and two personages as a "vision," he was literally delivered from evil.... evil from which he could not deliver himself.
Ultimately, the protection described by Paul with helmets of salvation, shields of faith, and breastplates of righteousness represents more than moral courage. The literal Armor of God is not made of pieces to be strapped to our bodies.
The truth is simple, yet profound. The Armor is God. He is the one that protected Joseph Smith. He is the one that delivered Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. He is the one that guarded the Apostle Paul. In the end, his power to protect is not limited at all. Though there may be times when harm, injury, illness, and even death come, his power makes these conditions temporary.
Those that cling to him, and follow his council will be shielded from the will of actual enemies that would see them destroyed. Those that accept God accept literal protection. It is not with reluctance that God acts as armor for his children; he eagerly asks us... even begs us to find shelter in his power... He wants to save us all...
The words of his prophets represent the pleading of a protective father when they ask us to put on the Armor of God.
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.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Can you see him?
I am a big fan of USC football. I have watched the Trojans since I was young. I was a fan in the dismal days under Paul Hackett, and under the glory days of Pete Carroll.
For those unaware, one of the greatest linebackers ever to come out of USC, Junior Seau, shot himself a couple weeks ago. (http://www.conquestchronicles.com/2012/5/2/2994310/breaking-police-respond-to-gunshot-report-at-junior-seaus-house , http://www.conquestchronicles.com/2012/5/2/2994973/junior-seau-my-rememberance) This was a terrible tragedy, and though I never met the man, as a loyal Trojan fan, I felt especially saddened when I learned of it. On the football field, he had been a fierce competitor. He seemed to personify the theme of USC: Fight on to victory!
I obviously don't know what demons he faced in his personal life, and I will probably never know the circumstances that led him to take his own life, it seems that the burden of despair is weighing down on an increasing number of people. It is not difficult to become discouraged if attention is paid to current events. There does not seem to be a day that goes by without someone being wronged, without some disaster striking, or without fear of war and violence permeating some corner of the world.
Even in the middle of the United States of America, where most people live in relative safety and security, deceit and dishonesty are used to plunder and malign. Scams exist that target trusting people, identity thieves seek to exploit security vulnerabilities, and wealthy princes of Nigeria seem to be emailing everyone to acquire bank account information.
On top of the willful malevolence, reports of natural disasters from tsunamis to hurricanes to earthquakes come from all over the world. It seems there is no safe place left on earth.
There seems to be an increasing number of people that feel the burden of depression when looking at the world around them. Hopelessness abounds in places that not long ago were vibrant and filled with optimism. There are those who point to the events of our times and ask where God is. They wonder why they are not spared from such burdens. There are those that conclude God must not exist, or if he does he has abandoned mankind.
While I am no stranger to sadness and even depression, nor am I some kind of expert on how to deal with these emotions, I do know of something that has changed my perspective.
Jesus Christ taught his disciples that these things would happen in the last days. He prophesied that there would be "wars and rumours of wars" (Matthew 24:6). He told them that "nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places" (Matthew 24:7) He fortold that "because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold" (Matthew 24:12). He said that "then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another" (Matthew 24:10).
While the tribulations of the end times are accepted by many Christians, it is sometimes forgotten that these are more than simple happenings that coincidentally occur. These are signs. Jesus said "Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors" (Matthew 24:32-33).
The implication is profound. Where some see a world forsaken by God, the Christian sees God approaching it. Where some see despair, the Christian sees the hope of Christ's coming. Where some see problems too big for any person to solve, the Christian sees Jesus more clearly as the solution.
What is it that you see? Can you see him?
Humanity is approaching the climax of the greatest drama that will ever unfold. Of course things are bad. Of course things will get worse. For many, the despair will be overpowering, but for those that endure there is opportunity to witness the return of the King.
The words of John the divine depict what scene awaits:
"And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
"His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
"And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
"And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
"And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
"And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS." (Revelation 19:11-16)
He is coming... and when he comes he will make everything right. Good will triumph over evil. Humanity will find its purpose. The earth will be renewed. Peace and happiness will reign everywhere.
No wonder the prophets today seem so optimistic. Joseph Smith was murdered by a mob in cold blood, even when he had been promised the protection of the Govenor of Illinois. He was able to see the truth of Christ, and he taught with confidence: "Brethren, shall we not go on in so great a cause? Go forward and not backward. Courage, brethren; and on, on to the victory!" (D&C 128:22, emphasis added).
Jesus Christ is coming to save us all... and that is an encouraging thought.
For those unaware, one of the greatest linebackers ever to come out of USC, Junior Seau, shot himself a couple weeks ago. (http://www.conquestchronicles.com/2012/5/2/2994310/breaking-police-respond-to-gunshot-report-at-junior-seaus-house , http://www.conquestchronicles.com/2012/5/2/2994973/junior-seau-my-rememberance) This was a terrible tragedy, and though I never met the man, as a loyal Trojan fan, I felt especially saddened when I learned of it. On the football field, he had been a fierce competitor. He seemed to personify the theme of USC: Fight on to victory!
I obviously don't know what demons he faced in his personal life, and I will probably never know the circumstances that led him to take his own life, it seems that the burden of despair is weighing down on an increasing number of people. It is not difficult to become discouraged if attention is paid to current events. There does not seem to be a day that goes by without someone being wronged, without some disaster striking, or without fear of war and violence permeating some corner of the world.
Even in the middle of the United States of America, where most people live in relative safety and security, deceit and dishonesty are used to plunder and malign. Scams exist that target trusting people, identity thieves seek to exploit security vulnerabilities, and wealthy princes of Nigeria seem to be emailing everyone to acquire bank account information.
On top of the willful malevolence, reports of natural disasters from tsunamis to hurricanes to earthquakes come from all over the world. It seems there is no safe place left on earth.
There seems to be an increasing number of people that feel the burden of depression when looking at the world around them. Hopelessness abounds in places that not long ago were vibrant and filled with optimism. There are those who point to the events of our times and ask where God is. They wonder why they are not spared from such burdens. There are those that conclude God must not exist, or if he does he has abandoned mankind.
While I am no stranger to sadness and even depression, nor am I some kind of expert on how to deal with these emotions, I do know of something that has changed my perspective.
Jesus Christ taught his disciples that these things would happen in the last days. He prophesied that there would be "wars and rumours of wars" (Matthew 24:6). He told them that "nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places" (Matthew 24:7) He fortold that "because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold" (Matthew 24:12). He said that "then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another" (Matthew 24:10).
While the tribulations of the end times are accepted by many Christians, it is sometimes forgotten that these are more than simple happenings that coincidentally occur. These are signs. Jesus said "Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors" (Matthew 24:32-33).
The implication is profound. Where some see a world forsaken by God, the Christian sees God approaching it. Where some see despair, the Christian sees the hope of Christ's coming. Where some see problems too big for any person to solve, the Christian sees Jesus more clearly as the solution.
What is it that you see? Can you see him?
Humanity is approaching the climax of the greatest drama that will ever unfold. Of course things are bad. Of course things will get worse. For many, the despair will be overpowering, but for those that endure there is opportunity to witness the return of the King.
The words of John the divine depict what scene awaits:
"And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
"His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
"And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
"And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
"And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
"And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS." (Revelation 19:11-16)
He is coming... and when he comes he will make everything right. Good will triumph over evil. Humanity will find its purpose. The earth will be renewed. Peace and happiness will reign everywhere.
No wonder the prophets today seem so optimistic. Joseph Smith was murdered by a mob in cold blood, even when he had been promised the protection of the Govenor of Illinois. He was able to see the truth of Christ, and he taught with confidence: "Brethren, shall we not go on in so great a cause? Go forward and not backward. Courage, brethren; and on, on to the victory!" (D&C 128:22, emphasis added).
Jesus Christ is coming to save us all... and that is an encouraging thought.
Monday, November 7, 2011
The Most Correct Book
News stories on every channel cover politicians, and at an accelerated pace with presidential elections coming in the next year. Like many Americans, I have found myself disenchanted to some degree with the lot of them. It seems as if posturing is more important than planning, and popularity is better than principles.
I do not think anyone from any persuasion is looking for someone that is able to harness the power of political correctness and over-sensitivity to lead, but boldness is dangerous in public service.
Perhaps the political climate has contributed to my interest in Christianity. The Bible is filled with bold claims. Elijah promising no rain or dew until he declared otherwise (1 Kings 18), or Isaiah's bold prophecies about the fall of Sennacherib in the midst of a crushing siege (2 Kings 19) represented the fearlessness with which men accepted God.
In modern times, it seems that some preachers of religion are willing to make exception for many things to increase appeal among potential church-goers... but fortunately not all. Respect is to be given to several sects for holding to their principles in spite of pressure from the secular influences of society.
For those that appreciate boldness, there is perhaps no claim more bold than that of Joseph Smith Jr. concerning the Book of Mormon. He said "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." (Book of Mormon Introduction, emphasis added)
For some, this claim is too bold. Consider the following passage: "For it is expedient that an atonement should be made; for according to the great plan of the Eternal God there must be an atonement made, or else all mankind must unavoidably perish; yea, all are hardened; yea, all are fallen and are lost, and must perish except it be through the atonement which it is expedient should be made." (Alma 34:9) This sentence would be covered in red ink were it turned in to an English teacher.
Also consider this passage, which seems to admit flaw to the Book of Mormon: "And I said unto him: Lord, the Gentiles will mock at these things, because of our weakness in writing; for Lord thou hast made us mighty in word by faith, but thou hast not made us mighty in writing; for thou hast made all this people that they could speak much, because of the Holy Ghost which thou hast given them;" (Ether 12:23)
How can one possibly claim such a book to be the most correct of any book on earth? Is this reckless boldness, or outrageous rhetoric?
What many fail to realize about the Book of Mormon is that Joseph Smith did not write the book. He translated it. In order for a translation to be correct, it does not necessarily require the original author to have used correct grammar and punctuation. It does not require the printer to have set the type flawlessly. It does not require that the scribe use the standardized spellings of words. A translation is correct in its meaning.
Any work of translation requires some degree of interpreting the words to determine the intent of the author. As fluent as a translator may be in multiple languages, interpreting the intent of the author is almost impossible. Consider how many different interpretations there are of the wording of the Constitution in English by other English speakers in the world of politics today.
The Book of Mormon was not translated by a scholar, or a linguist. It was translated by a prophet. He received the interpretation from God himself... and God was there when it was first written. He knew what was in the hearts of those ancient prophets. He knew what they longed to say. There is nothing lost in translation because it was translated by the power of God. There is no other book like it.
Scholars have poured over the Bible, and men have given their lives so that its precious message could be spoken in every tongue... but try as they might, there is no one uniform translation of the Bible to rule them all. This is not the case with the Book of Mormon.
The need for a flawless interpreted witness of Jesus is not difficult to see. There are those who claim that the Bible represents the interpretations of some religious zealots who were close to Christ, and that the claim of his divinity is too bold. These secular views can be dismissed by the bold, clear, and repeated witnesses of Christ in the Book of Mormon. It proves that Peter, James, John, Paul, and all of the prophets and apostles were not exaggerating when they declared that Christ was the very son of God.
I stand by the bold claim made by Joseph Smith. The Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book on earth. It prophecies and testifies of Jesus Christ. As Nephi declared, "...if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life." (2 Nephi 31:20)
I do not think anyone from any persuasion is looking for someone that is able to harness the power of political correctness and over-sensitivity to lead, but boldness is dangerous in public service.
Perhaps the political climate has contributed to my interest in Christianity. The Bible is filled with bold claims. Elijah promising no rain or dew until he declared otherwise (1 Kings 18), or Isaiah's bold prophecies about the fall of Sennacherib in the midst of a crushing siege (2 Kings 19) represented the fearlessness with which men accepted God.
In modern times, it seems that some preachers of religion are willing to make exception for many things to increase appeal among potential church-goers... but fortunately not all. Respect is to be given to several sects for holding to their principles in spite of pressure from the secular influences of society.
For those that appreciate boldness, there is perhaps no claim more bold than that of Joseph Smith Jr. concerning the Book of Mormon. He said "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." (Book of Mormon Introduction, emphasis added)
For some, this claim is too bold. Consider the following passage: "For it is expedient that an atonement should be made; for according to the great plan of the Eternal God there must be an atonement made, or else all mankind must unavoidably perish; yea, all are hardened; yea, all are fallen and are lost, and must perish except it be through the atonement which it is expedient should be made." (Alma 34:9) This sentence would be covered in red ink were it turned in to an English teacher.
Also consider this passage, which seems to admit flaw to the Book of Mormon: "And I said unto him: Lord, the Gentiles will mock at these things, because of our weakness in writing; for Lord thou hast made us mighty in word by faith, but thou hast not made us mighty in writing; for thou hast made all this people that they could speak much, because of the Holy Ghost which thou hast given them;" (Ether 12:23)
How can one possibly claim such a book to be the most correct of any book on earth? Is this reckless boldness, or outrageous rhetoric?
What many fail to realize about the Book of Mormon is that Joseph Smith did not write the book. He translated it. In order for a translation to be correct, it does not necessarily require the original author to have used correct grammar and punctuation. It does not require the printer to have set the type flawlessly. It does not require that the scribe use the standardized spellings of words. A translation is correct in its meaning.
Any work of translation requires some degree of interpreting the words to determine the intent of the author. As fluent as a translator may be in multiple languages, interpreting the intent of the author is almost impossible. Consider how many different interpretations there are of the wording of the Constitution in English by other English speakers in the world of politics today.
The Book of Mormon was not translated by a scholar, or a linguist. It was translated by a prophet. He received the interpretation from God himself... and God was there when it was first written. He knew what was in the hearts of those ancient prophets. He knew what they longed to say. There is nothing lost in translation because it was translated by the power of God. There is no other book like it.
Scholars have poured over the Bible, and men have given their lives so that its precious message could be spoken in every tongue... but try as they might, there is no one uniform translation of the Bible to rule them all. This is not the case with the Book of Mormon.
The need for a flawless interpreted witness of Jesus is not difficult to see. There are those who claim that the Bible represents the interpretations of some religious zealots who were close to Christ, and that the claim of his divinity is too bold. These secular views can be dismissed by the bold, clear, and repeated witnesses of Christ in the Book of Mormon. It proves that Peter, James, John, Paul, and all of the prophets and apostles were not exaggerating when they declared that Christ was the very son of God.
I stand by the bold claim made by Joseph Smith. The Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book on earth. It prophecies and testifies of Jesus Christ. As Nephi declared, "...if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life." (2 Nephi 31:20)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)