Who was Mormon?

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are frequently called "Mormons."

The nickname references our belief in the Book of Mormon.  Though there are many people that have preconceived notions about what the Book of Mormon is, the best way to learn what it says is by actually reading it. 

Of course, even among members of the church, the portions of the book that are most emphasized are not necessarily about the man Mormon, but about Nephi, Alma, Ammon, Helaman, Mosiah, Benjamin, or one of the other kings or prophets whose stories are recorded in the book.

Since members of the church are willing to be identified as "Mormons," it is unfortunate that there is only a small amount of emphasis on this incredible man.

Mormon was born into a time where society was collapsing.  To say that corruption existed is an understatement.  Preachers of religion were mocked and persecuted by society.  War and violence spread everywhere, and personal property was described as "slippery" because of the robbers that filled the land. (Mormon 1-2)

In this time of evil, a young man named Mormon was given instructions to find the records of his people.  When he had obtained these records, he spent a great amount of time making an abridgment of all the history of his society.  This abridgment is the Book of Mormon.

Certainly there are people within the church that would present the Book of Mormon as a beautiful book of scripture that shows the love and mercy of God.  To this point, there are numerous examples within the book that support this concept... however, a more accurate portrayal of the Book of Mormon is to see it from Mormon's perspective: it is a terrible tragedy.  It is a witness and a warning to those that read it.

In the process of finishing the Book of Mormon, the society in which Mormon lived became so consumed with anger and hatred that violence filled the land.  Still, he loved his people, so he reluctantly agreed to lead their armies.  Mormon knew that he was witnessing the destruction of his home and society, and rather than prolong the conflict, he arranged for a final battle.  Of the hundreds of thousands that had fought for him, only twenty four survived.  In the wake of this slaughter, the wounded Mormon could only mourn:

"O ye fair ones, how could ye have departed from the ways of the Lord! O ye fair ones, how could ye have rejected that Jesus, who stood with open arms to receive you! Behold, if ye had not done this, ye would not have fallen. But behold, ye are fallen, and I mourn your loss. O ye fair sons and daughters, ye fathers and mothers, ye husbands and wives, ye fair ones, how is it that ye could have fallen! But behold, ye are gone, and my sorrows cannot bring your return.

 "And the day soon cometh that your mortal must put on immortality, and these bodies which are now moldering in corruption must soon become incorruptible bodies; and then ye must stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, to be judged according to your works; and if it so be that ye are righteous, then are ye blessed with your fathers who have gone before you.

 "O that ye had repented before this great destruction had come upon you. But behold, ye are gone, and the Father, yea, the Eternal Father of heaven, knoweth your state; and he doeth with you -according to his justice and mercy." (Mormon 6:17-22)

Ultimately, only his son Moroni survived, as their enemies put to death everyone who believed in Jesus Christ.  (Moroni 1:2-3)

Adding to the tragedy was the fact that they had obtained records of a people that had inhabited the land previously, and that also destroyed themselves by driving faith, penitence, and the prophets that preached these principles, out of their society.  The fall of Mormon's people was worse because they should have known better.

Perhaps it seems odd, in light of the tragedies in Mormon's life, for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to promote the name as an identity.  Certainly, visits to the church-run website www.mormon.org do not immediately divulge these details about Mormon; instead, they promote a positive and optimistic outlook.

I do not wish to convey the idea that the LDS church is pessimistic, or that attitudes of doom and gloom prevail in our faith... quite the opposite in fact.  I do however wish to express that the optimism and hope that typifies our worship of Jesus Christ and our efforts to give service to others are given important context with the understanding of the man Mormon.

It is not an unreasonable assessment to say that we live in an age of corruption.  Violence and greed are found across the land, and there are some regions which seem to be in perpetual war.  Disease and disaster can be found in the news headlines nearly every day.  The message of Mormon is particularly applicable to us here and now.  The faith and penitence that could have saved his people are not beyond our reach.  The warnings of a people who should have known better provide tremendous opportunity for us to avoid their mistakes.

Mormon knew that his people had rejected Christ... but he invested a tremendous amount of time and work to ensure that future generations might know that Christ is the way to prevent the tragedy through which he suffered.

Who was Mormon?  Mormon was a man who did what was right regardless of his circumstances.  Mormon was a man who worked for the good of others, even when he knew he would not live to see the results of his work.  In short, Mormon was a Christian.  The world would be a better place if more of us could be like Mormon.

Agency and the freedom to choose

An important concept in Mormon theology is that we lived with God before we were born.  The implications of this idea include:

1. We are literal children of God

2. Men and women are brothers and sisters to one another

Loving God and our neighbors as ourselves as Christ taught (Matthew 22:37-39) is the natural extension of this idea, as is the importance of family.

It is also understood that during our pre-earth life, there was a great war between the followers of our Heavenly Father, and the followers of Lucifer.  (Revelation 12:7-9)  The source of this conflict involved the destiny of humanity.  Scripture from the Pearl of Great Price presents additional detail:

" And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor. But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever. Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down; And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice." (Moses 4:1-4)

The concept of agency is something frequently taught in LDS lessons and talks.  The idea that people are "agents unto themselves" and that they are free to "act and not be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day" is fundamental to understanding the purpose of life on earth.  (Moses 6:56, 2 Nephi 2:26)

As important as the concept of free will is as identified in these passages, it is not the same as agency, even though they are frequently used synonymously.

I have at times heard people talk about using their agency to make choices about what kind of food they want to eat or what destination they prefer for vacation.  Certainly it is possible that some of these choices involve agency, but these choices do not really portray agency in the most important sense.

Before discussing the truth behind this concept, it is important to highlight the three great powers that influence the world:

* Humanity.  It is not difficult to see the amazing accomplishments of mankind in the age of information.  Powerful computer processors are available in devices as small as phones and watches that harness numerous technologies for tasks as simple as "liking" a cheeseburger.  Humanity has harnessed power from various sources and constructed great buildings, composed beautiful music, written moving books, and launched probes beyond our atmosphere to study the universe. Mankind has demonstrated great power...but in spite of our power, humanity is the weakest of the three.

* Satan.  Having accumulated experience from mankind's beginnings, the power of evil is adept at manipulating men.  Great societies have crumbled due to the persistent and patient efforts of those that love to see humanity fail.  In the shadows, he persuades people to secretly steal and murder sometimes without even knowing they are being persuaded.  Occasionally, he does risk using his full power.  Joseph Smith saw it when he prayed to God.  He noted "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 1:16)  Only the power of God himself could free him from the powers of evil.  Humanity, by itself, is powerless against Satan.

* God.  The great achievements of humanity and the subtle machinations of evil are nothing compared to the power of the Most High.  He that forged the earth and became mortal only to conquer death represents the ultimate strength in existence.  He is omniscient, omnipotent, and his power is omnipresent.

By understanding these forces, it becomes clear that being an agent of oneself is extremely limited.  The real power of agency comes not from making trivial choices... but from becoming an agent of a higher power.

Becoming an agent of evil is actually quite easy.  People can do this without even realizing it.  The person that encourages dishonesty, turns a blind eye to cruelty, and practices selfishness can gain power.  Marriages and families can be destroyed when seemingly innocent indulgences and poor decisions win over selflessness and integrity.  Greed, lust, wrath, pride, envy, gluttony, and sloth do not encompass every ill...  Jesus taught "wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat" (Matthew 7:13)  Constant effort may be necessary to avoid becoming a destructive influence.  

Becoming an agent of God is simple, but not nearly as easy.  In the Book of Mormon, prophets counseled men to "come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness" and " if ye do not watch yourselves, and your thoughts, and your words, and your deeds, and observe the commandments of God, and continue in the faith of what ye have heard concerning the coming of our Lord, even unto the end of your lives, ye must perish. And now, O man, remember, and perish not." (Moroni 10:32, Mosiah 4:30)  Many prophets have indicated that it is a strait and narrow path that leads to God.  Christ was clear in declaring that the only way to our Heavenly Father was through him. (John 14:6)

Although the path is substantially more difficult, and the rewards are not always immediately visible, the true power that God intended for his sons and daughters comes from becoming the kind of person that Christ was.  If we are the children of God, then it is as the Apostle Paul noted: "if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." (Romans 8:17)

Agency in the sense of becoming an agent of God himself, is the very purpose for which humanity is on the earth.  Agency is the slow process by which bad men can become good men, and good men can become better men.  Agency is the purpose of the conflict between good and evil.  Agency is the promise that Christ gives to the faithful... for "he came unto his own, but his own received him not.  But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name" (John 1:12)

The Condescension of God

The Christmas season is time of gift giving, a tradition that stems from the magi who traveled from the east and gave the Christ child gold, frankincense, and myrrh.  Contemporarily, children look under trees with anticipation of receiving games, toys, and sweets.  The true root of gift giving is a much older story however.  Before men were born; before the world was forged, there was another gift for which every child of God yearned, and our Heavenly Father wanted very much to give it to us. The gift is immortality and eternal life, but it is not a gift that is easily received.  In fact, almost no one was eligible to receive the greatest of all the gifts of God.  Our Heavenly Father called for the sacrifice of one that would be able to not only save himself, but to condescend below all things, that he might lift the sons of men above all things.  Jesus Christ stood and declared “Here am I… send me.”  As our Father accepted him as worthy and able, he became to us a God, the only hope of salvation, and the joy of mans’ desiring.

Even children have the benefit of Christmas traditions that teach at an early age the characters of the Nativity story.  We have known from our youth of Mary, Joseph, the shepherds, the wise men, and the Christ child… but what if we had not known?  What if we had to be taught these things without the benefit of Christmas symbols?  Nephi was a prophet that lived 600 years before the birth of Christ.  He did not have any holiday traditions when he was taught the Christmas story.  An angel of God showed him a vision and asked what he beheld.  He replied, “A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins.”  The angel asked a profound question… “Knowest thou the condescension of God?”  Nephi replied, “I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.”  The angel then showed him the virgin bearing a child in her arms.  With a single concise phrase, Nephi learned the true meaning of Christmas: “Behold, the condescension of God!”

Most people eagerly anticipate Christmas day, perhaps because of proximity to friends and loved ones, perhaps because of the hope of a chocolate-filled stocking, or something special underneath the tree.  The first Christmas was also anticipated greatly, but for other reasons.  The people in the promised land that believed in Jesus had been given that day as a deadline to justify their faith, and if the prophesied signs of Christ’s birth did not appear, they would be killed.  How anxious they must have been to see that their faith was not in vain.  But even as the wicked prepared to spill the blood of the righteous, the prayers of Christians reached the heavens.  When the sun set that night, the light did not wane away into the darkness of night.  In the very act of condescending, the light of the world saved those that had faith in him.

Christmas does not always bring tidings of comfort and joy.  Every year, people brave crowds at local retailers, and amid the pushing, shoving, and dirty looks, they seek meaningful gifts for loved ones.  Husbands scratch their heads and ask themselves "If I buy these shoes for her, do I also have to buy those earrings?"  Wives seek the assistance of unmotivated seasonal sales associates to ask "Do I need a nunchuck controller with the Legend of Zelda?"  It is not difficult to become so preoccupied with the hustle and bustle that Christ becomes disassociated with the majority of our Christmas season.  Perhaps it was the same hustle and bustle that caused innkeepers of Bethlehem to experience difficulty in finding room for a young expectant mother and her husband.  Perhaps they thought they were doing the best they could when they sent Mary to a pen of animals, it was tax season after all.  Whatever the reasons, when Mary gave birth to her son, she had only swaddling clothes in a stable to warm him.  When she laid him down, the trough where animals chewed hay was his bed.  While men of wealth and prestige sat in the company of peers, the King of Kings moved from a throne in the high heavens in the presence of our Heavenly Father, to a stable in the company of livestock.  Somehow, when everyone else was busy, the most High God descended down to the most humble place on Earth.

Even to the adults that understand the principles of electricity, and know the effort of stringing them up, there is a feeling of happiness that Christmas lights bring.  To children who do not understand these things, it is even more so.  It is not so much because understanding ruins things, but perhaps because innocence is so frequently accompanied by humility, which magnifies appreciation.  Even in ancient times it was so.  SPQR are the letters that every soldier's banner bore in the land to which Christ came.  Senatus Populusque Romanus... The senate and the people of Rome.  The empire was arguably the most powerful and prestigious that was ever on the earth, and it was filled with wise, powerful, strong, and wealthy people; and none more so than its emperor, Caesar Augustus.  However, it was not Caesar, or any of his appointed, or any philosophers or warriors to whom God sent word of his condescension.  Luke tells us that there were in the same country shepherds, keeping watch over their flock by night.  And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them.  And they were sore afraid.  And the angel said unto them, fear not, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all people.  For unto you is born this day in the city of David, a savior, which is Christ, the Lord.  And this shall be a sign unto you: ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

As commercial and cold as the retail experience of Christmas can be, the season also brings a renewed desire to help those in need.  Few experiences are as memorable as seeing the gratitude of someone receiving the very thing they require.  Perhaps there are those among us who have played the roles both of giver, and of recipient.  Called by some the true meaning of Christmas, it is in a truer sense the true meaning of Christianity.  Because he condescended below all men, he knows what it means to be hungry, to be hurt, to be fatigued.  He knows what it means to be lonely, and hated, and betrayed.  Is it any wonder he declared that "by this shall all men know that ye are my disciples: if ye have love one to another"?

There is a Christmas hymn in which a man sorrows that "Hate is strong, and mocks the song of peace on Earth, good will to men..."  He is answered by Christmas bells, that seem to say with faith and power "God is not dead, nor doth he sleep."  Two of the characters most forgotten in the old Christmas story are the two that knew that best.  Anna and Simeon saw no angel, they did not follow a new star in the east; instead they stayed at the temple.  They did not need the persuasion of fictional spirits of Christmas Past, Present, or Future; they followed the Spirit of God, and because of their faith, Christ came to them.  Two thousand years later, the same spirit that guided them pleads with us not to despair... for God is not dead, nor doth he sleep.  The Holy Spirit of God guides us, just as it did Anna and Simeon; and it brings the power of Jesus Christ across time to our hearts here and now: not just a story of a child in a manger, or a choir of angels in the fields near Bethlehem, but the power of his atoning sacrifice.  And it is the faith, penitence, and humility of men that give purpose to his sacrifice... for it is only with our consent that we can be redeemed.  My brothers and sisters... especially during this time when we celebrate the coming of Christ... let us be as Anna and Simeon and follow the guidance of his Holy Spirit.  Let our penitence give cause to his sacrifice.  Let us do all things that we might have the gift for which we sought in that grand council before the world was: the gift of eternal life!  Oh come all ye faithful... joyful and triumphant...  Oh come let us adore him!  Come and behold him: born the King of Angels!  Come and celebrate the condescension of God!

Mormons believe God sends prophets... but not always...

Frequently when the topic of lessons in Mormon Sunday School classes turns to revelation or to prophets, a part of President Hugh B. Brown's general conference talk in October 1967.  Sunday School manuals present the material as follows:


Before President Brown was called as a General Authority, he spent some time in England working as a barrister, or attorney. He befriended a prominent Englishman who was a member of the House of Commons and a former justice of the supreme court of Britain. The two men often discussed various subjects, including religion.

In 1939, when it appeared that World War II would soon break out, the English gentleman called Brother Brown into his office. He asked Brother Brown to defend his religious beliefs in the same way he would discuss a legal problem. In a general conference address, President Brown recalled part of their conversation:

“I began by asking, ‘May I proceed, sir, on the assumption that you are a Christian?’

“‘I am.’

“‘I assume that you believe in the Bible—the Old and New Testaments?’

“‘I do!’”

The English gentleman said that he believed the biblical accounts of the Lord speaking to prophets. However, he maintained that such communication had stopped soon after the Resurrection of Christ. The conversation continued with another question from Brother Brown: “Why do you think it stopped?”

“‘I can’t say.’

“‘You think that God hasn’t spoken since then?’

“‘Not to my knowledge.’

“‘May I suggest some possible reasons why he has not spoken. Perhaps it is because he cannot. He has lost the power.’

“He said, ‘Of course that would be blasphemous.’

“‘Well, then, if you don’t accept that, perhaps he doesn’t speak to men because he doesn’t love us anymore. He is no longer interested in the affairs of men.’

“‘No,’ he said, ‘God loves all men, and he is no respecter of persons.’

“‘Well, then, … the only other possible answer as I see it is that we don’t need him. We have made such rapid strides in education and science that we don’t need God any more.’

“And then he said, and his voice trembled as he thought of impending war, ‘Mr. Brown, there never was a time in the history of the world when the voice of God was needed as it is needed now. Perhaps you can tell me why he doesn’t speak.’

“My answer was, ‘He does speak, he has spoken; but men need faith to hear him’” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1967, 117–18; or Improvement Era, Dec. 1967, 36–37)


This experience articulates the beliefs of members of the LDS church effectively.  Mormons believe the need for continuing revelation is obvious, and that it is consistent with the patterns and practices that God has always used.

As a member of the LDS church, I have always been surprised that the previously mentioned argument and associated train of thought has seemed to go unchallenged.  Not that there are flaws in the argument, but that the position of the Mormon church is not so very different from the judge with whom President Brown spoke.

A fundamental aspect of Mormon faith is that the line of authority and organization that existed in the days of Christ was taken from the earth.  Arguments that there is an unbroken line of authority mainly reside in the claims of Catholicism who maintain Papal authority was established with the Apostle Peter, however, the organization of apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers (see Ephesians 4:11-14) was obviously not maintained.

Protestants must accept that there was a falling away (see 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3) because every one of their churches was established in protest of Papal authority.

Restorationists, such as Mormons, believe that the power of God was taken from the earth in the early centuries after Christ.  Apostles, prophets, and priests did not exist, or if they did, they did not act as they had in ages past under the authority of God.

The question then becomes this for Protestants and Mormons:

Why did God stop speaking to men?

Is it because God lost the power to do so in the dark ages?
Of course not; that would be blasphemous.

Is it because God did not love the people that lived in those times?  Is it possible that their lives had no purpose, and that he was unconcerned with the plagues, wars, and famines that afflicted them?
No.  God loves all men and he is no respecter of persons.

Is it because in the dark ages that humanity had made such rapid strides in education, science, technology, and life that they did not need God?  Is it possible that only as ages went on that God realized mankind again needed guidance, or that we have fallen from the superior state that we had in medieval times?
Certainly not.  Perhaps more so in the middle ages than in any other age, mankind needed the voice of God.

Then why did God stop speaking to men?  If continuing revelation is so critical to humanity, why did he withhold it for more than a thousand years?

Of course, the answer to the question emphasizes another fundamental belief in Mormonism: just because someone died without learning the truth, does not mean they are forever damned.

Jesus himself taught this:
"But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." (Matthew 22:31-32)

Martha thought that Jesus was too late to heal her brother Lazarus because he had died:
"Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee. Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die..." (John 11:21-26)

The conclusion is powerful.  Not even death can separate God from blessing his beloved sons and daughters.  Simply because people lived a thousand years ago (or even many thousands of years ago) does not mean that they are out of God's reach.  The answer to the question why did God stop speaking to men? is that he didn't.

The Apostle Peter gave insight as to what Jesus did in the short time between his death and resurrection:
"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison... For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." (1 Peter 3:18-19, 4:6)

Modern revelation adds to this truth.  President Joseph F. Smith taught the following:
"But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and appointed messengers, clothed with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead. And the chosen messengers went forth to declare the acceptable day of the Lord and proclaim liberty to the captives who were bound, even unto all who would repent of their sins and receive the gospel. Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets. These were taught faith in God, repentance from sin, vicarious baptism for the remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, And all other principles of the gospel that were necessary for them to know in order to qualify themselves that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." (D&C 138:30-34)

As indicated above, vital ordinances that require a body can be performed vicariously for those who have died, that they too might have hope to take part in the resurrection of the saints:
"Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" (1 Corinthians 15:29)

Jesus will not let little things like thousands of years or death stand in his way of his work.  Though there was a lack organization and priesthood power on the earth during the great apostasy, the Lord continued to speak to people via missionaries in the spirit world, and offers to them today opportunity to show the signs of baptism, confirmation, priesthood, and other ordinances through the efforts of his followers today.

Christ has the power and the love to ensure that all people have access to his message.  God does send prophets, but not always: those that call themselves Christians also have the responsibility to help ourselves, our neighbors, and those that have gone before us.  Modern Christians can help the living and the dead so that when Christ returns, it will truly be to save us all.

Tolerating Unethical Behavior

John Dillinger was a depression-era gangster that robbed banks.  He had quite a number of successful heists before the BOI (precursor to the FBI) eventually tracked him down.  He was shot multiple times in a final escape attempt.

During the depression, Dillinger and other bank robbers became popular.  There are accounts of audiences cheering for Dillinger during newsreels, and booing and hissing when BOI agents were shown.  Stories of Dillinger compensating the people he used as hostages during escapes helped convince many that the gangster was not so bad.  Certainly, in a time when banks were foreclosing on homes and farms, banks were considerably less popular than they otherwise might have been, which also likely contributed to popular opinion that portrayed Dillinger as a likable cavalier.

Ultimately, John Dillinger was a bank robber.  In the end, the reason his behavior could not be tolerated was that it was unethical.

Tolerance in society for unethical behavior is an ongoing issue.  Chicago, for example, is famous for its corruption at every level.  The former Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, is currently serving a prison sentence for soliciting bribes regarding the senate seat that became vacant when Barack Obama became President of the United States.  In the private sector, acclaimed companies such as Enron or philanthropists such as Bernard Madoff engaged in unethical behaviors that robbed investors of millions of dollars.  In some cases, those that indulge in corrupt and unethical behaviors are condemned, but in others, they are praised... depending on the popularity of the individuals involved.

Certainly, the difficulty in coming to a general consensus with respect to ethics contributes to this.  For some, having the NSA review and permanently store phone metadata is an acceptable method for preventing terrorist activities in the United States.  For others, it constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution which prevents warrantless searches or seizures.

Some people consider infidelity between a man and wife is a natural and expected activity.  There was a "boys will be boys" attitude that arose regarding former president Bill Clinton's extra-marital sexual relations with Monica Lewinski.  Still others regard any such behavior as a violation of God's laws, or at minimum, unethical.

The same can be said of other controversial behaviors or tendencies to behave, such as homosexuality.  The Supreme Court recently ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act (ironically signed into law by Bill Clinton) was unconstitutional in that it denied due process and equal protection under the law to homosexuals desiring to recognized as married partners.  While there is much that can be said regarding this law, a critical point to highlight is that legal is not the same as ethical, since the law before and after the decision has been on both sides of the argument.

There are numerous responses that people have posted with respect to the decision.  Some people are in favor of it, championing the Supreme Court as protectors of ethics.  Other people have expressed disappointment, saying that justices allowed personal political views to influence their decisions rather than a strict interpretation of the law, which was unethical. 

I have read posts from religious individuals that claim the decision was ethical because of the difficulties that homosexuals endured to keep their relationships secret or to find alternative financial arrangements because they were not eligible for government benefits.  I have read articles from members of my own faith that profile homosexuals and describe how kind, generous, affectionate, and selfless these individuals can be.  I have seen negative attention given to those who have bullied homosexuals, or details about abuses that homosexuals have endured.  The conclusion of these points is almost always that homosexual behaviors are ethically acceptable and should be tolerated.

Of course none of these points actually show whether or not homosexuality is ethical.  The same sentiments could be used to assess John Dillinger's behavior as ethical and suggest that bank robbery should be tolerated; consider the following:

John Dillinger may have been beaten as a child, and experts have proven that his father was a believer in the adage "spare the rod and spoil the child."  After moving around a lot, he was forced into military service, but he eventually deserted.  He had difficulties holding down a job, and eventually his circumstances and nature turned him to a life of criminal activity.  In spite of his difficult upbringing, he was kind even to his hostages, giving them monetary compensation for inconveniencing them.  The BOI, on the other hand, agreed to prevent Romanian immigrant from being deported if she did not cooperate in their efforts to stop Dillinger, but even after providing help, she was deported.  Additionally, the banks frequently and unnecessarily foreclosed on struggling individuals, and Dillinger represented a force that brought justice to these corrupt institutions.

In other words:
1. It's alright that John Dillinger robbed banks because his nature and circumstances forced him into crime. 
2. It's alright that he robbed banks because he was a kind, generous, affectionate, and selfless individual.
3. It's alright that he eluded authorities because the BOI and the banks represented a negative force that bullied citizens and employed dishonest methods.

Before anyone jumps into the comments and says "homosexuality is not like bank robbery" let me save them the trouble and clearly state that is not the point.  The point is that religious proponents of homosexual marriage do not typically argue that homosexuality is an ethical behavior.  The arguments are about circumstances or natural forces that explain behaviors, they highlight the positive attributes of people that engage in these behaviors, and they demonize those that disapprove of these behaviors as being "judgmental", "prejudiced", "bigoted", "bullying", and "intolerant."

In other words, for any given [Behavior]:
1. [Behavior] is alright because nature and circumstances contributed to it.
2. [Behavior] is alright because the individual engaging in the [Behavior] is kind, generous, affectionate, selfless, [other positive attributes that are true of the individual].
3. [Behavior] is alright because those that oppose it are dishonest, corrupt, unkind, hateful, envious, [other negative attributes that are true of those that oppose the [Behavior]].

Because these arguments do not tackle the ethics of the behavior in question, they can be used for both ethical and unethical behaviors.

Ethical example, [Behavior] is charitable contributions:
1. Charitable contributions are alright because of the nature and circumstances in society that cause people to experience poverty.
2. Charitable contributions are alright because the person making contributions is generous, affectionate, selfless, etc...
3. Charitable contributions are alright because people that fight charitable contributions are greedy, selfish, miserly, corrupt individuals that hate the poor.

The preceding example might seem obviously true, so let us consider an unethical example.

Unethical example, [Behavior] is mass shootings:
1. Mass shootings are alright because of the nature and circumstances in society that cause violence to be celebrated and ignore the symptoms of mental illness.
2. Mass shootings are alright because the people guilty of mass shootings have done positive things in their lives including community service, and the fostering of creative ideas and thoughts.
3. Mass shootings are alright because people opposed to mass shootings are prejudiced against those that struggle with mental illness.  They think that depriving the mass shooter of life or liberty will give them happiness, or that their ability to feel safe is more important than the caring and curing of the mass shooter.

This may seem an unlikely example, perhaps only to be used by a creative defense attorney, but the point is that because any behavior could be inserted into it, the argument is not very good.  Since everyone but Christ himself is guilty of unethical behavior, the question should never be "can a person that does [Behavior] be good?", because the answer is almost always yes.  The real question that should be asked is this: "is [Behavior] ethical?"

For members of the LDS church, that accept divinely appointed prophets and apostles rather than an exclusive dependence on what may be confusing biblical passages, the correct position on this issue is easy to identify.  Homosexual behavior is unethical.  Any individual that struggles with the desire to indulge in this behavior should abstain from it.  Granting legal recognition or otherwise pretending that this behavior is on equal footing of the ethical institution of marriage is the same as tolerating unethical behavior. 

The official statement regarding the recent ruling is "Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children." (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-supreme-court-marriage-rulings)

Understanding that a behavior is unethical does not mean that it is acceptable to harass or abuse those that are guilty of said behavior.  That having been said, any person that claims to believe that the Church is truly led by Jesus Christ should be equally and irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

If seeking signs is bad, why do Mormons tell people to do it?

There are many accounts in the scriptures that decry the seeking of signs.

Consider the example from the life of Jesus Christ:
"The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven. He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring, O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it..." (Matthew 16:1-4)

The Book of Mormon condemns the seeking of signs in two profound examples:
1. The sign that was given to Sherem was being struck with a debilitating sickness that killed him.  (Jacob 7)
2. The sign that was given to Korihor was being struck dumb.  (Alma 30)

Contemporarily, teachers in the Mormon faith affirm that seeking signs is negative.  I have sat through many classes where instructors have professed that signs are never a good source of testimony.  Examples that affirm this position include the following:
1. Pharaoh was determined to pursue after the children of Israel even after blood, frogs, lice, flies, the death of their cattle, boils, hail and fire, locusts, darkness, and the destroying angel.  (Exodus 7-14)
2. The children of Israel worshiped a golden calf even after being fed manna from heaven and being miraculously delivered through a split in the Red Sea.  (Exodus 14,16,32)
3. Israel tolerated Baal worship even after Elijah called down fire from heaven.  (1 Kings 18-21)
4. After the miraculous delivery of Jerusalem from Sennacherib, Hezekiah's son Manasseh turned to wickedness.  (2 Kings 19, 21:1-6)
5. Laman and Lemuel doubted the ability of God to help them obtain the brass plates immediately after having an angelic visitation of rebuke.  (1 Nephi 3:31)
6. Oliver Cowdrey left the Mormon Church for several years after being ordained to the Priesthood by John the Baptist, as well as a large number of other miraculous witnesses of the divinity of the work.

Certainly, the case that signs are largely futile seems sound.  It is not surprising that teachers throughout the church affirm that sign-seeking is negative.

The inconsistency that seems to appear occurs when teachers and missionaries invite people to pray and ask God so that they might personally know whether the Church is led by Jesus Christ, or whether the Book of Mormon is the word of God.  If sign seeking is so bad, they why tell people to seek signs?

Another equally important question is that if seeking signs is so bad, why has God ever given them?  Why tempt people to seek signs if they should not be doing it?

A concept that seems to be implied by several teachers is the superiority of spiritual evidence over tangible evidence.  Some point to the example of Alma, who stated that he knew the truths of the gospel of Christ by the spirit rather than the angelic visitation and vision he encountered in his youth.  (Mosiah 27, Alma 38:6)  There are also statements by prophets to the same effect.  Consider the following from Joseph F. Smith:
“The Spirit of God speaking to the spirit of man has power to impart truth with greater effect and understanding than the truth can be imparted by personal contact even with heavenly beings. Through the Holy Ghost the truth is woven into the very fibre and sinews of the body so that it cannot be forgotten.” (“The Sin against the Holy Ghost,” Instructor, Oct. 1935, p. 431)

Of course, interpreting statements such as these can come across with the implication that a person that has received a spiritual witness will never fall away.  This is, of course, incorrect.  People that have received spiritual witnesses, even those that have performed missionary service to persuade others to seek spiritual witnesses have in some cases unfortunately fallen from activity and lost faith in Christianity.  Recognizing spiritual evidence is not a stamp in the passport that grants passage through the pearly gates.

As unfortunate as these cases are, they highlight the reason that Mormons ask people to pray for spiritual evidence of the Book of Mormon or the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith or the divinity of Jesus Christ.  It is one thing to stubbornly refuse to do anything until God proves himself, and it is quite another to diligently and humbly pray for help believing something.

Consider the man who begged Christ for help with his child:
"And one of the multitude answered and said, Master, I have brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit; And wheresoever he taketh him, he teareth him: and he foameth, and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast him out; and they could not. He answereth him, and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me. And they brought him unto him: and when he saw him, straightway the spirit tare him; and he fell on the ground, and wallowed foaming. And he asked his father, How long is it ago since this came unto him? And he said, Of a child. And ofttimes it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us. Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth. And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief. When Jesus saw that the people came running together, he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him. And the spirit cried, and rent him sore, and came out of him..."  (Mark 9:17-26, emphasis added)

This story is an excellent example of being humble and diligent.  The man had already gone to the disciples, and they were unsuccessful.  He appealed to the Son of God himself, and asked not only for help with his son, but help to believe.  The miraculous outcome was not a method of proving that Jesus was the Messiah, but a method of providing mercy and compassion to a child of God that persisted in seeking his power.

The invitation that is made by Moroni and repeated by missionaries across the world is not to do nothing until God proves himself with a sign.  It is to actively seek him:
"Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." (Moroni 10:3-5, emphasis added)

Understanding of the truth is unlikely to come with a casual curiosity or when demanding proof before action.  Christ did not say "wonder, and ye shall receive, demand and ye shall find, wait for a knock before you open."  He did say:
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened."  (Matthew 7:7-8)

The form of sign seeking is different from the type that is condemned.  A better term to describe this type of sign-seeking is faith.  "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."  (Hebrews 11:6)  It is the difference between Alma and Korihor, and the variance between Nephi and his brothers Laman and Lemuel.  In the end, it is faith that keeps people doing the right thing, and that brings understanding, wisdom, and knowledge.  Ultimately, it is unbelief that causes people to neglect what is right, and that leads them to fall away.

One witness is not better than another witness.  There is nothing wrong with a person believing that God is real after seeing a miracle.  There is nothing superior about spiritual feelings that can accompany the learning of true principles.

That having been said, diligently and consistently believing in God is superior to demanding justification for every commandment.  The invitation to come to Christ is superior to the idea of waiting until he comes to you.  Asking to prove oneself to God is superior to asking God to prove himself... and in all cases, faith is superior to doubt.

The Word of Foolishness

Recently, the Mormon church produced an official clarification regarding the stance of consuming caffeine.  For a long time, members of the LDS church have had varying opinions regarding whether it was permissible to drink colas or other caffeinated beverages.  I have listened to passionate exchanges regarding the exact wording of section 89 of the Doctrine and Covenants (which is known as the Word of Wisdom to Mormons) and the implication of Gordon B. Hinckley's words in the CBS program 60 Minutes where he implied that faithful members of the church avoid caffeinated soft drinks.

On the one hand of the debate, I have heard people in favor of drinking caffeinated beverages ask "where does sit say caffeine in the Word of Wisdom?"  True enough, the word cannot be found there.  On the other hand, the word "heroin" or the phrase "huffing markers" and a variety of other practices seem to be missing, although the church openly condemns addictive and/or illegal drugs.  (http://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/ForTheStrengthOfYouth-eng.pdf?lang=eng pp 25-27)

On the other hand of the debate, I have heard people interpreting "addictive" such that it applies to almost anything.  While pain killers and stimulants may be described by those that use them as needful, the need for food and water obviously does not represent an addiction to be avoided.

Along with a list of prohibitions, the Word of Wisdom also contains a list of practices that are encouraged.  These items also spark controversy among Mormons... particularly those that believe in the divinity of vegetarianism.

I recall a time when I was proclaiming my affinity to meat (I believe I was referencing delicious Memphis-style pulled pork barbecue) when I was rebuked by another member who pointed out passages from the Word of Wisdom.  The actual verses that describe the concern expressed read as follows: "Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly; And it is pleasing unto me that they should not be used, only in times of winter, or of cold, or famine. All grain is ordained for the use of man and of beasts, to be the staff of life, not only for man but for the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth; And these hath God made for the use of man only in times of famine and excess of hunger." (D&C 89:12-15)

There was an individual with whom I spoke that was convinced that this was the most important element of the Word of Wisdom.  They believed that the reason these lines were present was to warn us of the evils of farming cattle.  The wide-eyed, sincere explanation I was given indicated that cattle produced a large amount of methane gas, and that if we allowed all that methane to be produced the ice caps would melt and life as we knew it would end.

While I have heard many theories about events and actions that might lead to the end of civilization, that was the only occasion of which I know where cow farts were suggested.

I have also heard arguments that were better crafted in favor of vegetarianism.  Many of them quote prominent church leaders.  Bruce R. McConkie said in his The Millenial Messiah " Isaiah gives us these poetically phrased particulars about animal life during the Millennium. ‘The wolf and the lamb shall feed together,’ he says, ‘and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock.’ Implicit in this pronouncement is the fact that man and all forms of life will be vegetarians in the coming day; the eating of meat will cease, because, for one thing, death as we know it ceases. There will be no shedding of blood, because man and beast are changed (quickened) and blood no longer flows in their veins.” (p 658)  George Q. Cannon stated "We should by every means in our power impress upon the rising generation the value of life and how dreadful a sin it is to take life. The lives of animals even should be held far more sacred than they are. Young people should be taught to be very merciful to the brute creation and not to take life wantonly or for sport. The practice of hunting and killing game merely for sport should be frowned upon and not encouraged among us. God has created the fowls and the beasts for man’s convenience and comfort and for his consumption at proper times and under proper circumstances; but he does not justify men in wantonly killing those creatures which He has made and with which He has supplied the earth” (George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth: Discourses and Writings of President George Q. Cannon p 24)

Certainly these statements gain credibility from members who recognize the names of Apostles.  I have read that Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, and Joseph Fielding Smith were also proponents of eating meat only very sparingly in accordance with the Word of Wisdom.

Why then do modern leaders seem to place such an emphasis on avoiding alcohol, tobacco, and harmful drugs instead of echoing the words in the scriptures themselves?  I submit it is because they are privileged to give interpretation of the scriptures (not just the Word of Wisdom, but all scriptures) that is both currently prudent and generally applicable to all people.  In other words, prophets are authorized to prophesy.  The current emphasis as spoken through general conferences and general statements constitutes authoritatively the will of God himself.

To illustrate the need for current interpretation of the scriptures (even more modern scriptures such as the Doctrine and Covenants), here is a scripturally based argument that drinking beer is consistent with the Word of Wisdom:

"That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him. And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make. And, again, strong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies." (D&C 89:5-7)  This passage implies that wine is permissible to drink only if it is home-made and used only in Sacrament services.  The conclusion is that not all alcohol is bad.  Further on, the Word of Wisdom reads "All grain is good for the food of man; as also the fruit of the vine; that which yieldeth fruit, whether in the ground or above the ground— Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain." (D&C 89:16-17, emphasis added)  In this passage, the use of grains for mild drinks is approved.  Barley is particularly used in the brewing of beer, which is not necessarily a "strong" alcoholic beverage.  Since other grains can be used in the starch source for beer, the clause at the end of verse 17 seems to permit beer that contains other grains.  The conclusion based on this reading of the scriptures themselves is that it is ok for Mormons to have a cold one!

Of course, the argument that beer is ok is tongue-in-cheek.  Modern prophets are very clear on the current standards necessary to show compliance with the Word of Wisdom.  President Thomas S. Monson said "Hard drugs, wrongful use of prescription drugs, alcohol, coffee, tea, and tobacco products destroy your physical, mental, and spiritual well-being. Any form of alcohol, including beer, is harmful to your spirit and your body. Tobacco can enslave you, weaken your lungs, and shorten your life." (http://www.lds.org/new-era/2008/10/standards-of-strength?lang=eng, emphasis added)

The truth is that the scriptures, while vitally important, are only one tool to learning the will of God.  God called circumcision an everlasting covenant (Genesis 17:10-14), yet later, the Apostle Paul said "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God." (1 Corinthians 7:19)  These scriptural points seem to be mutually exclusive.  While some of the law of Moses including animal sacrifice was fulfilled with the coming of Christ, Paul was clear that works of the flesh, most of which being at odds with the law of Moses, would prevent entrance to the Kingdom of God: "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." (Galations 5:19-21)

Even the laws of health given by God have changed over time.  Through Moses, God declared the laws for animals which were and were not permissible to eat. (Deuteronomy 14:3-20)  Through Peter, God declared that this law had been changed. (Acts 11:2-18)

The ultimate conclusion that Latter-Day Saints should draw is that if God really had a problem with caffeine, he would probably tell us through prophets.  If God's biggest worry was the low number of Mormon vegetarians, we would hear General Conference talks on it frequently.  Based on recent conference addresses, it seems that generally he is far more worried about the use of tobacco, alcohol, and harmful drugs than he is about burgers and Mountain Dew.  That is not to say that individually, he may want certain people to be more healthy, and it is possible on an individual basis that people may be moved to change their diets or exercise habits, but this is not the doctrine to be preached to all members from the pulpit or in Sunday School.

God may be the same yesterday today and forever, but the things he asks his followers to do may change.  Taking into account only one source of truth will never result in a complete understanding.  Those that only look to the scriptures, or only look to prayer, or only look to a prophet may miss out on truths of God that can be found elsewhere.  Being stuck on a few words in scripture that are resolved by modern prophets can turn the Word of Wisdom into the Word of Foolishness.

When everything is visible, when all truth is known, the concepts that may seem to mutually exclude one another will no longer be seen as contradictory.  Mormons should not limit their search for truth to any one source.  President Joseph F. Smith said "We believe in all truth, no matter to what subject it may refer. No sect or religious denomination in the world possesses a single principle of truth that we do not accept or that we will reject. We are willing to receive all truth, from whatever source it may come; for truth will stand, truth will endure.” (Conference Report, Apr. 1909 p 7)

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.

• 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.

The issue of exclusion from Priesthood authority is most currently criticized in the exclusion of women.  It is true that women are not called to be priesthood holders, and that women do not obtain priesthood office in the organization of the church.  Currently, only males that meet worthiness requirements are eligible to be called to receive the priesthood.

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.

Miracles Matter

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...

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)