When God approves of stealing, kidnapping, and killing...

Recently and tragically, a man named James Holmes opened fire in a crowded theater during the premiere of the movie "Dark Night Rises."  12 individuals were killed, and 58 others were injured. (Foxnews)

Reaction to this news has been relatively similar among people I know: shock, horror, and the lingering question of what could drive a person to do this.  Everyone to whom I have spoken believes that this was a grossly immoral act.  Many people believe that officials would be right to seek the death penalty in this instance, but others are opposed to this, believing that more killing cannot bring good.

For some, events such as these are faith-shaking.  If God is loving, if he is real, and if he is as powerful as believers claim, then how could such a tragedy be allowed to happen?

There are people that use these events as evidence to support a conclusion that any one of these things is untrue of God.

Those among the Westboro Baptist Church crowd have already posted a video (that I have admittedly not watched) entitled "God Sent The Shooter...Again!"  For people in this group, God is real and powerful, but not loving.

There are those in atheist groups who believe this is evidence that God is not real.

There are those in groups of believers that will conclude that God is not powerful enough to stop this under the guise of "God has to let people make their own choices."  For these people, God is real and loving, but he is apparently unable to stop people that make these tragic choices.

The truth is that all three of these attributes is true of God.  He is real - and he is aware of the events that transpire in every theater and city.  He is loving - he sacrificed his only begotten son to spare us pain.  He has power to prevent and to stop acts of violence or other tragedies - he knows the past, present and future, and he could have made James Holmes have a fatal heart attack prior to him carrying out his awful plan.

For many people of faith, some of the most important truths that require reconciliation are the reality of tragedy and the omniscience and omnipotence of God.

If we operate under the assumption that God is real, all-knowing, and all-powerful, then tragedies force the conclusion that God's goal is not the prevention of tragedy, and that tragedy is not able to prevent his goals from being realized.  The real question then becomes 'what does God want?'

This question must be handled delicately.  Simply because something has occurred does not necessarily mean that God wanted it to occur in that way.  Failure to remember that leads down the path of the Westboro Baptist crowd where the question of 'what does God want?' seems to be answered by 'tragedy.'

God does not want tragedy to befall men, and the life of Jesus Christ himself provides abundant evidence of this:

• Worried about the hunger of those that had come to hear him teach, he fed 5000 people using his power. (Matthew 14:15-21)
• Sympathetic to a lame man who had no one to help him into the pool of Bethesda, the words of Christ gave him the power to walk (John 5:5-9)
• Compassionate to a pair of blind men, Jesus touched their eyes, restoring their sight (Matthew 9:27-31)
• With emotion, Christ raised Lazarus even though he had been dead for days (John 11)

The only conclusion available is that God does not want us to suffer... but more than this, he wants something else.  What that something else is really is an important question which all people should ask themselves, and strive diligently to find an answer.  It is not however the subject of this post.  This post is more about what God does to help us when crimes and tragedies occur.

If God does not want us to suffer tragedy, surely he has provided some mechanism to protect against crime and nurture those in need.  A careful examination will reveal several methods:

• Families: The fundamental unit of society is designed to nurture and provide for people.  Every human being at one point was a child.  When born, humans are incapable of communication except to cry when something seems amiss.  Babies are not able to move on their own, or even hold up their heads properly.  In spite of the weaknesses of young children, there are no fiercer defenders, providers, or instructors than loving parents.  When tragedy strikes, a child has a right to a mother and father that will loyally assist them to the limits of their abilities. (http://www.lds.org/family/proclamation/)  While the assistance of family should not be limited to young children, the importance of family influence is most obvious in these cases.
• The State:  God approves of governmental concepts (not necessarily specific governments). (D&C 134:1)  Governments have the power to help defend citizens, and to prosecute the commission of crimes.  Guilty individuals can and should suffer the consequences of justice according to the law.  The state is treated differently than an individual in God's eyes.  In other words, there are cases when God approves of stealing, kidnapping, and killing.
• While it is wrong for an individual to seize property from another, a government in honestly striving to uphold justice may take property.  It is common sense to attempt to take from a thief what was stolen and to restore it to its proper owner.  For an individual it is stealing; for a government, it might be tax or lawful seizure.
• While it is wrong for an individual to take a person against their will and imprison them,  A society appropriately puts those guilty of several types of crimes in prisons and removes their liberties.  For an individual, it is kidnapping; for a government, it is imprisonment.
• While it is wrong for an individual to kill another except in self defense, a society is able to take convicts and execute them.  This is not the same as a mob, such as the French Revolutionary government that sent people to the guillotine in droves for being aristocrats.  This is a government that is preventing a person that is not capable of being rehabilitated from inflicting any further harm.  Life-long imprisonment for such individuals cannot guarantee against escape, and does little to prohibit the influence of such toxic persons from affecting inmates that are eligible for rehabilitation and will be returned to society.  A person guilty of murder or child abuse is an example of someone that can never be trusted or rehabilitated, even if God may forgive them in the next life.  For an individual, it is murder; for a government, it is capital punishment.
• The Church:  The State cannot make people good, it can only defend against crimes of commission.  Suffering from tragedies may require generosity and kindness, for which there can be no legislation made.  No one should expect to stand before God and expect entrance to his kingdom in exchange for the many government programs that were funded using paycheck deductions.  This is not charity.  Churches and charitable organizations provide real mechanisms of organization for doing good.  The generous giving of alms, the provision of service for those in need, the hand of fellowship and brotherhood: these are ideals that are almost universally promoted by all churches.  The persuasion to do good can and should come from the conscience-stirring influences found in places of worship.

God intends for families, states, and churches to help all men cope with the tragedies that inevitably come.  We are right to feel shock, horror, and doubt when tragedy strikes, but hopefully the resources that God has given will help us ask the right questions, and come to the right conclusions.  God is real.  He is powerful.  He is loving.  In the end, all wrongs will be made right, and no injustice will exist.  In the end, Jesus Christ will reign, and he will truly save us all.  In the meantime, let's hang in there, and help each other out.

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)

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 Problem With The Book of Mormon

The Book of Mormon is one of the most fundamental elements of the Mormon religion.  Missionaries travel around the world offering this book to people freely.  It is available for online perusal at http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm?lang=eng.  It contents are taught from seminaries, institutes, Sunday school classes, conferences, and other meetings in the Mormon religion.  Its name is the source of the nickname "mormon" for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

As a result of so much positive study of the Book of Mormon, many people in the LDS faith are somewhat shielded from criticism of the book.  This is probably as much the case as people outside of the LDS faith are shielded from positive study of the book.  The quirks of mormonism and the Book of Mormon are apparently easy to mock in the form of everything from internet memes to Broadway musicals.

The problem with the Book of Mormon is more than what those that would mock the church say.  Many members of the church will glaze over the flaws as if they do not exist.  They are in many cases painfully obvious.

Consider the teaching of the Book of Mormon prophet Amulek:

"And now, behold, I will testify unto you of myself that these things are true. Behold, I say unto you, that I do know that Christ shall come among the children of men, to take upon him the transgressions of his people, and that he shall atone for the sins of the world; for the Lord God hath spoken it.

 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 34:8-9)

This is extremely repetative.  How many times must we hear about this expedient atonement in the same breath?  Perhaps Amulek did not understand pronouns...

Consider the words of the Book of Mormon prophet Nephi:

"The word that Isaiah, the son of Amoz, saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem:

 And it shall come to pass in the last days, when the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it.

 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem." (2 Nephi 12:1-3)

This does not even pretend to be original.  The passage is just recycling the words of Isaiah.

The last prophet of the Book of Mormon, Moroni, was openly worried about these flaws:

"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;

 And thou hast made us that we could write but little, because of the awkwardness of our hands. Behold, thou hast not made us mighty in writing like unto the brother of Jared, for thou madest him that the things which he wrote were mighty even as thou art, unto the overpowering of man to read them.

Thou hast also made our words powerful and great, even that we cannot write them; wherefore, when we write we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock at our words." (Ether 12:23-25)

Moroni was right to worry.  The Book of Mormon is filled with mediocre language, run-on sentences, large quotations from Biblical passages, and similar content flaws. Why would anyone want such a flawed book to be considered the "keystone" of their religion? Why wouldn't a church try to hide this book in a place it would never be read? Why publish these blantant mistakes?

The answers to these questions are critical to understanding the truth about the Mormon faith.

The truth is that these mistakes are not important.  Certainly not more important than the flaws in the Bible.  Does it matter to Christians that the geneaolgies of Joseph do not match in Matthew 1 and Luke 3?  Should the book of Micah be stricken from the canon because he recycles the same passages of Isaiah that Nephi used? (Micah 4:1-2)  Was Moses less of a prophet because he complained about being slow of speech? (Exodus 4:10-16)

The truths of the Bible and the Book of Mormon are greater than confusing obscure passages.  The truth is that Jesus Christ guided his chosen people (both in the Bible and in the Book of Mormon) and promised them land, posterity, power, and wisdom if they would keep his law.  The tragedy is that they did not.  The Jews were taken captive to Babylon and ultimately scattered.  The Nephites and Jaredites were swallowed up in terrible wars and ultimately annihilated.  The truth in these books was the same.  Prophets saw a day when the truth would return... when the promises and prophecies of old would be realized... when every nation, tongue, and kindred would learn of the saving power of the Christ...

These books, while freely available, did not come easily.  Many people gave their lives so that the Bible could be translated into common languages.  Prophets sacrificed much to bring the word of God to the people.  In the Book of Mormon, armies fell defending freedom, and family.  Many died to secure the blessings that come from living the law of the Lord in a precious land of promise.

The Book of Mormon, similarly involved great sacrifices by the people whose story it contains and also those that helped bring us the story.  Joseph Smith was mocked, beaten, robbed, driven from his home, wrongly imprisoned, and eventually murdered for his role in bringing this book and the truth in it to light.

The real problem with the Book of Mormon is that it is glazed over, softened, abbreviated, marginalized, and underappreciated by those to whom it has been given. 

It may not be as entertaining as Harry Potter, the Lord of the Rings, the Hunger Games, or a myriad of other popular titles... but it is far more important.  The claims associated with this book are bold. Mormons assert that Joseph Smith saw an angel that told him where to find them. He translated them into english by the power of God himself. 

I cannot over-emphasize the importance of reading the Book of Mormon.  I do not mean search for mistakes of the imperfect men who wrote and translated it...  I mean searching for the big picture. 

If it is the word of God, a message from heaven to us here and now, then what is he saying?  Does Jesus truly have the power that his apostles said he had?  Is he truly the son of God?

If God truly has caused this book to come forth... if God truly does have a message for humanity... if the Book of Mormon is true... it changes everything.

The Mediocre Mormon Talk

Many churches have ministers or pastors that perform their duties as a career.  The congregations of these churches typically benefit from the instruction of a speaker that is eloquent, passionate, and clear.  The storytelling skills of these individuals is typically quite impressive.  Successful pastors can hold the attention of large and even divers audiences for long periods of time.

Mormons do not have paid clergy.  The leadership of the church comes from the membership.  Our Bishops and High Priests must typically maintain separate jobs in addition to their ecclesiastical duties in order to support themselves.  While there are many advantages to the all-volunteer system, training in and passion for public speaking are not always among them.

Even in cases where leaders are gifted speakers the typical Sunday service provides speaking opportunities to members of the congregation.  This means that almost any person could be called upon to give a talk.  The result?  Mediocrity....

Many congregations will have a youth speaker that will give a 5-minute talk, followed by two adult speakers (often a married couple) that will each give talks between 10 and 15 minutes.

Frequently youth speakers will read a story from a periodical and perhaps a few applicable verses from the scriptures until their assigned time is expired.  This is not necessarily a bad technique for public speakers as young as 12, although forming a habit of just reading a few items that are probably related to the assigned subject is not good practice.

The true mediocrity appears more frequently in the adult talks.  Many times, the technique and even the content is identical to the youth speakers with the exception of lengthy and largely pointless introductions, and recitals of the moments when a member of the Bishopric contacted the speaker to give them the speaking assignment.  These recitals almost always involve the speaker talking about their loathing of public speaking and end with the phrase "but I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak to you today..."

Another popular technique of mediocrity is to share the process of talk preparation.  This method usually begins with the phrase "...as I was looking for what to talk about..."  The speaker then goes on to talk about how they looked in the dictionary, they searched for talks that other people had given, they looked in the scriptures, or they talked to someone they knew.  This type of speaking rarely amounts to little more than stalling.  In fact, most of the techniques used in speaking revolve around a central goal of filling the air with words for the requested duration of time. 

While it is good to have some sources and quote some scripture, speaking should never exclusively be recycling other peoples thoughts.  In between reading quotes from church leaders or other sources, the speaker inserts their "original" commentary of "I really like this quote/story/scripture."  This is especially a problem when the assigned talk subject is... a talk.  These produce the worst results and the greatest chance that the speaker will just read large portions of someone else's talk, with little passion, insight, and typically with average articulation.

No wonder so many LDS services are mediocre.

Would anyone imagine Jesus speaking to people using these techniques?  It might start something like this abbreviated hypothetical version of a sermon (no blasphemy intended):

Hello everyone... I hope you'll bear with me today as I have been asked to speak to you... I thought I would start by introducing myself.  I'm Jesus.  I've lived most of my life in Nazareth, but I was actually born in Bethlehem and even lived in Egypt for a while while Herod was... well... killing babies.  I have a lot of experience in carpentry.  So that's me!

I was asked by my Father to talk to you about the gospel... I thought a long time about it.  In fact, I've fasted and prayed for a long time, and even been to the temple as I thought about what I would say.  I think that this assignment is going to be tough, but I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak to you today.

The hypothetical sermon would then contain mostly quotes from the scriptures followed perhaps by the "I really like this scripture.  It means a lot." as the only original material.

The truth is that Jesus spoke boldly, passionately, and persuasively.  He wasn't just trying to 'get through' his sermons, or speak so as to fill an assigned interval of time.  He was speaking to persuade people to understand and to do what was right. (Matthew 5:17-19)  He was incredibly bold and taught ideas that were consistent with the law and the prophets, but with new and original insight. (Matthew 5:38-44)  He made it clear that his words were not simply to entertain, but his council was to be followed. (Matthew 7:24-27)  When he concluded, his audience was amazed by the power with which he addressed them.  Matthew writes "And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes." (Matthew 7:28-29)

The message of the Mormon church is bold.  Its purpose is not to fill a time interval in Sunday services, it is to change the world.  It represents the ultimate transforming power that makes bad men good and good men better.  There is no need to dilute the core truths with mediocrity.

Jesus Christ is the son of God.  He is alive and well, and he is guiding his church.  Joseph Smith saw him, and received power from him just as the apostles of old.  By his power, the Book of Mormon was translated, that we might have a purely prophetic book by which we can be made to understand faith, penitence, baptism, the Holy Ghost, and all important aspects of his unfailing kingdom.  He has given men the power to act in his name to spread his teachings and will to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people.

With so much powerful and profound truth, it is a shame to see mediocrity in talks and lessons.  The purpose of any talk should be to persuade men to come to Christ and to do his will.  Next to that, the speaker's brief biography, their methods of preparation, their liking of scriptures, quotes, and stories, or any stalling techniques are trivial, boring, and mediocre.

While no one can teach or speak as well as Jesus did, it sure would help if more people tried.

Why bother living if you could just die and go to heaven?

A prominent atheist, Todd Steifel responded to questions from people of faith recently.  (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/blaze-exclusive-prominent-atheist-activist-answers-your-most-burning-questions-about-faith-secularism/)  One of the questions he was asked was "If atheists have no faith, what is your reason for life?"

He responded in an articulate and impressive manner:

“This questions needs to be broken in two. There is the question of ‘what is your reason for life,‘ but an answer also needs to be given to the assumption of ’atheists have no faith.’ To the piece on faith, this depends on what definition of faith you use. If defined as, believing without proof, atheists reject this type of blind faith as dangerous and ignorant. This is the kind kind of faith that allows people to be convinced they will be rewarded with virgins for flying a plane into a building. On the other hand, all atheists have faith in terms of trusting other people. Atheists do not have faith in terms of, believing in gods, but personally I have no problem with people who have this kind of faith so long as they are not fundamentalists and do not try to use the government to spread or legislate their religion.
As to our reason for living, our reasons are even stronger than for those who believe in an afterlife. To atheists, we get one shot, there is no reincarnation or heaven where we get to live on after death. We have to do our best here and now. There is no reason for life, except for the purpose we give it. I am sure each atheist has different reasons they love life, but for me, my reasons for living include the joy of raising my children, the love of being with my family and friends and the fulfillment I get from helping other people. A better question may be what is the reason for living for someone who believes in heaven; why bother living if you could just die and go to heaven? What meaning can you give to this life? My guess is that the answers a religious person has to those questions are very similar to the answer I have for living.”

The question of "why bother living if you could just die and go to heaven?" may seem argumentative, but I believe Mr. Steifel submits a valid question. Why would God create mankind, go to great lengths to make his presence undetectable, and then assign a final and permanent judgement that either saves or damns them?  If the choices that people make in this life are so important, and he invests so much in us, why would he not come down immediately and explain that to everyone?  Why allow atheists and secularists to mock him and cast doubt on his very existence if faith is required to access his saving grace?

Perhaps other Christians have answers to these questions... I will not speak for them.  I do know what answers the Mormon faith provides to these questions however.

The purpose of life is not to get to heaven.  Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believe that the existence of mankind did not begin on earth.  It began in heaven.

Many people overlook that the Biblical account in Genesis shows two creations.  The more famous is divided into six periods that are called days.  The efforts in this time are shown to produce light, land, sea, plants, sun, moon, stars, fish, fowl, beasts, and mankind.  After this creation, God then is said to have not made a man to till the earth, and forms a man of the dust of the earth. (Genesis 2:7)  After this man is created, plants and rivers are formed in the land, including the garden of Eden.  (Genesis 2:8-15)  After the creation of man and the garden, God points out that the man is alone and creates animals of the dust of the earth. (Genesis 2:19-20)  Finally, God creates a wife for the man, Eve. (Genesis 2:23-24)  This second creation appears to differ from the first in both scope and order.  Latter-Day Saints believe that this second creation represents a physical creation, and that all things, including mankind, were first created spiritually. (Moses 3:5) 

These passages highlight an important point.  Mankind existed before the physical earth on which we now live was created.  It is not rhetorical to call God our Heavenly Father, for we lived with him as his children before we came to earth.  The purpose of life cannot be to get to heaven, because we had already achieved that before birth.

Life challenges us to become something greater.  Jesus taught, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48)  The word perfect in this case does not mean flawless.  It is the same use of the term when describing the tense in language (i.e. saying 'I have grown' implies that the growth is complete.  This is perfect tense.)

This change can be easily identified in the Apostle Peter.  He that denied that he knew Jesus (Matthew 26:29-75) became one that boldly declared that he was the Christ. (Acts 4:10-12)  Ultimately, his belief in Jesus made him a greater man.

There are numerous other examples of people that gain courage through faith.  Faith is a catalyst for improvement.  God does not want to come down and prove himself at the request of every atheist or secularist... he wants them to seek him patiently.  Scientifically verifiable evidence of his power does not challenge people to become greater.  The quest to seek him in the holy scriptures, in the words of prophets, in the sincerity of prayer, and in the humility of repentance, this is what challenges mankind to become something more than they now are.

God provides universal and general guiding principals.  Atheism has from ancient times tried to separate God from goodness.  Many prominent atheists point out that even devout evangelicals, when pressed, do not say that God is to be obeyed, they say that God is good.  If goodness is not tied to God, then they can be good without believing in God.

The real flaw in this belief is the knowledge that without God there can be no justice.  If life ends with death, then what does it matter if a man lies, cheats, steals, kills, and does anything he can to get gain?  If a murderer can get away with it, and it benefits them, why not murder?  If a liar does not get caught, then why not lie?  Is it based on some abstract law that people should be good?  That is incredibly weak without some method of enforcing the law.

God provides the hope that even when vile offenders get out of worldly justice on technicalities, in the end, those that do wrong will reap the consequences of their actions.  In the end, those that do good, and believe in God will be saved by him.

Without God, moral judgement will always fall to culturally relativistic tendencies.  If there is no purpose to life other than what we give it, does that mean those that don't do much with their lives have no purpose?  If a person doesn't enjoy life as Mr. Steifel does, are they expendable?  If a person derives happiness from the misery of others as opposed to helping others as Mr. Steifel does, is cruelty the purpose of their life?  Is the value of a purposeful life greater than the value of a life with little or no purpose?

In the end, the answer to the question "why bother living if you could just die and go to heaven?" is probably best handled by an understanding of who we are, why we are here, and what we can become.  Because of Jesus Christ, even the most humble life has purpose.  Because of Jesus Christ, the poor in spirit shall inherit the kingdom of heaven, they that mourn shall be comforted, the meek shall inherit the earth, they that hunger and thirst after righteousness shall be filled, and the merciful shall obtain mercy.  Because of Jesus Christ, there is a reason to live right, and a promise that good will triumph over evil in the end.  He didn't come to get the simple satisfaction of teaching philosophy or point out a few benefits of kindness; he came to save us all.

Quit calling him Savior!

In the early 1920's, Germany was in a difficult situation where they were required to pay reparations to the victorious nations from World War I although they had a weak economy.  To make the required payments, they printed a large amount of money.  The high supply of money in the market caused it to lose value very quickly.  This hyperinflation reached its worst in November of 1923.  The approximate value of 1 US dollar in German Marks was 4,200,000,000,000.  (http://www.sammler.com/coins/inflation.htm)

The effects of high supply are easy to see when hyperinflation sets in.  The more of something there is, the less valuable it becomes.  While being rare may not necessarily mean valuable, being common practically guarantees low worth.

The same is true of words.  Words that are frequently used do not stand out as being important.  I recall a person that frequently used the word "special" to describe people in a positive way.  They were a positive person, and so they called almost everyone "special."  Some time later I viewed the Disney/Pixar movie "The Incredibles" where the main antagonist Syndrome stated "Oh, I'm real. Real enough to defeat you! And I did it without your precious gifts, your oh-so-special powers. I'll give them heroics. I'll give them the most spectacular heroics the world has ever seen! And when I'm old and I've had my fun, I'll sell my inventions so that everyone can have powers. Everyone can be super! And when every one's super... no one will be." (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0317705/quotes)

This is even true in religious contexts.  The Apostle Paul refers to Christ as a priest after the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:14-17).  Latter-Day Saints have further insight regarding the name of the High Priesthood: "Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest. Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God. But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood." (D&C 107:2-4)

In spite of this principle's clarity in the scriptures, there is a trend among Latter-Day Saints that abuses it: the use of the term Savior.

This title is potentially an extremely powerful term.  A savior is a person who "saves, rescues, delivers." (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/savior?s=t)  This title is certainly appropriate for Jesus Christ, who suffered unjust and unimaginable pain voluntarily to spare the sons of men from so suffering.  He single-handedly beat death when he raised himself from the dead, and he freely shares the gift of life with all people that die.  He provides power that cannot be found from any other source.  There is no curse, no pain, no problem that is too great for him to overcome.  The term "savior" when used appropriately can imply all of this in a profound and powerful manner.

Unfortunately, the term is overused.  In meetings, talks, and lessons everywhere, I frequently hear the term used.  My experience is that the term is used more than "Jesus", "Christ", "Lord", or any combination of these terms (i.e. "Jesus Christ" or "the Lord Jesus Christ").

As a result, instead of the profound potential meaning of the word being invoked, the term "savior" has become a name.  It has become common.  It frequently loses its meaning other than being a reference to Jesus.

I believe that part of the reason that he has so many names and titles is so that he does not become common or lose value in speech or print.  If it is important to refer to him in a simple manner (such as when teaching young children), why not follow the pattern laid out in the holy scriptures?  Using the names "Jesus" or "Christ" (or an amalgamation of these) are frequently done in the New Testament.  The tetragram referring to him can be understood in the Old Testament use of LORD, and also represents a valid simple reference to him.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton)

I encourage the use of various names and titles to help understand his character, roles, and powers.  I appreciate the use of the terms "Master", "King", and "Messiah".  There is no shortage in the supply of names which are respectful and accurate.  Whatever terms are used, it is important that effort is exerted to ensure Christ is not thought of in a common way.  While he ought to be known and recognized by all, his value should not be diminished in writing or speech because he is the most important person that has ever or will ever live...  he is our Savior.