Zack Kopplin has received attention in the past year for his efforts against creationism or intelligent design being taught in schools. This is not all that uncommon an effort among atheist activists. The thing that sets him apart is his attack of private schools that teach such concepts.
He has been among those that investigate the curriculum of private schools that accept government vouchers, particularly in Louisiana. For those unfamiliar with the basic premise behind vouchers, the basic system is that any given state will spend a certain amount of money on each student. The voucher system allows parents to take those funds and apply them toward education that meets their needs. The goal is that even those in low-income situations will have access to choice in education instead of being forced to use public education, which is arguably less efficient in providing education.
Part of Zack's efforts are based in the claim that because these schools receive government funding in the form of vouchers, they should not be permitted to use curriculum that includes creationism or intelligent design. Like many atheists, he argues that such teachings constitute a violation of the wall of separation between church and state, or an infringement on the beliefs of those that reject such theories.
Of course, being the ward preacher, you might guess that I have different views... and of course, you would be right.
Saying that a school which accepts vouchers is taking public funding is like saying a person who has had a tax refund has accepted public funding. To a degree, they have. The current progressive tax system sees to it that some people pay taxes and others receive checks in place of such taxes. People in lower income brackets that cash refund checks or approve refund deposits have accepted public funding. If the public interest in removing religion from sources with public funding is so important, perhaps the government should examine what they are teaching their kids in such homes to see if it is compatible with the current politically correct understanding.
To extend the analogy, a person that receives food stamps also has accepted public funding. Perhaps a condition of accepting this funding should include that the recipient should be disallowed to affiliate themselves with a religious organization just to ensure that no public funding can possibly aid a church. What a crime it would be if we found that food stamp recipients ever entertained (gasp) missionaries in their home... and what a greater crime it would be if said missionaries (gasp) ate a meal that such individuals had prepared.
Please do not misunderstand me, or assume that I am advocating for a state religion. While I believe firmly that I have found a church that is led by Jesus Christ himself, I do not believe that the United States should dictate to its citizens that they should become members of it, or that the government should institute fines or other penal measures against those who are not members of it.
Atheist activist efforts typically revolve around a liberal interpretation of "establishment of religion" in the first amendment. Conveniently, most activists pretend that the free exercise clause does not exist, but regardless, the pair of these clauses form a metaphorical wall of separation between church and state. (See Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists - http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html)
Having a wall of separation implies a distinct separation between the two entities. Of course, atheist activists are anxious to ensure that Christmas, Easter, or monuments to the Ten Commandments are physically separated from government property. Such steps are completely one-sided, and do not ensure the existence of a wall of separation, but instead a valve of separation where the state trumps the church in all cases.
Establishing a wall of separation means pulling the government out of roles that ought to be reserved for churches. The more obvious roles include welfare and charity. A less obvious role is education.
While the state may have an interest in having its citizens educated, it is no greater than its interest in having citizens that are charitable and benevolent. This does not make the government the appropriate source of education any more than it makes it an effective charity or rehabilitative system.
In the same sense, the church has an interest in being protected against people that want to kill them, rob them, or otherwise prevent them from accomplishing their purposes, but that does not make churches an appropriate body for defense or law enforcement.
Particularly in a society where the government consists of the public and the public cannot come to a consensus on what curriculum should be, it makes sense to allow people to pursue curriculum that is consistent with what they believe to be important on an individual basis.
A person that has no desire to study medicine should not be compelled to. A person that wishes to study a completely unmarketable skill in the humanities should be free to. Similarly, a person that wants to investigate evolutionary biology should be able to, and a person that wishes to have a biblical perspective on philosophy and life should also be able to. The government has no business telling people what they need to learn. Of course, the government can encourage people to develop specific skills that are appropriate for government applications such as law and agriculture, the same way that businesses encourage the development of specific skills such as accounting and computer science.
Even when examining only the most effective teachers and administrators in public education systems (under some of whom I have studied), there remain concerns from religious individuals on how sex is taught, and concerns from anti-religious individuals on literature that includes biblical or religious references. These concerns would not exist if education were emancipated from the restraints of the state.
Additionally, ethical questions are a natural part of education, and since ethical questions require understanding religious perspectives (http://wardpreacher.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-ethical-dilemmas-of-godlessness.html), it is a disservice to students to remove the option of exploring religious perspectives. While there may be students and parents that do not wish to use such an option, should people not be able to freely decide how to study without having to invest in a public system?
If anti-religious zealots like Zack Kopplin were truly interested in maintaining a wall of separation between church and state, they would not be fighting about what to include in a public curriculum in efforts to try and remove the church from the state; they would be fighting just as hard to remove the state from the church.
Monday, February 25, 2013
Monday, February 11, 2013
Who is this 'Jesus' and what is his beef with gays?
The format of this post will be in the form of a conversation between a hypothetical individual that is a proponent of homosexual marriage and believes that homosexuality is natural and harmless. This post may make some people angry, so I issue the following warning to proponents of homosexuality before proceeding:
Yes, it is judgmental to say that homosexuality is wrong. It would also be judgmental for you to rush to the comments section to tell me my belief that certain behaviors are sinful is wrong. This post was written in a hypothetical conversation to avoid a heated conversation with you. This article is meant to be thought provoking... not argument provoking. Before giving in to the impulse to tell me everything I may have forgotten to consider, or how you know that I am going to hell... please just consider the points that I have made. If you are unable to control yourself, there are plenty of other blogs, articles, memes, and clever sayings that promote your point of view which are less likely to upset your delicate balance. Please consider these sources instead of continuing on.
That having been said, the hypothetical proponent of homosexuality will present their points in italics.
Who is this 'Jesus' and what is his beef with gays?
Jesus is the son of God. He created the heavens and the earth. He also suffered unspeakable pain to provide a way for every human being to escape sin and death. I would not say that Jesus has a vendetta against homosexuals. He asks all people to cease committing sinful acts as a means of accepting his power to save us. Homosexuality is one of an innumerable list of sinful acts.
You just think that being gay is wrong because of a less than 2000 year old book called the Bible... but even Christians that all claim to believe in the Bible can't agree on how to interpret it.
That is not the only reason we believe homosexuality is sinful, but scripture should certainly contribute to our stance. It may be true that not all Christians agree on how to interpret the Bible, but the fundamental concepts that Jesus is the son of God and that through him all people can be saved are not disputed.
So you all believe in Jesus, but Jesus never said anything about homosexuality in the Bible.
You claim to read the Bible even though you discredit its contents? I find that unlikely... but I suppose that's not important. Of course you are meaning that the words of Christ as represented in the four Gospels do not explicitly define homosexuality as sinful. Of course, prophets existed before Christ's mortal ministry that declared "thus saith the Lord" and spoke on behalf of Christ. After his mortal ministry ended, he directed his Apostles to speak on his behalf. In other words, prophets and apostles spoke in the name of Jesus when they condemned homosexuality. (Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:27)
But the law of Moses also condemned eating pork, and you do that... Do you really think everything in the Old Testament still applies?
Of course not. Christians do not practice animal sacrifice, even though it was explicitly commanded. Also... pork is delicious.
And what about the New Testament? Paul said that women should wear only modest clothes and be silent in 1 Timothy 2:9-15... Do you believe that?
Is it so wrong to ask women not to dress like prostitutes? Also, Paul was not singling out women only is his preaching, was he? Have you read the rest of 1 Timothy? Have you read the strict conditions he gave the men in the church? To answer your question though, Christians do not typically believe that women must be silent. I have no problem with women speaking.
So you're just picking and choosing which parts of the Bible you want to follow... Why can't homosexuals ignore the verses that condemn what they naturally want to do?
So Christians are limited only to the Bible? Is that what you think? As you pointed out, it's less than 2000 years old, and people have been serving the Lord a lot longer than that. As much as Christians love the Bible, it was possible for Peter and the early Apostles to be Christians without it. It was also possible for Moses to follow Christ without it, and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Before, during, and after the Bible, God spoke through prophets and apostles. That hasn't gone away because we've "already had a bunch of them"...
So is that the Pope? Is that someone else? How do you know which prophet is right?
You ask that as if this is a new problem... as if true prophets were always easy to spot... Jeremiah 23 is worth reading. Also, there is a reason that Jesus told people to beware of false prophets (Matthew 7:15). The existence of inconsistent sources does not mean there are no sources of God's word.
But you didn't answer my question... How do you know which prophet is right?
Following a prophet is always a matter of faith... but God can help. (James 1:5-6) Prayer should always be a part of the process. Think also of how Peter became convinced that Jesus was the actual son of God... (Matthew 16:17-18) Or how the disciples on the road to Emmaus perceived that they had spoken to the resurrected Lord by saying that their hearts "burned within them"? (Luke 24:32)
If I am supposed to follow my feelings, then I don't feel like there's anything wrong with being gay. What harm does it do?
That is exactly the reason that God still uses prophets instead of explicitly telling every person everything. By choosing a small number of individuals as prophets and communicating a lot to them, and only communicating to you who is a prophet, God creates an environment that rewards those that seek him. The point of revelation was never to learn every detail about every behavior, thought, or deed... It is to help identify a source that represents divine knowledge. The requirement for faith or need to work together is maintained in this environment.
You didn't answer my question again. What, specifically, is harmful about homosexuality?
Well, what if I told you that homosexual acts cause tremendous suffering, but it is not immediately detectable?
That's not specific.
We'll get to the specifics in a moment, first, how do you know something is harmful?
Visible negative effects prove something is harmful.
That's the real issue then, isn't it? Whether or not something can be perceived doesn't necessarily mean it is or isn't harmful. Being unable to see a sniper does not make him less lethal.
That's a bad example. You can immediately see the negative effects of a sniper after he shoots someone. You can't see any immediate negative effects from homosexuals.
How about radiation? How about other diseases? Handling objects that are contaminated with these things may not cause immediate harm, but over time, they do.
Yes, but we know through scientific methods about how these things are harmful...
So before scientific methods were discovered, were these things still harmful?
Yes.
So you're saying that we have discovered every method for perceiving things that are harmful? If I can't immediately show you the harm of something, it is not harmful?
Well...
Or what about things that can appear subjectively harmful. Take smoking and drinking. Science tells us that these habits increase the risk of organ failure or cancer, however, I have met elderly individuals that have smoked and drank for their lives and appear to live in relative comfort. Does that mean smoking and drinking is not harmful to some individuals?
Well...
Also, how harmful does something have to be in order to be bad? A person that undergoes a surgical procedure accepts a degree of risk, and accepts that instruments will be used to damage their bodies. Of course, they are hoping that the end result will help more than it will harm... but is accepting the harm wrong?
That's a different kind of harm... It's more like potential harm or risk... Humanity doesn't stay in plastic bubbles because things *might* be harmful.
But when you asked me to prove specifically that something is visibly harmful, you didn't communicate any of these details that might affect that. Also, do you look both ways before crossing the street? Do you reduce your speed when driving on icy roads? Do you fasten your safety belt? You probably already do things to protect yourself against potential harm.
I don't see a potential harm in letting homosexuals marry...
I don't see a harm in leaving the marriage laws alone... How can you be certain you are seeing the greater harm?
Don't shift the burden of proof to me... You said you had a specific example...
True enough. Jesus Christ is the example.
What? What does that even mean?
Jesus Christ suffered because of the sins of all individuals. In other words, every thought, word, and deed that was wrong that ever was or ever will be done exacted a physical harmful toll on Jesus Christ. The pressure was so intense that blood squeezed through his skin. (Luke 22:44) I would say that Jesus is uniquely qualified to be able to tell us what is and isn't sinful because he suffered for all sins.
Yes, well, I don't believe in Jesus... Prove to me in some other way that homosexuality is bad.
You believe that mankind is the result of evolutionary processes?
Yes. I don't believe in creationism; We evolved.
Fine then. So you're saying that the processes whereby mankind has become the dominant species on the planet are mutations and natural selection?
That's right.
So is homosexuality a natural mutation?
I believe it's natural. I think that Christians only call it bad because they are clinging to their traditions about Jesus, when there is no evidence that Jesus was divine.
The divinity of Christ is a separate conversation, so for the sake of our conversation, let's pretend that you're right about the origins of humanity. Let's pretend that humans are an advanced animal that is more fit to survive than other animals. How can homosexuality be a natural positive force if it drives individuals toward behavior that will prevent them from passing on their genetic code to future generations?
I... well...
So if it doesn't contribute to the fitness of an organism, the mutation must be called a disorder.
I never thought of it like that...
And if it is a disorder, than it would be in the best interest of our species to call it and treat it as such... right?
But what if it's nature's way of controlling the human population because we are abusing the earth?
So you're saying that homosexuals have been selected by nature to be removed from the gene pool? You're saying that nature has declared them unfit to pass on their genetics?
When you say it like that it sounds kinda bad...
Ultimately, homosexuality is either wrong on religious grounds, or it is a disorder on evolutionary grounds. Am I missing any options?
Yes, you're a bully and Jesus said not to judge others.
You're saying I'm a hypocrite because I am saying other people are sinful? I will concede that point. Only Jesus Christ was sinless. That doesn't mean that I'm wrong though, and it certainly doesn't mean that I need to accept sinful behavior for the sake of consistency. It does mean that I should try and be less hypocritical myself by repenting of my sins.
Yeah, so take that bully! You're a judgmental person because you think homosexuality is bad! Also, judgmental people will go to hell!
You don't see any irony or hypocrisy in what you're saying?
I see your point. I will now rethink how I approach Christians who object to homosexuality.
Ok, so I've never heard anyone change their position, and I doubt a blog post by an obscure and abrasive guy is going to actually make anyone rethink their position or approach. One way or the other, it is becoming more important for Christians to understand their own beliefs. Anyone that truthfully wishes to follow Jesus should be a bit more comprehensive in their quest than a few bible references from memes or clever sayings from protest banners. Religion is not something to throw out when it challenges your views... religion should be the defining belief system that guides and governs all aspects of one's life. Find out for yourself using all of your resources what God thinks... because God is never wrong.
Yes, it is judgmental to say that homosexuality is wrong. It would also be judgmental for you to rush to the comments section to tell me my belief that certain behaviors are sinful is wrong. This post was written in a hypothetical conversation to avoid a heated conversation with you. This article is meant to be thought provoking... not argument provoking. Before giving in to the impulse to tell me everything I may have forgotten to consider, or how you know that I am going to hell... please just consider the points that I have made. If you are unable to control yourself, there are plenty of other blogs, articles, memes, and clever sayings that promote your point of view which are less likely to upset your delicate balance. Please consider these sources instead of continuing on.
That having been said, the hypothetical proponent of homosexuality will present their points in italics.
Who is this 'Jesus' and what is his beef with gays?
Jesus is the son of God. He created the heavens and the earth. He also suffered unspeakable pain to provide a way for every human being to escape sin and death. I would not say that Jesus has a vendetta against homosexuals. He asks all people to cease committing sinful acts as a means of accepting his power to save us. Homosexuality is one of an innumerable list of sinful acts.
You just think that being gay is wrong because of a less than 2000 year old book called the Bible... but even Christians that all claim to believe in the Bible can't agree on how to interpret it.
That is not the only reason we believe homosexuality is sinful, but scripture should certainly contribute to our stance. It may be true that not all Christians agree on how to interpret the Bible, but the fundamental concepts that Jesus is the son of God and that through him all people can be saved are not disputed.
So you all believe in Jesus, but Jesus never said anything about homosexuality in the Bible.
You claim to read the Bible even though you discredit its contents? I find that unlikely... but I suppose that's not important. Of course you are meaning that the words of Christ as represented in the four Gospels do not explicitly define homosexuality as sinful. Of course, prophets existed before Christ's mortal ministry that declared "thus saith the Lord" and spoke on behalf of Christ. After his mortal ministry ended, he directed his Apostles to speak on his behalf. In other words, prophets and apostles spoke in the name of Jesus when they condemned homosexuality. (Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:27)
But the law of Moses also condemned eating pork, and you do that... Do you really think everything in the Old Testament still applies?
Of course not. Christians do not practice animal sacrifice, even though it was explicitly commanded. Also... pork is delicious.
And what about the New Testament? Paul said that women should wear only modest clothes and be silent in 1 Timothy 2:9-15... Do you believe that?
Is it so wrong to ask women not to dress like prostitutes? Also, Paul was not singling out women only is his preaching, was he? Have you read the rest of 1 Timothy? Have you read the strict conditions he gave the men in the church? To answer your question though, Christians do not typically believe that women must be silent. I have no problem with women speaking.
So you're just picking and choosing which parts of the Bible you want to follow... Why can't homosexuals ignore the verses that condemn what they naturally want to do?
So Christians are limited only to the Bible? Is that what you think? As you pointed out, it's less than 2000 years old, and people have been serving the Lord a lot longer than that. As much as Christians love the Bible, it was possible for Peter and the early Apostles to be Christians without it. It was also possible for Moses to follow Christ without it, and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Before, during, and after the Bible, God spoke through prophets and apostles. That hasn't gone away because we've "already had a bunch of them"...
So is that the Pope? Is that someone else? How do you know which prophet is right?
You ask that as if this is a new problem... as if true prophets were always easy to spot... Jeremiah 23 is worth reading. Also, there is a reason that Jesus told people to beware of false prophets (Matthew 7:15). The existence of inconsistent sources does not mean there are no sources of God's word.
But you didn't answer my question... How do you know which prophet is right?
Following a prophet is always a matter of faith... but God can help. (James 1:5-6) Prayer should always be a part of the process. Think also of how Peter became convinced that Jesus was the actual son of God... (Matthew 16:17-18) Or how the disciples on the road to Emmaus perceived that they had spoken to the resurrected Lord by saying that their hearts "burned within them"? (Luke 24:32)
If I am supposed to follow my feelings, then I don't feel like there's anything wrong with being gay. What harm does it do?
That is exactly the reason that God still uses prophets instead of explicitly telling every person everything. By choosing a small number of individuals as prophets and communicating a lot to them, and only communicating to you who is a prophet, God creates an environment that rewards those that seek him. The point of revelation was never to learn every detail about every behavior, thought, or deed... It is to help identify a source that represents divine knowledge. The requirement for faith or need to work together is maintained in this environment.
You didn't answer my question again. What, specifically, is harmful about homosexuality?
Well, what if I told you that homosexual acts cause tremendous suffering, but it is not immediately detectable?
That's not specific.
We'll get to the specifics in a moment, first, how do you know something is harmful?
Visible negative effects prove something is harmful.
That's the real issue then, isn't it? Whether or not something can be perceived doesn't necessarily mean it is or isn't harmful. Being unable to see a sniper does not make him less lethal.
That's a bad example. You can immediately see the negative effects of a sniper after he shoots someone. You can't see any immediate negative effects from homosexuals.
How about radiation? How about other diseases? Handling objects that are contaminated with these things may not cause immediate harm, but over time, they do.
Yes, but we know through scientific methods about how these things are harmful...
So before scientific methods were discovered, were these things still harmful?
Yes.
So you're saying that we have discovered every method for perceiving things that are harmful? If I can't immediately show you the harm of something, it is not harmful?
Well...
Or what about things that can appear subjectively harmful. Take smoking and drinking. Science tells us that these habits increase the risk of organ failure or cancer, however, I have met elderly individuals that have smoked and drank for their lives and appear to live in relative comfort. Does that mean smoking and drinking is not harmful to some individuals?
Well...
Also, how harmful does something have to be in order to be bad? A person that undergoes a surgical procedure accepts a degree of risk, and accepts that instruments will be used to damage their bodies. Of course, they are hoping that the end result will help more than it will harm... but is accepting the harm wrong?
That's a different kind of harm... It's more like potential harm or risk... Humanity doesn't stay in plastic bubbles because things *might* be harmful.
But when you asked me to prove specifically that something is visibly harmful, you didn't communicate any of these details that might affect that. Also, do you look both ways before crossing the street? Do you reduce your speed when driving on icy roads? Do you fasten your safety belt? You probably already do things to protect yourself against potential harm.
I don't see a potential harm in letting homosexuals marry...
I don't see a harm in leaving the marriage laws alone... How can you be certain you are seeing the greater harm?
Don't shift the burden of proof to me... You said you had a specific example...
True enough. Jesus Christ is the example.
What? What does that even mean?
Jesus Christ suffered because of the sins of all individuals. In other words, every thought, word, and deed that was wrong that ever was or ever will be done exacted a physical harmful toll on Jesus Christ. The pressure was so intense that blood squeezed through his skin. (Luke 22:44) I would say that Jesus is uniquely qualified to be able to tell us what is and isn't sinful because he suffered for all sins.
Yes, well, I don't believe in Jesus... Prove to me in some other way that homosexuality is bad.
You believe that mankind is the result of evolutionary processes?
Yes. I don't believe in creationism; We evolved.
Fine then. So you're saying that the processes whereby mankind has become the dominant species on the planet are mutations and natural selection?
That's right.
So is homosexuality a natural mutation?
I believe it's natural. I think that Christians only call it bad because they are clinging to their traditions about Jesus, when there is no evidence that Jesus was divine.
The divinity of Christ is a separate conversation, so for the sake of our conversation, let's pretend that you're right about the origins of humanity. Let's pretend that humans are an advanced animal that is more fit to survive than other animals. How can homosexuality be a natural positive force if it drives individuals toward behavior that will prevent them from passing on their genetic code to future generations?
I... well...
So if it doesn't contribute to the fitness of an organism, the mutation must be called a disorder.
I never thought of it like that...
And if it is a disorder, than it would be in the best interest of our species to call it and treat it as such... right?
But what if it's nature's way of controlling the human population because we are abusing the earth?
So you're saying that homosexuals have been selected by nature to be removed from the gene pool? You're saying that nature has declared them unfit to pass on their genetics?
When you say it like that it sounds kinda bad...
Ultimately, homosexuality is either wrong on religious grounds, or it is a disorder on evolutionary grounds. Am I missing any options?
Yes, you're a bully and Jesus said not to judge others.
You're saying I'm a hypocrite because I am saying other people are sinful? I will concede that point. Only Jesus Christ was sinless. That doesn't mean that I'm wrong though, and it certainly doesn't mean that I need to accept sinful behavior for the sake of consistency. It does mean that I should try and be less hypocritical myself by repenting of my sins.
Yeah, so take that bully! You're a judgmental person because you think homosexuality is bad! Also, judgmental people will go to hell!
You don't see any irony or hypocrisy in what you're saying?
I see your point. I will now rethink how I approach Christians who object to homosexuality.
Ok, so I've never heard anyone change their position, and I doubt a blog post by an obscure and abrasive guy is going to actually make anyone rethink their position or approach. One way or the other, it is becoming more important for Christians to understand their own beliefs. Anyone that truthfully wishes to follow Jesus should be a bit more comprehensive in their quest than a few bible references from memes or clever sayings from protest banners. Religion is not something to throw out when it challenges your views... religion should be the defining belief system that guides and governs all aspects of one's life. Find out for yourself using all of your resources what God thinks... because God is never wrong.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Let homosexuals into scouting!
I have seen and heard a lot of conversation regarding the Boy Scouts voting to accept homosexuals as leaders and members. I have made no secret of my opposition to almost everything associated with homosexuality, or my stance that homosexual behavior is wrong.
With respect to the decision of the Boy Scouts, I feel to withhold my opposition. After careful consideration, I have found I have a difficult time opposing the inclusion of homosexuals within the ranks of the Boy Scouts of America. That's right, I think I am in favor of this.
Please do not misunderstand me, I am not changing my stance on the fact that homosexuality is wrong, nor am I renouncing the fact that those who encourage its practice or approve of altering marriage laws to include other groups are misguided. I view homosexuality as a corrupt practice. Its corrupt nature is precisely why it fits well with Boy Scouts.
I recall being involved in the Scouting program. I was the beneficiary of dedicated leaders who honestly worked to help young men develop skills and understand principles that are potentially important. At one point in the past, I had the ambition of becoming an Eagle Scout. Thanks to the support of parents and leaders, I was able to advance to the rank of First Class.
At this point, the nature of advancement changed. The requirements involved waiting for periods of time and earning numbers of merit badges, which was not the emphasis of prior ranks. At first, this concept was appealing. It seemed as though advancement had opened up, and there was choice involved in learning skills and principles tailored to personal interests. At this point, there was also an increased involvement in Scout Camps.
In these new environments that were less structured, I had the opportunity to meet a much larger group of scouts and leaders. Gone were the times of being trustworthy, loyal, helpful, or friendly. The scout motto "Be Prepared" seemed to have a universally understood and unspoken addendum of "to lie, cheat, and steal your way to merit badges." Merit badge "councilors" signed cards as though they were liberally handing out autographs. I would be remiss if I did not confess that some of the merit badges that I "earned" were obtained using the indulgence of such individuals rather than acquisition of skills and knowledge.
I had been shielded from the details of the costs associated with uniforms, badges, and participation, but as I became older, the existence of the "Friends of Scouting" movements that went around begging for additional money to fund camps that perpetuated everything corrupt in the scouting organization. A scout, I had been told, was supposed to be thrifty, but I discovered that the upper echelons of the organization had more greed than thrift.
As freely as camp councilors pardoned themselves from actually instructing young scouts in the skills and principles required for awards, they seemed compulsively obsessed with practicing strange ceremonies and rituals as though they had Native American heritage. Perhaps there were some that did have such heritage, but the majority of them did not.
I obtained the rank of "Star" scout before I determined that my time was better spent away from those that loved tight green scouting shorts. I was also gifted in that I did not have parents who were determined to measure their success by my scouting rank, or who were so determined that I obtain the Eagle Scout award that they performed the work on my behalf.
Though the LDS church has been a longtime ally of the scouting program, I confess that I have secretly (and sometimes not so secretly) wished that they would sever this relationship. Certainly the stance of Mormons, Catholics, and other Protestants on homosexuality has been a contributing factor in the Boy Scout organizations longtime policy of rejecting homosexual leadership. There have been several cases where this policy has been challenged in the past, and it seems to have been close enough that the LDS church's young men program (Duty to God) was revised to provide a scout-like path. Of course, the leadership was quick to say that this was not a replacement program for boy scouts, and that work towards an Eagle Scout award would fill much of the requirement for the Duty to God award, but the fact that the award represented a framework that could easily replace scouting was impossible to ignore.
As noble as the Scouting program's origins may have been, I am in favor of severing the connection to what has become a parasitic and corrupt group. Homosexuality may be the catalyst that allows religious organizations to treat BSA for the cancer it is.
With respect to the decision of the Boy Scouts, I feel to withhold my opposition. After careful consideration, I have found I have a difficult time opposing the inclusion of homosexuals within the ranks of the Boy Scouts of America. That's right, I think I am in favor of this.
Please do not misunderstand me, I am not changing my stance on the fact that homosexuality is wrong, nor am I renouncing the fact that those who encourage its practice or approve of altering marriage laws to include other groups are misguided. I view homosexuality as a corrupt practice. Its corrupt nature is precisely why it fits well with Boy Scouts.
I recall being involved in the Scouting program. I was the beneficiary of dedicated leaders who honestly worked to help young men develop skills and understand principles that are potentially important. At one point in the past, I had the ambition of becoming an Eagle Scout. Thanks to the support of parents and leaders, I was able to advance to the rank of First Class.
At this point, the nature of advancement changed. The requirements involved waiting for periods of time and earning numbers of merit badges, which was not the emphasis of prior ranks. At first, this concept was appealing. It seemed as though advancement had opened up, and there was choice involved in learning skills and principles tailored to personal interests. At this point, there was also an increased involvement in Scout Camps.
In these new environments that were less structured, I had the opportunity to meet a much larger group of scouts and leaders. Gone were the times of being trustworthy, loyal, helpful, or friendly. The scout motto "Be Prepared" seemed to have a universally understood and unspoken addendum of "to lie, cheat, and steal your way to merit badges." Merit badge "councilors" signed cards as though they were liberally handing out autographs. I would be remiss if I did not confess that some of the merit badges that I "earned" were obtained using the indulgence of such individuals rather than acquisition of skills and knowledge.
I had been shielded from the details of the costs associated with uniforms, badges, and participation, but as I became older, the existence of the "Friends of Scouting" movements that went around begging for additional money to fund camps that perpetuated everything corrupt in the scouting organization. A scout, I had been told, was supposed to be thrifty, but I discovered that the upper echelons of the organization had more greed than thrift.
As freely as camp councilors pardoned themselves from actually instructing young scouts in the skills and principles required for awards, they seemed compulsively obsessed with practicing strange ceremonies and rituals as though they had Native American heritage. Perhaps there were some that did have such heritage, but the majority of them did not.
I obtained the rank of "Star" scout before I determined that my time was better spent away from those that loved tight green scouting shorts. I was also gifted in that I did not have parents who were determined to measure their success by my scouting rank, or who were so determined that I obtain the Eagle Scout award that they performed the work on my behalf.
Though the LDS church has been a longtime ally of the scouting program, I confess that I have secretly (and sometimes not so secretly) wished that they would sever this relationship. Certainly the stance of Mormons, Catholics, and other Protestants on homosexuality has been a contributing factor in the Boy Scout organizations longtime policy of rejecting homosexual leadership. There have been several cases where this policy has been challenged in the past, and it seems to have been close enough that the LDS church's young men program (Duty to God) was revised to provide a scout-like path. Of course, the leadership was quick to say that this was not a replacement program for boy scouts, and that work towards an Eagle Scout award would fill much of the requirement for the Duty to God award, but the fact that the award represented a framework that could easily replace scouting was impossible to ignore.
As noble as the Scouting program's origins may have been, I am in favor of severing the connection to what has become a parasitic and corrupt group. Homosexuality may be the catalyst that allows religious organizations to treat BSA for the cancer it is.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Anatomy of a High Council Talk
High Council Sunday... perhaps the most yawn-inducing event in all of Mormonism. Of course there are some individuals with this calling that do have some speaking ability, but it seems that the vast majority of gentlemen that address LDS congregations monthly are not chosen for their speaking abilities.
I frequently wonder if some of them know how terrible their talks are. When the 12-year-old youth speaker outshines them with a monotone reading of a random New Era article, it makes the audience wonder if they intend to give a horrible talk as some sort of punishment. Perhaps our ward's contributions to the Boy Scouts were low... perhaps we had poor attendance at the Stake fireside, or Stake Priesthood meeting... Perhaps the Stake Presidency just hates our ward... Wonder no longer; today we will analyze the anatomy of a High Council talk!
The format for this lighthearted analysis will consist of the high council speaker's words in bold and their thoughts in italics.
Wow, that youth speaker had way better material than me... maybe if I just take two minutes to arrange my papers, I can avoid an awkward transition. Hey! I remember this paper, it was something I doodled instead of preparing a talk! Best decision ever! Oh crap! A lot of people are staring at me... They don't look happy either... what can I say so that they never find out I was assigned to this ward because the Stake presidency can't stand them? Oh I know!
Brothers and Sisters, I bring you the love of the Stake Presidency...
Whew! That was close. Now I can just babble about them for a couple minutes... I just have to remember not to bring up the fact that this ward didn't contribute enough to Boy Scouts so I don't offend anyone. Although if they haven't already been offended by how tight an green my Scout shorts are, maybe it won't hurt... I'm getting sidetracked though... the number of screaming children has doubled since I started... I know! I can just tell them I worked hard on preparing my talk!
So anyway... I have been given an important topic today... it is the topic of prayer!
Heh! That did it! They know they will feel guilty if they don't listen to a talk about prayer! Crap... what do I say now?
When I got this topic, I was really excited...
Why are everyone's eyes glazing over? Do they know that I was lying about being excited about prayer? Heck, last night I fell asleep after 2 minutes of praying and woke up in a pool of my own drool 2 hours later...
I remember when I was a boy, my parents taught me to pray...
Or more accurately, they would spank me when I prayed for the Lions to win more football games instead of grandma to get better...
It's a lesson I've never forgotten...
Unless it's football season...
It reminds me of the scripture story about ...
Come on brain, don't fail me now...
Enoch.. who prayed all day and all night...
What are those primary kids whispering? Did I say something wrong? Enos...that's what they're saying? Ah crap...
Oh right... Enos... your kids are smarter than I am...
Condescending brats!
Anyway, Enos prayed all day and all night, and...
It looks like everyone is calming down now. I can just keep spouting random details about Enos and I will have like five minutes left. I wonder how much time I've used. Probably at least seven minutes out of my fifteen... I'll just look at the clock... oh crap, only two minutes!?!?!? But it felt like forever... I wonder if that's how the congregation feels... nah... they love me!
And so my Uncle Frank's cancer got worse, and we didn't know what to do...
What am I even saying? How did I get to Uncle Frank's cancer? Oh well, it has a lot of details, so that's sure to keep people occupied...
And he was coughing out blood and he had difficulty using the toilet... his vision wasn't great either, which made it difficult for him to enjoy his favorite game show, the Price is Right...
Heh! That was a great show... "Come on down!!!!"
And anyway, the cows would kick over the milk bucket and spill it all over... I would get so mad at them...
Is that the sound of applause? I know they must love me, but we probably shouldn't applaud in Sacrament meeting... oh wait... that's snoring...
And so that's why shopping on Sunday is bad... Sure, I enjoy a doughnut as much as the next guy... in fact, my wife tells me I enjoy them a bit more than the next guy... but I have a testimony that the word of wisdom helps us in our lives....
I'm on a roll now! Everything is coming together now!
...and that's when my son told me that he appreciated my example... and I'm not saying that to boast, I'm saying that the Savior has blessed me...
...probably more than you... Yeah, I'm both awesome AND humble!
...and I loved my mother... she was the best... even with her dementia and when she started fires in the care center that we sent her to...
Man I hated that care center... I hope my kids send me someplace nicer when I lose it...
...and that's what happens when you try to go fishing without bait... I mean what did you expect when...
What's that on my shoulder? Oh... it's the Bishop tapping his watch... well he doesn't have to glare at me...
Well brothers and sisters... Bishop is tapping his watch so I guess I should wrap it up... I just want to bear my testimony of prayer. I love prayer... and that reminds me of when my daughter was sick and she was just puking all over the place... it was the really gross...
Oh and that's just like when my sister ate that chicken that we had left out too long... that was awful...
...so it's a good thing I had health insurance... it's also a good thing to...
What now?!?! Oh it's the Bishop tapping his watch again... no wonder the Stake President doesn't like this ward... they don't even let you finish your train of thought...
Well... anyway... that's my testimony of prayer...
I think that talk went pretty well! I'm sure the reason all the people in the congregation are sleeping is because of the early meeting schedule...
Obviously this account is a bit tongue in cheek... but the kernel of truth at its core is that everyone could benefit from a little preparation, or with a greater understanding of oration. Obviously no one is going to be as good as Jesus, who astonished people with his power and authority, (Matthew 7:28-29) but it should be the practice of Christians to try to connect with their audience when expressing the importance of his gospel.
It is also understood that there are some people who will not accept or appreciate the truth regardless of the presentation method, but for those that are sitting in a church congregation, this is likely a very small number.
If you are assigned to give a talk, consider the negative feelings that come on high council Sunday, and try and avoid pointless details and incoherent ramblings. No one cares about how you prepare a talk unless it is really really good, and if they think it is, they will ask you. Don't waste time on that subject during the talk. Be mindful of the time. Even great orators that can hold an audience's attention for long stretches know the value of being concise. It is better to have a short talk with value and substance than a long talk that will be forgotten before the benediction.
Ultimately, know one is perfect, but it doesn't hurt to try to be better....
I frequently wonder if some of them know how terrible their talks are. When the 12-year-old youth speaker outshines them with a monotone reading of a random New Era article, it makes the audience wonder if they intend to give a horrible talk as some sort of punishment. Perhaps our ward's contributions to the Boy Scouts were low... perhaps we had poor attendance at the Stake fireside, or Stake Priesthood meeting... Perhaps the Stake Presidency just hates our ward... Wonder no longer; today we will analyze the anatomy of a High Council talk!
The format for this lighthearted analysis will consist of the high council speaker's words in bold and their thoughts in italics.
Wow, that youth speaker had way better material than me... maybe if I just take two minutes to arrange my papers, I can avoid an awkward transition. Hey! I remember this paper, it was something I doodled instead of preparing a talk! Best decision ever! Oh crap! A lot of people are staring at me... They don't look happy either... what can I say so that they never find out I was assigned to this ward because the Stake presidency can't stand them? Oh I know!
Brothers and Sisters, I bring you the love of the Stake Presidency...
Whew! That was close. Now I can just babble about them for a couple minutes... I just have to remember not to bring up the fact that this ward didn't contribute enough to Boy Scouts so I don't offend anyone. Although if they haven't already been offended by how tight an green my Scout shorts are, maybe it won't hurt... I'm getting sidetracked though... the number of screaming children has doubled since I started... I know! I can just tell them I worked hard on preparing my talk!
So anyway... I have been given an important topic today... it is the topic of prayer!
Heh! That did it! They know they will feel guilty if they don't listen to a talk about prayer! Crap... what do I say now?
When I got this topic, I was really excited...
Why are everyone's eyes glazing over? Do they know that I was lying about being excited about prayer? Heck, last night I fell asleep after 2 minutes of praying and woke up in a pool of my own drool 2 hours later...
I remember when I was a boy, my parents taught me to pray...
Or more accurately, they would spank me when I prayed for the Lions to win more football games instead of grandma to get better...
It's a lesson I've never forgotten...
Unless it's football season...
It reminds me of the scripture story about ...
Come on brain, don't fail me now...
Enoch.. who prayed all day and all night...
What are those primary kids whispering? Did I say something wrong? Enos...that's what they're saying? Ah crap...
Oh right... Enos... your kids are smarter than I am...
Condescending brats!
Anyway, Enos prayed all day and all night, and...
It looks like everyone is calming down now. I can just keep spouting random details about Enos and I will have like five minutes left. I wonder how much time I've used. Probably at least seven minutes out of my fifteen... I'll just look at the clock... oh crap, only two minutes!?!?!? But it felt like forever... I wonder if that's how the congregation feels... nah... they love me!
And so my Uncle Frank's cancer got worse, and we didn't know what to do...
What am I even saying? How did I get to Uncle Frank's cancer? Oh well, it has a lot of details, so that's sure to keep people occupied...
And he was coughing out blood and he had difficulty using the toilet... his vision wasn't great either, which made it difficult for him to enjoy his favorite game show, the Price is Right...
Heh! That was a great show... "Come on down!!!!"
And anyway, the cows would kick over the milk bucket and spill it all over... I would get so mad at them...
Is that the sound of applause? I know they must love me, but we probably shouldn't applaud in Sacrament meeting... oh wait... that's snoring...
And so that's why shopping on Sunday is bad... Sure, I enjoy a doughnut as much as the next guy... in fact, my wife tells me I enjoy them a bit more than the next guy... but I have a testimony that the word of wisdom helps us in our lives....
I'm on a roll now! Everything is coming together now!
...and that's when my son told me that he appreciated my example... and I'm not saying that to boast, I'm saying that the Savior has blessed me...
...probably more than you... Yeah, I'm both awesome AND humble!
...and I loved my mother... she was the best... even with her dementia and when she started fires in the care center that we sent her to...
Man I hated that care center... I hope my kids send me someplace nicer when I lose it...
...and that's what happens when you try to go fishing without bait... I mean what did you expect when...
What's that on my shoulder? Oh... it's the Bishop tapping his watch... well he doesn't have to glare at me...
Well brothers and sisters... Bishop is tapping his watch so I guess I should wrap it up... I just want to bear my testimony of prayer. I love prayer... and that reminds me of when my daughter was sick and she was just puking all over the place... it was the really gross...
Oh and that's just like when my sister ate that chicken that we had left out too long... that was awful...
...so it's a good thing I had health insurance... it's also a good thing to...
What now?!?! Oh it's the Bishop tapping his watch again... no wonder the Stake President doesn't like this ward... they don't even let you finish your train of thought...
Well... anyway... that's my testimony of prayer...
I think that talk went pretty well! I'm sure the reason all the people in the congregation are sleeping is because of the early meeting schedule...
Obviously this account is a bit tongue in cheek... but the kernel of truth at its core is that everyone could benefit from a little preparation, or with a greater understanding of oration. Obviously no one is going to be as good as Jesus, who astonished people with his power and authority, (Matthew 7:28-29) but it should be the practice of Christians to try to connect with their audience when expressing the importance of his gospel.
It is also understood that there are some people who will not accept or appreciate the truth regardless of the presentation method, but for those that are sitting in a church congregation, this is likely a very small number.
If you are assigned to give a talk, consider the negative feelings that come on high council Sunday, and try and avoid pointless details and incoherent ramblings. No one cares about how you prepare a talk unless it is really really good, and if they think it is, they will ask you. Don't waste time on that subject during the talk. Be mindful of the time. Even great orators that can hold an audience's attention for long stretches know the value of being concise. It is better to have a short talk with value and substance than a long talk that will be forgotten before the benediction.
Ultimately, know one is perfect, but it doesn't hurt to try to be better....
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
How to misinterpret the Bible
The Bible is viewed by some as the definition of Christianity. The contents of the Bible for this group defines their religion in its entirety. They believe it is more than inspired; they believe it is infallible.
For the other extreme, the Bible is viewed as a loose set of guidelines, or perhaps even suggestions for living rather than laws by which humanity will be judged.
Of course, not to be excluded is the group that feels the Bible is so flawed that it represents the best case against Christianity.
To add additional layers of complexity, arguments have ensued between people that place equal value on the word of God regarding its context, its meaning, or the wording of a particular translation.
With so many methods available to misinterpret the Bible, it becomes easy to see how there can be so much disagreement among Christians over even the most fundamental doctrines and concepts. You may even wonder (and if you are not wondering, should should wonder) whether you are misinterpreting the Bible. Here are a few ways:
1. The Bible is infallible. Even though we do not actually have original manuscripts of what Moses, Isaiah, John, or Paul wrote, there are those that think the book is perfect. This of course does not even touch on which translation should we consider to be accurate. For example, Genesis describes God as being penitent and sorrowful that he created man, as if the creation was a mistake (Genesis 6:6-7) Really? God made a mistake? Or is it possible that the Bible may have a mistake? God didn't write the Bible, so odds are, there are some flaws. That doesn't mean it's bad, just flawed... kind of like you...
2. The Bible is complete. This is convenient for those that want to do something that is not specified in the Bible. There is even a scripture in the Bible that seems to back it up, and it decries the adding or subtracting of the prophecy of this book. (Revelation 22:18-19) Of course, God said something almost identical in Deuteronomy 4:2, and yet a lot of prophecies were added after that. Additionally, there was no such thing as the Bible in the days of Moses or of John. It was compiled hundreds of years later. There are lots of references in the Bible to books that did not make it in. (book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14); book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18); book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41); book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 9:29); prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9:29); visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22); book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15); book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34); sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19); an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9); possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3); an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4:16); and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1:14).)
The conclusion? The Bible has a lot of good stuff... but complete? Not so much...
3. The Old Testament has been fulfilled; it's not important anymore. Of course there are elements of the Old Testament that are no longer required. Christians no longer perform animal sacrifices, observe the Passover, and are even able to eat pork and shellfish. That does not mean anything that came before Christ was rendered unimportant. Christ was very concerned about the law and the prophets. (Matthew 5:17-20) In fact, an examination of Matthew 5 indicates that Christ wanted people to live by a higher law than they had previously known. No longer was it sufficient to say "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," but instead, "love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you." (Matthew 5:44) Isaiah gave many prophecies about Christ's second coming, which are obviously yet to be fulfilled. (Isaiah 2) The Old Testament may contain references to things that are no longer used in terms of "Law of Moses" specifics, but there were many important events that help us understand who God is, how he deals with his children, and what life's purpose is. Saying the Old Testament doesn't matter anymore is like saying arithmetic isn't important anymore because you're learning algebra. Guess what, you still need it!
4. As long as you believe in God, it doesn't matter what the Bible says. Certainly there were times before the Bible. There were even times before the oldest book in our Bible was written. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all lived before Moses wrote Genesis and told their story, so no amount of the Bible played a role in how they made decisions and recognized God. That having been said, the Bible is important today. Does a person need to be baptized to enter the Kingdom of Heaven? or is believing God exists all that is important? The Bible contains Jesus's answers to these important questions. (John 3:5) For a Christian, the importance of learning what Christ did and taught should be obvious...
5. Everything in the Bible is symbolic. Stories in the Bible that describe events such as the flood in the days of Noah, or a time when men lived hundreds of years before dying, or even when Elijah called down fire from heaven may seem fantastic. Some people feel more comfortable if they dismiss such events as metaphors for something. It must be more believable to say that God "figuratively" plagued Egypt, or that he "figuratively" raised Lazarus from the dead. Unfortunately, people that subscribe to this thinking are "figuratively" full of crap.
6. Everything in the Bible is literal. On the other side of the coin are those that embrace every parable and analogy as the literal truth. These kinds of people were like the ones weirded out when Jesus told them they needed to eat his flesh. (John 6:51-60) There are many things that were done symbolically. The details of animal sacrifice and ordinances all had meaning beyond the literal actions. The many parables that Jesus taught were to help certain people learn specific things. People who failed to understand symbolism then are much like those that fail to understand it today... they "literally" don't know what the Bible is saying.
7. Some verses in the Bible aren't politically correct, so the whole book must be false. Some people seem to know only those verses in the Bible that discuss dealing with suspected adulterers under the Mosaic law and government, or the verses in which Paul talks about women being silent in churches. (Deuteronomy 22, 1 Timothy 2:11-12) Since there are verses in both the Old and New Testaments, I guess you can just dismiss both of them, right? I mean, it's not possible for some parts of a book to be more important than other parts, right? If you don't have a problem with say... homosexuality, adultery, or fornication... then you can just dismiss what the Bible says about it because of the politically incorrect verses, right? And because you only read a handful of controversial verses, you have a good idea about the themes and principles in the rest of it, right? On the other hand, could it be that you have no idea what the Bible is about, or that your assumptions about what is good or bad that come from your cultural traditions may have as many flaws as (or perhaps even more than) those cultures described in Biblical times against whom you are eager to pass judgement? Do you honestly think that being politically correct is more important than learning the true purposes of mankind and life itself?
8. The Bible is too difficult to understand, so I'm better off without it. So said the 40-year-old McDonald's employee about high school math.
9. The Bible is the highest authoritative source. Don't get me wrong. I love the Bible. I believe the word of God is contained in beauty, power, and authority within it. The problem with viewing the law as authoritative was the same issue that the Pharisees had. They were so consumed with ensuring they knew the law that they missed out on recognizing the law-giver when he came among them. God is the highest authoritative source; the Bible is not. If you think that God is not capable of communicating with mankind except by means of a flawed book (See #1 and #2) then why call him God? If he sent prophets and angels in times past to augment or clarify the meaning of his word, why should our time be so different. Hint: it's not.
10. The Bible has a code that can be used to calculate the exact date of when Jesus will come again and everything else that will happen in the future. How can I put this?.... It's a book... just try reading the words... Counting characters is missing the point...
Ultimately, there are innumerable ways to misunderstand the Bible. People have used it to justify hunting down so-called heretics, and also used it to excuse those guilty of terrible crimes. People have used it to condemn and to justify the same acts. I assert that very few in either group have actually read the entire Bible... let alone qualified themselves to interpret it.
Of course the Bible can be difficult to read and to understand, but the effort required to do so is well worth it. The Bible may not contain the answer to every question, but with eloquence and power it can shine light on the truth. There are few things in the English language as powerful as the declaration of Jesus Christ in John 11: "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 11:25-26)
Additionally, the Bible points us to God for additional wisdom. The Prophet Joseph Smith was confused by the heated debates between various sects that all seemed to use the same Bible to endorse themselves and condemn one another. He writes:
"While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: 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. Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible." (Joseph Smith - History 1:11-12)
Here is the wisdom of the Bible... it directs us, as it did Joseph Smith, to God himself.
In the end, any other persuasion derived from the Bible is erroneous. Why call it the word of God if it does not lead us back to him? I assert that it can and does for all those that diligently search its pages.
For the other extreme, the Bible is viewed as a loose set of guidelines, or perhaps even suggestions for living rather than laws by which humanity will be judged.
Of course, not to be excluded is the group that feels the Bible is so flawed that it represents the best case against Christianity.
To add additional layers of complexity, arguments have ensued between people that place equal value on the word of God regarding its context, its meaning, or the wording of a particular translation.
With so many methods available to misinterpret the Bible, it becomes easy to see how there can be so much disagreement among Christians over even the most fundamental doctrines and concepts. You may even wonder (and if you are not wondering, should should wonder) whether you are misinterpreting the Bible. Here are a few ways:
1. The Bible is infallible. Even though we do not actually have original manuscripts of what Moses, Isaiah, John, or Paul wrote, there are those that think the book is perfect. This of course does not even touch on which translation should we consider to be accurate. For example, Genesis describes God as being penitent and sorrowful that he created man, as if the creation was a mistake (Genesis 6:6-7) Really? God made a mistake? Or is it possible that the Bible may have a mistake? God didn't write the Bible, so odds are, there are some flaws. That doesn't mean it's bad, just flawed... kind of like you...
2. The Bible is complete. This is convenient for those that want to do something that is not specified in the Bible. There is even a scripture in the Bible that seems to back it up, and it decries the adding or subtracting of the prophecy of this book. (Revelation 22:18-19) Of course, God said something almost identical in Deuteronomy 4:2, and yet a lot of prophecies were added after that. Additionally, there was no such thing as the Bible in the days of Moses or of John. It was compiled hundreds of years later. There are lots of references in the Bible to books that did not make it in. (book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14); book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18); book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41); book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29:29); book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 9:29); prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9:29); visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22); book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15); book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34); sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19); an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9); possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3); an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4:16); and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1:14).)
The conclusion? The Bible has a lot of good stuff... but complete? Not so much...
3. The Old Testament has been fulfilled; it's not important anymore. Of course there are elements of the Old Testament that are no longer required. Christians no longer perform animal sacrifices, observe the Passover, and are even able to eat pork and shellfish. That does not mean anything that came before Christ was rendered unimportant. Christ was very concerned about the law and the prophets. (Matthew 5:17-20) In fact, an examination of Matthew 5 indicates that Christ wanted people to live by a higher law than they had previously known. No longer was it sufficient to say "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," but instead, "love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you." (Matthew 5:44) Isaiah gave many prophecies about Christ's second coming, which are obviously yet to be fulfilled. (Isaiah 2) The Old Testament may contain references to things that are no longer used in terms of "Law of Moses" specifics, but there were many important events that help us understand who God is, how he deals with his children, and what life's purpose is. Saying the Old Testament doesn't matter anymore is like saying arithmetic isn't important anymore because you're learning algebra. Guess what, you still need it!
4. As long as you believe in God, it doesn't matter what the Bible says. Certainly there were times before the Bible. There were even times before the oldest book in our Bible was written. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob all lived before Moses wrote Genesis and told their story, so no amount of the Bible played a role in how they made decisions and recognized God. That having been said, the Bible is important today. Does a person need to be baptized to enter the Kingdom of Heaven? or is believing God exists all that is important? The Bible contains Jesus's answers to these important questions. (John 3:5) For a Christian, the importance of learning what Christ did and taught should be obvious...
5. Everything in the Bible is symbolic. Stories in the Bible that describe events such as the flood in the days of Noah, or a time when men lived hundreds of years before dying, or even when Elijah called down fire from heaven may seem fantastic. Some people feel more comfortable if they dismiss such events as metaphors for something. It must be more believable to say that God "figuratively" plagued Egypt, or that he "figuratively" raised Lazarus from the dead. Unfortunately, people that subscribe to this thinking are "figuratively" full of crap.
6. Everything in the Bible is literal. On the other side of the coin are those that embrace every parable and analogy as the literal truth. These kinds of people were like the ones weirded out when Jesus told them they needed to eat his flesh. (John 6:51-60) There are many things that were done symbolically. The details of animal sacrifice and ordinances all had meaning beyond the literal actions. The many parables that Jesus taught were to help certain people learn specific things. People who failed to understand symbolism then are much like those that fail to understand it today... they "literally" don't know what the Bible is saying.
7. Some verses in the Bible aren't politically correct, so the whole book must be false. Some people seem to know only those verses in the Bible that discuss dealing with suspected adulterers under the Mosaic law and government, or the verses in which Paul talks about women being silent in churches. (Deuteronomy 22, 1 Timothy 2:11-12) Since there are verses in both the Old and New Testaments, I guess you can just dismiss both of them, right? I mean, it's not possible for some parts of a book to be more important than other parts, right? If you don't have a problem with say... homosexuality, adultery, or fornication... then you can just dismiss what the Bible says about it because of the politically incorrect verses, right? And because you only read a handful of controversial verses, you have a good idea about the themes and principles in the rest of it, right? On the other hand, could it be that you have no idea what the Bible is about, or that your assumptions about what is good or bad that come from your cultural traditions may have as many flaws as (or perhaps even more than) those cultures described in Biblical times against whom you are eager to pass judgement? Do you honestly think that being politically correct is more important than learning the true purposes of mankind and life itself?
8. The Bible is too difficult to understand, so I'm better off without it. So said the 40-year-old McDonald's employee about high school math.
9. The Bible is the highest authoritative source. Don't get me wrong. I love the Bible. I believe the word of God is contained in beauty, power, and authority within it. The problem with viewing the law as authoritative was the same issue that the Pharisees had. They were so consumed with ensuring they knew the law that they missed out on recognizing the law-giver when he came among them. God is the highest authoritative source; the Bible is not. If you think that God is not capable of communicating with mankind except by means of a flawed book (See #1 and #2) then why call him God? If he sent prophets and angels in times past to augment or clarify the meaning of his word, why should our time be so different. Hint: it's not.
10. The Bible has a code that can be used to calculate the exact date of when Jesus will come again and everything else that will happen in the future. How can I put this?.... It's a book... just try reading the words... Counting characters is missing the point...
Ultimately, there are innumerable ways to misunderstand the Bible. People have used it to justify hunting down so-called heretics, and also used it to excuse those guilty of terrible crimes. People have used it to condemn and to justify the same acts. I assert that very few in either group have actually read the entire Bible... let alone qualified themselves to interpret it.
Of course the Bible can be difficult to read and to understand, but the effort required to do so is well worth it. The Bible may not contain the answer to every question, but with eloquence and power it can shine light on the truth. There are few things in the English language as powerful as the declaration of Jesus Christ in John 11: "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 11:25-26)
Additionally, the Bible points us to God for additional wisdom. The Prophet Joseph Smith was confused by the heated debates between various sects that all seemed to use the same Bible to endorse themselves and condemn one another. He writes:
"While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: 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. Never did any passage of scripture come with more power to the heart of man than this did at this time to mine. It seemed to enter with great force into every feeling of my heart. I reflected on it again and again, knowing that if any person needed wisdom from God, I did; for how to act I did not know, and unless I could get more wisdom than I then had, I would never know; for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible." (Joseph Smith - History 1:11-12)
Here is the wisdom of the Bible... it directs us, as it did Joseph Smith, to God himself.
In the end, any other persuasion derived from the Bible is erroneous. Why call it the word of God if it does not lead us back to him? I assert that it can and does for all those that diligently search its pages.
Monday, December 17, 2012
How not to react to a shooting
The tragic massacre in Connecticut this past week has inflicted horrible pain on the families and friends of those directly involved. It has also produced shock and anger in Americans everywhere else. It is difficult to imagine the feelings that I would have if one of my children were to have become a victim of such a tragedy. Unfortunately it seems that there are a number of people that find ways to react inappropriately with respect to this event. In thinking about this, the purpose of this post is to identify how not to react to tragedy.
One of the first reactions that spread was that gun control laws would have prevented this. Of course, these comments almost always come from those that favored gun control laws before the tragedy occurred. Unfortunately, some people do not see that in expressing their well-meaning desire to prevent gun-related crime, they are being insensitive. When someone experiences pain, the last thing that they want to hear is the equivalent of "I told you so." Gun advocates may mean well when they talk about their desire to restrict access to firearms, but claiming that legal restrictions would have saved the lives of victims is disrespectful.
Of course some people in reading this might be saying "that right-wing nut job ward preacher is probably just worried about his guns." I do not deny that I am a gun owner, and I confess that I find people blaming weapons instead of perpetrators to be incredibly short-sighted. If laws against murder have not protected people from being murdered, then why would laws against weapons protect people against weapons? Also, mass killings did not begin with the invention of gunpowder.
On the other side of the political spectrum, there have been individuals that want to blame video games for shootings. Just as those on the left are quick to find something to blame, so too are those on the right that believe that if only video games had not been invented, perhaps the tragedies that have affected schools and theaters would not have occurred. Such individuals point out how killing can be glorified in these games. Of course, the problem is that murder pre-dates video games, and has been glorified in other forms of media and literature (including the Bible) for longer than English has been a language. Though it is true that violence has been wrongfully glorified in many forms of media, there are many people who enjoy James Bond films or games without feeling the urge to shoot up a school. The motivations and causes behind those that do feel such urges are likely more complex than any one explanation.
Even among the most religious individuals, there exist some who claim that if only people were more accepting of God in society and in our education systems that he would have protected those who became victims. As well-meaning as these individuals may be, and as important as it is for individuals and societies to accept God, this is simply another form of "I told you so." Just as gun control advocates are misguided, so to are religious persons who think that citizens will be guaranteed protection with greater religious piety. Being a devout Christian can never be considered a 'get out of problems free card' or a path to life on easy street. Bad things happen to good people all the time.
How many good deeds do such individuals believe are enough to entitle them to unlimited divine intervention? Religiously speaking, almost no one has lived well enough to actually deserve protection from all harm or misfortune. The one person who did live flawlessly, and could claim that he deserved a life free from harm was the one who suffered more than any one else... That was Jesus Christ, and he in fact suffered because of every one else! There has never been a greater injustice than this, and it is fundamental to Christian faith.
As well as anyone may mean when they express condolences, regret, anger, or ideas for preventing similar tragedies in the future... none of these things can bring back the victims. None of these things have power to restore the lives of children to their grief-stricken parents.
In the end, there is only one power that can bring them back. There is only one power that can put life back into the children that have fallen, and peace in the hearts of those that lost loved ones. The name of that power is Jesus Christ.
When Martha professed to Jesus that if he had been there, her brother Lazarus would not have died, he replied with perhaps the most powerful declaration that has ever been made:
"...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 11:25-26)
Jesus Christ defeated death itself when he was resurrected. He extends his power to every man, woman, and child that has ever lived on the earth. Additionally, his power can bind husbands to their wives and children to their parents such that family relationships do not need to end at death. He literally has power and authority to heal every wound and restore everything that may be lost in any calamity.
Particularly for those of us who are indirectly affected by shootings, our role is not to trumpet "I told you so" or any of its equivalents. Our role is not to find something to blame or come up with a solution to every problem.
It is so much better to exercise faith and offer prayers to the one that already has a solution to every problem, a plan to overcome any difficulty, and the power to restore everything to its proper place. It is our role to help those that have been hurt as best we can until they receive every gift that Jesus Christ has prepared for them.
One of the first reactions that spread was that gun control laws would have prevented this. Of course, these comments almost always come from those that favored gun control laws before the tragedy occurred. Unfortunately, some people do not see that in expressing their well-meaning desire to prevent gun-related crime, they are being insensitive. When someone experiences pain, the last thing that they want to hear is the equivalent of "I told you so." Gun advocates may mean well when they talk about their desire to restrict access to firearms, but claiming that legal restrictions would have saved the lives of victims is disrespectful.
Of course some people in reading this might be saying "that right-wing nut job ward preacher is probably just worried about his guns." I do not deny that I am a gun owner, and I confess that I find people blaming weapons instead of perpetrators to be incredibly short-sighted. If laws against murder have not protected people from being murdered, then why would laws against weapons protect people against weapons? Also, mass killings did not begin with the invention of gunpowder.
On the other side of the political spectrum, there have been individuals that want to blame video games for shootings. Just as those on the left are quick to find something to blame, so too are those on the right that believe that if only video games had not been invented, perhaps the tragedies that have affected schools and theaters would not have occurred. Such individuals point out how killing can be glorified in these games. Of course, the problem is that murder pre-dates video games, and has been glorified in other forms of media and literature (including the Bible) for longer than English has been a language. Though it is true that violence has been wrongfully glorified in many forms of media, there are many people who enjoy James Bond films or games without feeling the urge to shoot up a school. The motivations and causes behind those that do feel such urges are likely more complex than any one explanation.
Even among the most religious individuals, there exist some who claim that if only people were more accepting of God in society and in our education systems that he would have protected those who became victims. As well-meaning as these individuals may be, and as important as it is for individuals and societies to accept God, this is simply another form of "I told you so." Just as gun control advocates are misguided, so to are religious persons who think that citizens will be guaranteed protection with greater religious piety. Being a devout Christian can never be considered a 'get out of problems free card' or a path to life on easy street. Bad things happen to good people all the time.
How many good deeds do such individuals believe are enough to entitle them to unlimited divine intervention? Religiously speaking, almost no one has lived well enough to actually deserve protection from all harm or misfortune. The one person who did live flawlessly, and could claim that he deserved a life free from harm was the one who suffered more than any one else... That was Jesus Christ, and he in fact suffered because of every one else! There has never been a greater injustice than this, and it is fundamental to Christian faith.
As well as anyone may mean when they express condolences, regret, anger, or ideas for preventing similar tragedies in the future... none of these things can bring back the victims. None of these things have power to restore the lives of children to their grief-stricken parents.
In the end, there is only one power that can bring them back. There is only one power that can put life back into the children that have fallen, and peace in the hearts of those that lost loved ones. The name of that power is Jesus Christ.
When Martha professed to Jesus that if he had been there, her brother Lazarus would not have died, he replied with perhaps the most powerful declaration that has ever been made:
"...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 11:25-26)
Jesus Christ defeated death itself when he was resurrected. He extends his power to every man, woman, and child that has ever lived on the earth. Additionally, his power can bind husbands to their wives and children to their parents such that family relationships do not need to end at death. He literally has power and authority to heal every wound and restore everything that may be lost in any calamity.
Particularly for those of us who are indirectly affected by shootings, our role is not to trumpet "I told you so" or any of its equivalents. Our role is not to find something to blame or come up with a solution to every problem.
It is so much better to exercise faith and offer prayers to the one that already has a solution to every problem, a plan to overcome any difficulty, and the power to restore everything to its proper place. It is our role to help those that have been hurt as best we can until they receive every gift that Jesus Christ has prepared for them.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Why can't God speak for himself?
"For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me; And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father; And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom..." (D&C 84:36-38)
The quotation above implies a lot of receiving of people that represent God. The Son of God is the one speaking, and he indicates that other servants must be accepted in order to gain entrance to the Kingdom of God. Careful thought might lead a person to wonder why he would do this though.
Why does God insist on speaking by proxy? If God is our Heavenly Father, why would he not speak to his children directly? Why are only some of them considered his "servants" and eligible to hear the word of God from its source? Why use prophets? Why use the Only Begotten Son to speak, if he is capable of speaking himself?
The traditions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all embrace God's practice of speaking through prophets. All three religions accept prophets such as Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Israel, and Moses. The Old Testament contains numerous accounts from even minor prophets that had short messages for their contemporaries from the Most High including Habakkuk, Joel, Zephaniah, and Malachi. In fact, traditions that do not include prophets have much more recent origins.
When protestant movements against the Catholic church began, it became logically necessary for protestants to find a connection to God that did not involve the clergy of the church. From these roots came the philosophy that all people have access to God directly, and no Pope, Cardinal, Bishop, or Deacon was required to maintain it. Why else would God ask individuals to pray to him if not to establish an individual basis for repentance and revelation?
With the spread of protestant philosophies, many people have concluded that there is really no need for prophets any longer. Some even point to passages in the Bible that seem to indicate as much: "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John." (Matthew 11:13) This passage tends to indicate that the prophets ended with John the Baptist, whose special assignment was to prepare the way for the coming of the Son of God himself. Indeed, after the coming of Christ many things changed. Since it was no longer necessary to perform animal sacrifices, was it not possible that prophets were no longer necessary with the arrival of the Messiah?
Of course, the logic of such thought is not thorough. To the point of the reference in Matthew, the preceding verse adds the context of "until now" to the time frame. Also, if prophecy was no longer vital, then why would Christ have ordained Apostles to be special witnesses? His charge to them at the end of Matthew is as follows:
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." (Matthew 28:19-20)
If the need for messengers to speak for God had ended, Christ would not have returned to his Apostles to give them such an assignment. They were specifically instructed to go throughout the world and represent him in a leadership capacity. The missionary efforts of the early Apostles are documented to some degree in the remainder of the New Testament, and contain their words with the same degree of reverence as the Old Testament did its prophets. The truth is, God's pattern of calling individuals to represent him to the public at large had not ended... in fact, it had expanded to a world-wide effort.
Understanding the purpose for God's extensive use of representation in his dealings with men requires an understanding of the purpose of life. If God's purpose were simply to find out who among humans were good and reward them with eternal life in his presence beyond the pearly gates, then there would be absolutely no reason to use prophets. He could stand on top of a mountain and project his voice for all to hear, proclaiming himself his desire for us to be good.
In fact, since God is omniscient, he does not need to send anyone to earth to live lives where we experience pain, sickness, frailty, cruelty, hunger, thirst, fatigue, and ultimately death. He would already know who will be naughty and nice. Why not make Minority Report real and spare people the pains and difficulties associated with life by implementing a pre-crime policy?
Of course, God's purpose is not just to send good people to heaven and damn the bad people to hell. Entrance to the kingdom of God requires more than avoiding sinful choices. It is meant for people who have become something...
Jesus taught a parable regarding a master that travelled to a far country and bestowed upon his servants varying numbers of talents. (Matthew 25:14-30) To one servant he gave five talents, to another he gave two talents, and to a third he gave one talent. The servants that worked hard to increase what their Lord had given them were rewarded, but the servant who had buried his single talent for fear of losing it was cast out.
The parable gives understanding regarding the purpose of life. God expects us to use what we have been given to become more than we are. There are numerous references in the scriptures to the process of sanctification which include language such as "overcome" (Revelation 3:21), "endure" (2 Nephi 31:20), being "refined", "purged", "purified". (Malachi 3:2-3)
With this understanding, God's apparent absence when it comes to speaking for himself is not because of a lack of concern for mankind. He does not employ servants to declare the word of the Lord because he is too busy, or because he enjoys giving cryptic orders...
He wants us to stay in the scenario where we will best learn. He has created a world with sorrow and pain in the hopes that people will learn to care for one another. He has created a world where injustice and unfairness thrive in the hopes that people will learn to embrace goodness and decry evil. He has created a world where his children have physical bodies that naturally entice people to indulge in lust, envy, wrath, gluttony, pride, sloth, and greed, and he has sent prophets to encourage people to have faith that there is something greater than these instincts.
The use of prophets requires faith not only of those that hear their words, but also the prophets themselves. Consider how worried Moses was that the people would hate him for his slow speech. (Exodus 4:10) Enoch also struggled with feelings of inadequacy. (Moses 6:31) Jonah doubted his mission entirely, fleeing from it. (Jonah 1:3) Many prophets and Apostles have been called to risk their lives to deliver their messages (Daniel 3, Jeremiah 20:2, Acts 20:22-24), and many prophets and Apostles have given their lives rather than rescind their messages. (Mosiah 17, Acts 7)
For those of us that are not called to speak for God to all the world, faith is required to believe in their words. People that have heeded the messages of those called to speak for God have become more humble, more faithful, and ultimately become more eligible to become heirs of the Kingdom of God. There are three basic tasks that all people who believe in God should undertake in light of this:
1. Seek a prophet of God. While it is true that Christ warned against false prophets (Matthew 24:11), God has not abandoned communicating mankind. Those that sought Christ did well in New Testament times to seek the council of his Apostles, just as Kings did well when they sought the word of the Lord from men of God in Old Testament times. Contemporarily, mankind does itself a great disservice if we believe that God no longer employs servants to speak on his behalf. What reasons would God have not to speak to us? Is it because he cannot? Christians believe that God's power has not waned with the passing of time. Is it because he no longer cares for us? Christians accept that God's love and mercy are strong today. Is it because we no longer need him? It can be observed that we need him now more than ever. (See President Hugh B. Brown, Conference Report, October 1967, Third Day—Morning Meeting 118)
If Christians conlude that God does speak, then is it not the responsibility of Christians to find a way to hear his words and do his will? Relying solely on the words of ancient prophets was clearly not the right choice in the days of the Apostles, why should Christians be content with the Bible only... particularly when there are such widely varying interpretations and understandings of the same book?
Of course, the problem of discord regarding scriptural interpretation affects the ability to recognize a prophet. How can a person know if they have found a prophet of God?
The most fundamental teachings of Christ stir the feelings of Christians. There is a recognition of truth that all people have to varying degrees when they hear the word of God. "That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and 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 1:9-12) Using the light of Christ, or our natural ability to recognize general truth, a person can recognize basic truths taught by prophets. Do they encourage faith, repentence, and humility? Do they testify of Christ? Practicing these principles bring us closer to God, and increase the ability of individuals to recognize his will and his words. Ultimately, they help us conclude whether a person is a prophet of God.
2. Sustain the Prophet. In the Old Testament, God chose Moses to be his prophet. It became the responsibility of the people to accept and sustain him as he directed them according to the will of God himself. Typically, this involved simply not rebelling against him, which was too hard for some of the people to do. (Numbers 16) In some cases, sustaining the prophet was more literal than figurative. In fighting against the Amalekites, Moses stood up on a hill while Joshua and the men of Israel fought. He held up his hands and the rod of God, and so long as he held up his hands, the Israelites prevailed. As he grew weary and his hands began to fall, the Amalekites began to prevail. Aaron and Hur, attempting to sustain the prophet, prepared a stone on which they seated him. They sat on either side of him and helped him hold up his hands, keeping him steady until the sun set and Israel had won the victory. (Exodus 17)
Once a person has learned of God that a particular person is a prophet, or is authorized to speak for God, they may find that the prophet will ask them to do or to believe things that may be difficult. Whether it is to give service, to give time, to teach an intimidating group of students, to speak publicly, or to accept a doctrine that may not seem to be in harmony with popular culture, the question of sustaining the prophet is always central to the request.
Ultimately, if a person is speaking for God, those that do not sustain the prophet refuse to support God.
3. Understand when a prophet is not a prophet. For members of the LDS church, there is a clear order in which revelation is given. The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles represent the highest authority to speak generally and use every Priesthood Key. These special witnesses of Christ are called to speak for him. The duration of their roles in active church leadership is limited by their mortality, and in some cases, by their dissent. In the years shortly after the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was organized, there were some Apostles who left the church and fought against the prophet Joseph Smith, even though they had received witnesses that he spoke with God himself. Obviously, they forfeited their roles in receiving revelation for church members, just as Judas Iscariot forfeited his role as an Apostle when he betrayed Christ himself.
In addition to General Authorities, who have the ability to speak for God to all people generally, there are Area Authorities, who are called to speak for God in harmony with General Authorities, but on a smaller scope. There are also Authorities that speak for smaller divisions such as Stake Presidents, Bishops, Elders Quorum Presidents, Teachers Quorum Presidents, and Deacons Quorum Presidents. Parents have the divine mandate to teach their children to follow Christ in harmony with all those that speak for God. This is no doubt the reason that God has commanded us to honor our Father and Mother. All individuals fall under the stewardship of some prophets.
If there is any doubt as to whether a prophet or individual is acting as a prophet, examining whether there are conflicts between local and general authorities can help resolve these concerns. If there are no conflicts, it is the responsibility of individuals to sustain them all. If there are conflicts, it is the responsibility of individuals to understand the conflicts by first speaking with their local leaders. Typically, perceived conflicts are only misunderstandings, but if differences cannot be resolved, communiciating with leaders that have larger scopes of authority can help to clarify and correct.
It is important to note that prophets are human beings, and that they have their own set of opinions that may not represent the positions of God. Such views might include political leanings, dietary choices, literature preferences, financial choices, or scientific predictions. For example, finding out and emulating what an Apostle may own in stocks or other investments is not a guarantee of personal money making.
Conversely, when an Apostle speaks in General Conference and asks people to pray, or to increase the time they spend with their family, or to oppose ideas that marginalize the role of marriage, parental responsibility, or family values, these are not just opinions. These directions represent the will of God.
If a person truly believes that a prophet or a church does not adhere to the will of God, they ought to ask themselves if they should continue participating in that church or with that prophet, however, it is important to use caution. Remember the parable of the sower. (Matthew 13) The cares of the world or insufficient investment are not just causes to forsake the Kingdom of God. (Matthew 13:18-22)
Jesus taught "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)
Perhaps the most time-honored method for seeking God outside of prayer and scripture study is to seek out his prophets and Apostles. The last words of Christ's parable of the rich man and Lazarus speak literal truths regarding the importance of prophets in Christianity:
"Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." (Luke 16:27-31)
Ultimately, when he returns, he will hold individuals accountable for their effort or lack of effort in finding, sustaining, and understanding his chosen prophets and Apostles. "Why didn't you tell me yourself?" will not be a valid excuse, and will likely be answered with "why didn't you believe my servants that I sent?" The importance and benefits of finding all possible connections to one who is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent should be obvious. In the end, God will speak for himself to everyone, but it will be far better for those who have recognized and heeded those he has sent to declare his word.
The quotation above implies a lot of receiving of people that represent God. The Son of God is the one speaking, and he indicates that other servants must be accepted in order to gain entrance to the Kingdom of God. Careful thought might lead a person to wonder why he would do this though.
Why does God insist on speaking by proxy? If God is our Heavenly Father, why would he not speak to his children directly? Why are only some of them considered his "servants" and eligible to hear the word of God from its source? Why use prophets? Why use the Only Begotten Son to speak, if he is capable of speaking himself?
The traditions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all embrace God's practice of speaking through prophets. All three religions accept prophets such as Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Israel, and Moses. The Old Testament contains numerous accounts from even minor prophets that had short messages for their contemporaries from the Most High including Habakkuk, Joel, Zephaniah, and Malachi. In fact, traditions that do not include prophets have much more recent origins.
When protestant movements against the Catholic church began, it became logically necessary for protestants to find a connection to God that did not involve the clergy of the church. From these roots came the philosophy that all people have access to God directly, and no Pope, Cardinal, Bishop, or Deacon was required to maintain it. Why else would God ask individuals to pray to him if not to establish an individual basis for repentance and revelation?
With the spread of protestant philosophies, many people have concluded that there is really no need for prophets any longer. Some even point to passages in the Bible that seem to indicate as much: "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John." (Matthew 11:13) This passage tends to indicate that the prophets ended with John the Baptist, whose special assignment was to prepare the way for the coming of the Son of God himself. Indeed, after the coming of Christ many things changed. Since it was no longer necessary to perform animal sacrifices, was it not possible that prophets were no longer necessary with the arrival of the Messiah?
Of course, the logic of such thought is not thorough. To the point of the reference in Matthew, the preceding verse adds the context of "until now" to the time frame. Also, if prophecy was no longer vital, then why would Christ have ordained Apostles to be special witnesses? His charge to them at the end of Matthew is as follows:
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." (Matthew 28:19-20)
If the need for messengers to speak for God had ended, Christ would not have returned to his Apostles to give them such an assignment. They were specifically instructed to go throughout the world and represent him in a leadership capacity. The missionary efforts of the early Apostles are documented to some degree in the remainder of the New Testament, and contain their words with the same degree of reverence as the Old Testament did its prophets. The truth is, God's pattern of calling individuals to represent him to the public at large had not ended... in fact, it had expanded to a world-wide effort.
Understanding the purpose for God's extensive use of representation in his dealings with men requires an understanding of the purpose of life. If God's purpose were simply to find out who among humans were good and reward them with eternal life in his presence beyond the pearly gates, then there would be absolutely no reason to use prophets. He could stand on top of a mountain and project his voice for all to hear, proclaiming himself his desire for us to be good.
In fact, since God is omniscient, he does not need to send anyone to earth to live lives where we experience pain, sickness, frailty, cruelty, hunger, thirst, fatigue, and ultimately death. He would already know who will be naughty and nice. Why not make Minority Report real and spare people the pains and difficulties associated with life by implementing a pre-crime policy?
Of course, God's purpose is not just to send good people to heaven and damn the bad people to hell. Entrance to the kingdom of God requires more than avoiding sinful choices. It is meant for people who have become something...
Jesus taught a parable regarding a master that travelled to a far country and bestowed upon his servants varying numbers of talents. (Matthew 25:14-30) To one servant he gave five talents, to another he gave two talents, and to a third he gave one talent. The servants that worked hard to increase what their Lord had given them were rewarded, but the servant who had buried his single talent for fear of losing it was cast out.
The parable gives understanding regarding the purpose of life. God expects us to use what we have been given to become more than we are. There are numerous references in the scriptures to the process of sanctification which include language such as "overcome" (Revelation 3:21), "endure" (2 Nephi 31:20), being "refined", "purged", "purified". (Malachi 3:2-3)
With this understanding, God's apparent absence when it comes to speaking for himself is not because of a lack of concern for mankind. He does not employ servants to declare the word of the Lord because he is too busy, or because he enjoys giving cryptic orders...
He wants us to stay in the scenario where we will best learn. He has created a world with sorrow and pain in the hopes that people will learn to care for one another. He has created a world where injustice and unfairness thrive in the hopes that people will learn to embrace goodness and decry evil. He has created a world where his children have physical bodies that naturally entice people to indulge in lust, envy, wrath, gluttony, pride, sloth, and greed, and he has sent prophets to encourage people to have faith that there is something greater than these instincts.
The use of prophets requires faith not only of those that hear their words, but also the prophets themselves. Consider how worried Moses was that the people would hate him for his slow speech. (Exodus 4:10) Enoch also struggled with feelings of inadequacy. (Moses 6:31) Jonah doubted his mission entirely, fleeing from it. (Jonah 1:3) Many prophets and Apostles have been called to risk their lives to deliver their messages (Daniel 3, Jeremiah 20:2, Acts 20:22-24), and many prophets and Apostles have given their lives rather than rescind their messages. (Mosiah 17, Acts 7)
For those of us that are not called to speak for God to all the world, faith is required to believe in their words. People that have heeded the messages of those called to speak for God have become more humble, more faithful, and ultimately become more eligible to become heirs of the Kingdom of God. There are three basic tasks that all people who believe in God should undertake in light of this:
1. Seek a prophet of God. While it is true that Christ warned against false prophets (Matthew 24:11), God has not abandoned communicating mankind. Those that sought Christ did well in New Testament times to seek the council of his Apostles, just as Kings did well when they sought the word of the Lord from men of God in Old Testament times. Contemporarily, mankind does itself a great disservice if we believe that God no longer employs servants to speak on his behalf. What reasons would God have not to speak to us? Is it because he cannot? Christians believe that God's power has not waned with the passing of time. Is it because he no longer cares for us? Christians accept that God's love and mercy are strong today. Is it because we no longer need him? It can be observed that we need him now more than ever. (See President Hugh B. Brown, Conference Report, October 1967, Third Day—Morning Meeting 118)
If Christians conlude that God does speak, then is it not the responsibility of Christians to find a way to hear his words and do his will? Relying solely on the words of ancient prophets was clearly not the right choice in the days of the Apostles, why should Christians be content with the Bible only... particularly when there are such widely varying interpretations and understandings of the same book?
Of course, the problem of discord regarding scriptural interpretation affects the ability to recognize a prophet. How can a person know if they have found a prophet of God?
The most fundamental teachings of Christ stir the feelings of Christians. There is a recognition of truth that all people have to varying degrees when they hear the word of God. "That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and 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 1:9-12) Using the light of Christ, or our natural ability to recognize general truth, a person can recognize basic truths taught by prophets. Do they encourage faith, repentence, and humility? Do they testify of Christ? Practicing these principles bring us closer to God, and increase the ability of individuals to recognize his will and his words. Ultimately, they help us conclude whether a person is a prophet of God.
2. Sustain the Prophet. In the Old Testament, God chose Moses to be his prophet. It became the responsibility of the people to accept and sustain him as he directed them according to the will of God himself. Typically, this involved simply not rebelling against him, which was too hard for some of the people to do. (Numbers 16) In some cases, sustaining the prophet was more literal than figurative. In fighting against the Amalekites, Moses stood up on a hill while Joshua and the men of Israel fought. He held up his hands and the rod of God, and so long as he held up his hands, the Israelites prevailed. As he grew weary and his hands began to fall, the Amalekites began to prevail. Aaron and Hur, attempting to sustain the prophet, prepared a stone on which they seated him. They sat on either side of him and helped him hold up his hands, keeping him steady until the sun set and Israel had won the victory. (Exodus 17)
Once a person has learned of God that a particular person is a prophet, or is authorized to speak for God, they may find that the prophet will ask them to do or to believe things that may be difficult. Whether it is to give service, to give time, to teach an intimidating group of students, to speak publicly, or to accept a doctrine that may not seem to be in harmony with popular culture, the question of sustaining the prophet is always central to the request.
Ultimately, if a person is speaking for God, those that do not sustain the prophet refuse to support God.
3. Understand when a prophet is not a prophet. For members of the LDS church, there is a clear order in which revelation is given. The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles represent the highest authority to speak generally and use every Priesthood Key. These special witnesses of Christ are called to speak for him. The duration of their roles in active church leadership is limited by their mortality, and in some cases, by their dissent. In the years shortly after the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was organized, there were some Apostles who left the church and fought against the prophet Joseph Smith, even though they had received witnesses that he spoke with God himself. Obviously, they forfeited their roles in receiving revelation for church members, just as Judas Iscariot forfeited his role as an Apostle when he betrayed Christ himself.
In addition to General Authorities, who have the ability to speak for God to all people generally, there are Area Authorities, who are called to speak for God in harmony with General Authorities, but on a smaller scope. There are also Authorities that speak for smaller divisions such as Stake Presidents, Bishops, Elders Quorum Presidents, Teachers Quorum Presidents, and Deacons Quorum Presidents. Parents have the divine mandate to teach their children to follow Christ in harmony with all those that speak for God. This is no doubt the reason that God has commanded us to honor our Father and Mother. All individuals fall under the stewardship of some prophets.
If there is any doubt as to whether a prophet or individual is acting as a prophet, examining whether there are conflicts between local and general authorities can help resolve these concerns. If there are no conflicts, it is the responsibility of individuals to sustain them all. If there are conflicts, it is the responsibility of individuals to understand the conflicts by first speaking with their local leaders. Typically, perceived conflicts are only misunderstandings, but if differences cannot be resolved, communiciating with leaders that have larger scopes of authority can help to clarify and correct.
It is important to note that prophets are human beings, and that they have their own set of opinions that may not represent the positions of God. Such views might include political leanings, dietary choices, literature preferences, financial choices, or scientific predictions. For example, finding out and emulating what an Apostle may own in stocks or other investments is not a guarantee of personal money making.
Conversely, when an Apostle speaks in General Conference and asks people to pray, or to increase the time they spend with their family, or to oppose ideas that marginalize the role of marriage, parental responsibility, or family values, these are not just opinions. These directions represent the will of God.
If a person truly believes that a prophet or a church does not adhere to the will of God, they ought to ask themselves if they should continue participating in that church or with that prophet, however, it is important to use caution. Remember the parable of the sower. (Matthew 13) The cares of the world or insufficient investment are not just causes to forsake the Kingdom of God. (Matthew 13:18-22)
Jesus taught "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)
Perhaps the most time-honored method for seeking God outside of prayer and scripture study is to seek out his prophets and Apostles. The last words of Christ's parable of the rich man and Lazarus speak literal truths regarding the importance of prophets in Christianity:
"Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." (Luke 16:27-31)
Ultimately, when he returns, he will hold individuals accountable for their effort or lack of effort in finding, sustaining, and understanding his chosen prophets and Apostles. "Why didn't you tell me yourself?" will not be a valid excuse, and will likely be answered with "why didn't you believe my servants that I sent?" The importance and benefits of finding all possible connections to one who is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent should be obvious. In the end, God will speak for himself to everyone, but it will be far better for those who have recognized and heeded those he has sent to declare his word.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)