The Seer Stone

Why “utterly destroy” people and cities?

2011-07-18T10:23:00.006-05:00

One thing that has always stood out to me in the Old Testament is the Lord's insistence that the Israelites "utterly destroy" the nations that they conquer, which oftentimes included slaughtering all of the people, their animals, and ultimately burning their cities to the ground. Images of Geghis Khan come to mind.

This seemingly vicious practice stems from the Lord's instruction to the Israelites when encountering the many nations inhabiting the promised land. The Lord commands that they were to "smite them, and utterly destroy them" (Deut. 7:1-2). Compliant with this command, on one occasion Joshua and the Israelite army "utterly destroyed" Jericho and its inhabitants: "And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword" (Josh. 6:21). Later, other cities, such as Makkedeh, Libnah, Laschish, Eglon, Hebron, and Debir, were "utterly destroyed . . . ., and all the souls that were therein" (Josh. 10:28, 32, 35, 37, 39). Sounds pretty brutal, right?

In Hebrew, the lexical root for "utterly destroyed," as translated in the KJV, is h-r-m, or herem. The word herem is most often translated as "accursed," and means to be devoted or set apart. This accords with Joshua's instruction to the Israelite armey prior to attacking Jericho: "[T]he city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein . . . . And ye, in any wise keep yourselves from the accursed thing, lest ye make yourselves accursed, when ye take of the accursed thing" (Josh. 6:17-18). Consequently, through its "utter destruction," a city and its people were symbolically being set apart for or otherwise devoted to God. The precious metals found in the cities, however, were not destroyed but were instead purified and placed in "the treasury of the Lord" (Josh. 6:19, 24).

The Israelite's were fighting their king's war, and as such the spoils of the battle rightfully belonged to Jehovah. Therefore, Jehovah sometimes required that his people devote everything to him by "utterly destroying" entire cities and populations. This is not unlike ritual killing and Israelite animal sacrifice, where the burnt offering is entirely consumed, or devoted to God, on the sacrificial altar. Likewise, after overrunning a city and killing all of its inhabitants, burning the city with fire made it a large sacrificial offering devoted to the Lord.

One of the more well-known stories applying herem is recounted in 1 Samuel 15, where Saul is instructed to "utterly destroy" the Amalekites, including all of their people and animals (1 Sam. 15:3). Contrary to Samuel's instructions received from the Lord, Saul returned with Agag the Amalekite king and "the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly" (1 Sam. 15:9). Agag was apparently a trophy of Saul's victory over the Amalekites, and it was Saul's intent to sacrifice the captured livestock to the Lord as a burnt offering. This, however, is not the intent of herem, so Samuel was required to finish the job by "hew[ing] Agag in pieces before the Lord"(1Sam. 15:33).

Although a seemingly vicious act, the requirement of the Lord that the Israelites "utterly destroy" cities and their inhabitants was actually a form of worship and proved one's devotion to Jehovah.

The Difference between a Prophet and "a Prophet"

2011-06-20T09:29:00.004-05:00

In my last post, I explained how I recently had the opportunity to sit down with a pair of Jehovah’s Witness missionaries at my home. It’s been four weeks since they last visited and subsequently left a DVD about the history of their Church and the life of Charles Taze Russell, the founder and first leader of their church. I was honestly looking forward to discussing the DVD with them and furthering our discussion about priesthood authority. But it now is beginning to look like I inherited a free Jehovah’s Witness DVD.

One thing that I didn’t include in my last post is that I also discussed with these missionaries the importance of prophets and their role in God’s plan. The Jehovah’s Witnesses generally do not regard Charles Russell as a prophet, per se, but more as a man inspired by God. I fully agree with their assessment and believe many individuals throughout history have been inspired of God to do many wonderful things. For instantce, Reformers like Luther, Wesley, and Tyndale were certainly inspired of God to do what they did. But I don’t believe they were prophets in the strictest sense of the word (e.g., someone called by God to lead his people). They were, nevertheless, prophets in a more loose interpretation of the word (e.g., someone inspired of God). The Bible provides a vivid example of the differences between a prophet and “a prophet,” and the following is how I explained this to my missionary friends.

During the exodus, Moses became extremely frustrated with the Israelites and their constant murmuring. The complaining was also a source of frustration for the Lord (Num. 11:10-15) who allowed Moses to call 70 Israelite elders upon whom an increased portion of the Spirit was given so that they prophesied and served as a sign of God’s power to assist Moses (Num. 11:24-30).

Of these 70 elders, Eldad (Hebrew: “God is/has love”) and Medad (Hebrew: “God’s loving arms reaching out”) proceeded to prophesy not just in the Tabernacle, but also in the Camp of Israel. Upon hearing this, Joshua protested saying, “My lord Moses, forbid them” (Num. 11:28). Moses responded with one of my favorite scriptures, “Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!” (Num. 11:29). In other words, Moses understood that all members of the Church can be prophets simply by receipt of the gift of prophecy.

This principle is also taught in Revelation 19:10, where the angel of the Lord declares that “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Commenting on this verse, Joseph Smith stated that “[i]f any person should ask me if I were a prophet, I should not deny it, as that would give me the lie; for, according to John, the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy; therefore, if I profess to be a witness or teacher, and have not the spirit of prophecy, which is the testimony of Jesus, I must be a false witness; but if I be a true teacher and witness, I must possess the spirit of prophecy, and that constitutes a prophet; and any man who says he is a teacher or a preacher of righteousness, and denies the spirit of prophecy, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.269). Accordingly, anyone who can testify that they know Jesus to be the Christ is technically a prophet since the spirit of prophecy is made manifest through a valid testimony of the Savior.

And yet, having a testimony of Christ does not by itself qualify an individual to speak on behalf of the Lord, as was the case with Moses in the prophetic office. This distinction was apparently not fully understood by Moses’ older siblings, Miriam and Aaron, who exhibited pride and jealousy in view of Moses’ unique calling: “Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us?"(Num. 12:2). The Lord responded by explaining the difference between a prophet and “a prophet.”

He called Moses, Aaron, and Miriam to the tabernacle and proceeded to describe the first category of prophet: “If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream” (Num. 12:6). In other words, the first type of prophet is provided with direct revelation from the Lord through his Spirit. This is the same type described in Revelation 19:10, and the type which most true followers of the Christ qualify as.

The Lord continued, however, by explaining that Moses was not this type of prophet: “My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold” (Num. 12:7-8). The category of prophet that Moses belonged to included one on one interaction with the Lord himself, where the individual is able to behold and speak with the Lord on a personal basis. This is the Lord’s spokesperson through whom timely instruction is given to the Lord’s people. Through this direct interaction with the Lord, this type of prophet receives all the keys necessary for the salvation and exaltation of God’s children.

I’m not sure if this distinction between prophets sunk in with the Jehovah’s Witness missionaries, but it gave me the opportunity to testify that Joseph Smith was a prophet in the strict sense of the word, someone called of God to lead His people today, and that his successor today is Thomas S. Monson. The Spirit was present during our conversation and I trust they felt it also. Maybe that’s why they haven’t been back to see me in a month...

Priesthood of All Believers

2011-06-06T09:04:00.003-05:00

For the last 9 months I taught early morning seminary and couldn’t find much spare time to add additional posts here. During the upcoming summer break, and an influx of significantly more time, I hope to post more regularly now on topics of interest.

A few months ago a couple of Jehovah’s Witness missionaries knocked on our door and my wife accepted their literature but asked that they return when I was home to present their message. I always make it a point to be gracious to missionaries of other faiths since my own mission taught me how disappointing tracting and proselytizing can be at times.

The missionaries returned the following Saturday and we enjoyed a two hour conversation about their church. Our discussion was interesting, to say the least, and we agreed on several points of doctrine. I eventually asked about priesthood authority in their church and was surprised to learn that neither of them really knew much about it or hadn’t given it much thought. I took this opportunity to share a brief history of the LDS church and its authoritative foundations, along with my testimony of a living prophet. I even pointed to a picture of the First Presidency I have on my wall in my office to show them who I was talking about.

They eventually returned the following Saturday with a DVD documentary about Charles Russell, the “Joseph Smith” of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, that they said may help answer my authority question. It did…sort of. I concluded that the Jehovah’s Witnesses, like many modern Protestant churches, believe somewhat in the priesthood of all believers. In preparation for their next visit, I studied priesthood authority again and decided to post a few of my notes here for reference. Many of my thoughts are derived from John Tvedtnes’ article entitled, “Is There a ‘Priesthood of All Believers’?” I recommend his short article for further reference.

Briefly, the priesthood of all believers is the concept that all true believers in Christ are inherently authorized to baptize and perform other saving ordinances. This idea first surfaced during the Reformation when Reformers, such as Martin Luther, realized that they had cut themselves off from the priesthood lineage of the Catholic Church and needed to provide an explanation that would authorize them in their ecclesiastical acts.

Proponents of the priesthood of all believers cite to 1 Peter 2:9, “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.” Peter, however, was referring to Exodus 19:5-6 where the Lord told the Israelites through Moses that if they would “obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation." Of the Israelites present at that time, only the Levites were chosen to receive the priesthood. Moreover, none of the Israelites in Moses’ day acknowledged Christ as Savior, so it appears even they would not have met the criteria set forth by Martin Luther to receive the priesthood of all believers.

In advancing his claim of priesthood for all believers, Luther wrote, "in fact, we are all consecrated priests through Baptism, as St. Peter in 1 Peter 2 says." Peter, however, says nothing about baptism to become a priest and in fact doesn’t mention baptism in the passage in question.

In contrast, the Bible teaches that baptism is not enough to receive priesthood authority. This was made evident in the story of Simon the Sorcerer who attempted to purchase the “power” to “lay hands” on people from Peter and John after witnessing the Holy Ghost bestowed on several in Samaria. See Acts 8:5-20. Although Simon believed and had already been baptized (Acts 8:13), this did not provide him with any priesthood authority, nor was he able to purchase the priesthood from Peter or John.

In John 15:16, Christ told his apostles, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you." Their ordination did not stem from their baptism but because they had chosen to follow Christ. See Luke 6:13; Mark 3:13-15. The chosen 12 received "power" from Christ that the other disciples of Christ did not have, and he later bestowed that same priesthood power on seventy others, as discussed in Luke 10.

In ordaining high priests, Hebrews 5:4 declares, "And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." And how was Aaron ordained? The Lord told Moses to "anoint Aaron and his sons, and consecrate them, that they may minister unto me in the priest's office." See Exodus 30:30; see also Exodus 28:41; 40:13; Numbers 3:3. In other words, there was a specific ceremonial ordination that took place which included the anointing and consecration of Aaron to his calling. Later, certain Levites were ordained to the priesthood by the laying on of hands. See Numbers 8:10-11.

Today many Christians feel duly authorized to preach the gospel and baptize people stemming from Christ’s commission found in Matthew 28:19. They fail to realize, however, that Christ was speaking only to his ordained apostles at the time. See Matt. 28:16 and Mark 16:14-16.

Priesthood authority does not come from knowledge of the Bible, a degree in theology bestowed by some man-made university, or even an apparent call from God in some vision or dream or while contemplating the Bible. In Matthew 7:21-24 Christ said that “[n]ot every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” When all is said and done, “many” will have claimed to acted in the Lord’s name, using his authority, but the Savior declared that he would cast out those whom he did not know, or those whom he did not authorize to act.

It’s been a few weeks since the Jehovah’s Witness missionaries last visited me, and I’m beginning to wonder if they intend on not returning. If they do return, however, I plan on sharing with them a few of these notes and hope to have the opportunity to share my testimony of priesthood authority with them.

It is Truly Better to Give than to Receive

2010-11-05T07:37:00.003-05:00

With all the shocking news stories we read every day, it's refreshing to read an article that touches us. It's refreshing to know that there still are good and decent people throughout the world.

The elderly couple pictured above is Canadian natives Allen and Violet Large. They recently won over $11M in the lottery of Nova Scotia back in July of this year and then went about giving every penny of it away. You can read the full article here.

The husband, Allen, stated that "the money that we won was nothing. We have each other." Such a statement is telling of the type of people they are. We need more people like that today.

The Savior taught his apostles that "freely ye have received, freely give" (Matt 10:8). Truly, "[i]t is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35). It seems that so many of us today are money-driven, and just trying to get ahead. May we all live each day like the Allen and Violet Large, and focus on what really matters.

"[B]ecause of iniquity, the love of many shall wax cold"

2010-10-08T08:32:00.005-05:00

One of the more understated prophesies of the last days is that the love towards our brothers and sisters will drastically diminish in the last days. See JSM 1:10, 30; Matt. 24:12; D&C 45:27. In a most poignant example of this, a fourth teenager from Mentor High School in Mentor, Ohio has recently committed suicide as a result of peer bullying in the school. Wouldn't you think that after the third student suicide that was related to bullying occurred, the school would step in and do something? The article can be found here.

If it weren't enough that Sladjana Vidovic was brought to the pitiful state of self-immolation by the acts of her peers, as the mourning family watched a few of the girls who had tormented Sladjana for months walked up to her casket — and laughed. Sladjana was laid in her casket wearing a pink dress that she planned to wear to the prom, and the scoffing girls were apparently mocking the way their deceased schoolmate was dressed and looked.

Wow! Talk about cold-hearted.

As indicated by the Savior in the scriptures cited above, it is because iniquity abounds in the last days that the love of man is quenched. Today there are innumerable sources of iniquity in our world, some that are becoming increasingly accessible, such as pornography in all its forms. I believe that with the influx of a tidal wave of pornography since the late 1990's, we have steadily become more desensitized and cold to the human emotion. Is it any wonder that Alma urged his son Shiblon to “bridle all your passions, that ye may be filled with love" (Alma 38:12)? This counsel applies equally to all of us. The more our society indulges in iniquity, in any form, and accepts it as normal, the colder we become.

Apparently Mormons Know Religion

2010-09-28T08:11:00.004-05:00

A survey recently conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life concluded, among other things, that Mormons generally know the tenets of their own faith and those of other faiths better than most Christian denominations. The participants were asked 32 questions varying in difficulty and including questions such as whether they could name the Islamic holy book, the first book of the Bible, or indicate what century the Mormon religion was founded. Here's a link to the Pew Forum survey, which includes more information.

Interestingly enough, it was the atheists and agnostics that scored the highest in the survey with an average of 21 correct answers. Jews and Mormons followed with around 20 accurate responses, Protestants averaged 16 correct answers, and Catholics followed with a score of about 15. Mormons scored the highest on general questions about Christianity, with an average of about 8 correct answers out of 12.

How do you explain these results? Why do you think atheists and agnostics tested better than actual believers? Why do members of the LDS Church test better than other Christian denominations? Although I tend to agree with Dave Banack's conclusion that our Sunday School Gospel Doctrine manuals need a major overhaul, they have arguably helped our members become more knowledgable and served a valuable purpose.

Scientific Study Explains Parting of Red Sea (sort of)

2010-09-21T12:35:00.004-05:00

A new study released by Our Amazing Planet attempts to explain the parting of the Red Sea as a natural phenomenon caused, at least in part, by strong winds. Briefly, the study concluded that a strong east wind of around 65mph, blowing overnight, could have swept water off a bend where an ancient river is believed to have merged with a coastal lagoon along the Mediterranean Sea.

Whether this wind explanation is what actually happened or not, I don't care. In fact, like other "miracles" or seemingly impossible stories in the scriptures, if your testimony is rooted in their undeniable occurrence, then I believe your testimony may be ill-placed. For instance, what if conclusive scientific evidence emerges someday that incontestably proves that the flood could not have been a universal occurrence as attested in the Biblical account, but was only reported locally as Noah observed. Would that shake your testimony?

Unlike some Christian denominations, the LDS Church welcomes the advent of scientific advances. In the Encyclopedia of Mormonism under "Science and Religion," we are taught that "[b]ecause of belief in the ultimate compatibility of all truth and in the eternal character of human knowledge, Latter-day Saints tend to take a more positive approach to science than do some people in other religious traditions who also claim a strong foundation in scripture.” Someday all truth will be made known and I believe we will all be surprised at how interrelated science and religion really are.

Pray Always, lest ye be Disfellowshipped?

2010-08-02T09:13:00.003-05:00

“And a commandment I give unto them—that he that observeth not his prayers before the Lord in the season thereof, let him be had in remembrance before the judge of my people” (D&C 68:33) (emphasis added).

The phrase “had in remembrance” is similarly used in D&C 68:30, where we are taught that the “idler shall be had in remembrance before the Lord,” or in other words, will be judged of the Lord. The "judge of my people" refers to the bishop or other duly appointed Judge in Israel. However, I'm not exactly sure what "the season" refers to, nor could I locate any commentary on it. Nonetheless, we are continually commanded to pray always, so "the season" appears to connote our regular course of prayer.

Consequently, according to this scripture, if we don’t continue to pray we can potentially be brought before our Ward Bishop or Branch President to answer for ourselves and explain why we haven’t kept up on our prayers. Notice that this is a direct "commandment" from the Lord, and the Lord follows this commandment up by declaring that "[t]hese sayings are true and faithful; wherefore, transgress them not, neither take therefrom" (D&C 68:34).

Joseph Fielding Smith briefly commented on D&C 68:33 in the October 1918 General Conference: “[W]e ought to be a praying people, and if there are in Zion those who do not observe their prayers in the season thereof, they are amenable to the law of the Church and may be brought before the judge, or in other words, the bishop, and he can try them for their fellowship, because the Lord himself has declared it in these words which I have read unto you” (Conference Report, October 1918, 57).

I wonder if any Bishop or Branch President has ever used this scripture in dealing with a member of their congregation. It seems like something that would likely have been brought up by the early Saints.

Does anyone know anything more about this scripture, or have any commentary that could shed some light on it?

Reflections on Pioneer Day - July 24

2010-07-24T11:22:00.006-05:00

I'll admit it, I like our modern conveniences. I like having the Internet, HD DVR service, a car with a turbo installed on it, air conditioning, and the list goes on and on. I've often wondered if it would be hard for me to live as the pioneers did. I think I could have done it but, again, I love our modern conveniences.

That said, I have profound respect for those that have passed on before us that have given us a great heritage. I am in awe at the distances people traveled by foot just to hear a living Prophet's voice, to unite themselves with fellow believers, or to flee religious persecution. Most of all, I'm grateful that there were so many righteous souls placed at the appropriate time and location so that they would be instrumental in laying the foundation of our faith.

Truly, the prophetic words of Joseph Smith have now come to fruition:

"The blessings of the Most High will rest upon our tabernacles, and our name will be handed down to future ages; our children will rise up and call us blessed; and generations yet unborn will dwell with peculiar delight upon the scenes that we have passed through, the privations that we have endured; the untiring zeal that we have manifested; the all but insurmountable difficulties that we have overcome in laying the foundation of a work that brought about the glory and blessing which they will realize; a work that God and angels have contemplated with delight for generations past; that fired the souls of the ancient patriarchs and prophets; a work that is destined to bring about the destruction of the powers of darkness, the renovation of the earth, the glory of God, and the salvation of the human family" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.232) (emphasis added).

Happy Pioneer Day from Houston, TX!!

Shaking the Dust from your Feet

2010-07-06T09:00:00.002-05:00

On my mission, I fortunately picked up the Spanish language fairly quickly. In fact, within about 2 months in the field I was fairly conversational and had acquired an accent that made some inquire as to whether I was Ecuadorian. Other missionaries can pass through the entirety of their mission without really grasping a foreign language; and such was the case with one of my companions. Even though I was only in the field about 2 months, and my companion had less than 3 months left on his mission, I clearly had a better understanding of the Spanish language. I honestly felt bad and knew it had to be tough for him to be a senior companion and have his junior companion lead discussions.

On one occasion we were engaged in a discussion with a large family. After each time my companion spoke, the family looked to me and asked me to interpret what he had just said. This clearly offended my companion who at one point refused to let me explain what he had just taught and insisted that it was clear enough. He became so infuriated that as we left the family’s home he actually began to dust off his shoes a short distance down the street as a testimony against the inhabitants of the home. I didn’t have the heart to tell him that he likely didn’t understand how that ordinance worked.

The following is a summary of dusting one's feet as a testimony against others, as I understand it.

There are two priesthood ordinances involving the feet; one involving the washing of the feet as described in John 13 and D&C 88:139, and the other involving shaking off the dust from the feet. The former being an ordinance of blessing, the latter an ordinance of cursing. As an ordinance, consequently, neither is to be performed except through the Lord’s duly appointed and authorized servants.

Shaking off the dust from the feet is an action of disapproval and condemnation. To Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, the Lord commanded that “in whatsoever place ye shall enter, and they receive you not in my name, ye shall leave a cursing instead of a blessing, by casting off the dust of your feet against them as a testimony, and cleansing your feet by the wayside” (D&C 24:15). However, not just anyone can undertake this ordinance, and the authority to do so has not been given to missionaries generally. Elder McConkie stated that “[n]o curse should ever be decreed except by direct revelation from the Lord commanding such to be done” (Elder Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 2:123). This is probably because testifying against anyone is a frightening responsibility which mortals cannot fully comprehend without the guidance of the Spirit.

Elder James E. Talmadge summarized this ordinance as follows:

“To ceremonially shake the dust from one's feet as a testimony against another was understood by the Jews to symbolize a cessation of fellowship and a renunciation of all responsibility for consequences that might follow. It became an ordinance of accusation and testimony by the Lord's instructions to His apostles as cited in the text [of the New Testament]. In the current dispensation, the Lord has similarly directed His authorized servants to so testify against those who wilfully and maliciously oppose the truth when authoritatively presented. The responsibility of testifying before the Lord by this accusing symbol is so great that the means may be employed only under unusual and extreme conditions, as the Spirit of the Lord may direct” (Elder James E. Talmadge, Jesus the Christ, p.345)(emphasis added).

Interestingly, the Lord cautions those performing this ordinance that it should not to be done in the presence of those they are testifying against “lest thou provoke them, but in secret: and wash thy feet, as a testimony against them in the day of judgment” (D&C 60:15). The Prophet’s brother, Samuel Smith, performed this ordinance at least once while preaching the gospel, as reported by the Prophet’s mother:

“On the 30th of June, Samuel started on the mission to which he had been set apart by Joseph, and in traveling 25 miles, which was his first day’s journey, he stopped at a number of places in order to sell his books, but was turned out of doors as soon as he declared his principles. When evening came on, he was faint and almost discouraged, but coming to an inn, which was surrounded with every appearance of plenty, he called to see if the landlord would buy one of his books. On going in, Samuel inquired of him, if he did not wish to purchase a history of the origin of the Indians.

“‘I do not know,’ replied the host; ‘how did you get hold of it?’ ‘It was translated,’ rejoined Samuel, ‘by my brother, from some gold plates that he found buried in the earth.’ ‘You liar!’ cried the landlord. ‘Get out of my house-you shan’t stay one minute with your books.’

“Samuel was sick at heart, for this was the 5th time he had been turned out of doors that day. He left the house and traveled a short distance and washed his feet in a small brook, as a testimony against the man. He then proceeded five miles further on his journey, and seeing an apple tree a short distance from the road, he concluded to pass the night under it; and here he lay all night upon the cold, damp ground. In the morning, he arose from his comfortless bed, and observing a small cottage at no great distance, he drew near, hoping to get a little refreshment…. He…proceeded to Bloomington, which was 8 miles further.

“Here he stopped at the house of John P. Greene, who was a Methodist preacher and was at that time about starting on a preaching mission. He, like the others, did not wish to make a purchase of what he considered at that time to be a nonsensical fable; however, he said that he would take a subscription paper, and if he found anyone on his route who was disposed to purchase, he would take his name, and in two weeks Samuel might call again and he would let him know what the prospect was of selling. After making this arrangement, Samuel left one of his books with him, and returned home. At the time appointed, Samuel started again for the Reverend John P. Greene’s, in order to learn the success which this gentleman had met with in finding sale for the Book of Mormon. This time, Mr. Smith and myself accompanied him, and it was our intention to have passed near the tavern where Samuel was so abusively treated a fortnight previous, but just before we came to the house, a sign of smallpox intercepted us. We turned aside, and meeting a citizen of the place, we inquired of him, to what extent this disease prevailed. He answered that the tavern keeper and two of his family had died with it not long since, but he did not know that anyone else had caught the disease, and that it was brought into the neighborhood by a traveler who stopped at the tavern overnight” (Lucy Mack Smith, History of Joseph Smith, pp.225-226) (emphasis added).

This Was Totally a Foul on the US, Right?

2010-06-20T22:20:00.001-05:00

Bold World Cup Predictions

2010-06-01T21:56:00.004-05:00

I admit it, I like soccer. A lot. Actually that is nothing to hide because I always have and have played a lot of it since I was walking. For soccer fans like us, this is the best time of every four years.

The World Cup(TM) is one of the most exciting events in sports and it can easily draw you in. My first experience was as a 9-year old at Italia 90 when my dad and I watched West Germany defeat England on penalties in Turin during the semi final. A week later we watched Germany win the finals with friends in a small German town. To this day, I have always loved the thrill of the tournament.

I hope that my fellow Seer Stone authors will not be upset if I make this brief post about my predictions for the World Cup(TM). The Seer Stone is intended to have doctrinal posts as well as random thoughts. File this one under random thoughts.

Without further adieu, here is my team by team prediction. I am trying to be somewhat bold by not going with the obvious choices.

Group A

France
Mexico
South Africa
Uruguay

Prediction: Mexico (1st), France (2nd), Uruguay (3rd), and S. Africa (4th).
Comments: France has sucked recently and qualified on a hand ball. Mexico has tacos and I like tacos, so there you go. I wouldn't be surprised if Uruguay advances if Diego Forlan plays well.

Group B

Argentina
Greece
Nigeria
South Korea

Prediction: Argentina (1st), Greece (2nd), South Korea (3rd), Nigeria (4th).
Comments: You may have not of heard of a guy named Messi and a coach named Diego. Greece play too defensive but will probably get by on draws. Korea and Nigeria will cancel each other out.

Group C

Algeria
England
USA
Slovenia

Prediction: England (1st), Algeria (2nd), USA (3rd), Slovenia (4th).
Comments: I think the US could easily go in second place in this group, but there is too much hype around them as if they will automatically advance. Algeria can be lethal or it can be hit or miss. Slovenia is also a wild card because they have no business being there, but beat out a good Russia to qualify.

Group D

Australia
Germany
Ghana
Serbia

Prediction: Germany (1st), Serbia (2nd), Australia (3rd), Ghana (4th).
Comments: Germany will go far, but not win the tournament. Serbia are very, very good, don't count them out as a favorite. Ghana lost their best player to injury. Don't waste your time.

Group E

Denmark
Cameroon
Japan
Netherlands

Predictions: Netherlands (1st), Denmark (2nd), Cameroon (3rd), Japan (4th).
Comments: The Dutch will go far, but won't win it. Other than that, this is kind of a "meh" group.

Group F

Italy
New Zealand
Paraguay
Slovakia

Prediction: Italy (1st), Paraguay (2nd), Slovakia (3rd), and New Zealand (4th).
Comment: Italy have to be favored, but Paraguay could surprise. Italy have gotten older since it won the last World Cup.

Group G

Brazil
Ivory Coast
Portugal
North Korea

Prediction: Brazil (1st), Portugal (2nd), Ivory Coast (3rd), North Korea (4th).
Comments: This is a brutal group. Ivory Coast has the Toure brothers, Salomon Kalou and Dider Drogba. But despite Portugal's bad form, I see them going through.

Group H

Chile
Honduras
Spain
Switzerland

Prediction: Spain (1st), Chile (2nd), Honduras (3rd), and Switzerland (4th).
Comment: Spain looks good but don't look past their choker status. Chile is a wild card in the tournament as they qualified strongly out of South America.

I will return to my predictions in a few days to see how they stand up to the real results and I will plan out my prediction for the knockout rounds.

Receiving Revelation without Realizing It

2010-06-01T13:54:00.002-05:00

When I was in the MTC, one of our language instructors said something that changed my life. We were reviewing the Joseph Smith story and practicing how to teach it to investigators when he explained that it would be close to impossible to teach this lesson unless you knew it to be true for yourself. He continued by explaining that the Spirit will not accompany one’s testimony unless he has received such a testimony for himself.

I contemplated that for a moment and came to the stark realization that I had never prayed about Joseph Smith and his prophetic calling. In fact, I had never specifically prayed about anything with regards to the Church. I grew up in the Church and kind of accepted things to be true by the testimony of others. But now, I realized that I had to boldly declare to strangers in a foreign land for the next 2 years that I knew something to be true for myself. Could I do that and have the Spirit testify to what I was saying? At that point, I didn’t know for sure.

So I prayed. I prayed for a while, in fact. It was one of those Enos prayers that lasted for hours. Now, there was no theophany or any audible voices or manifestations, but I received a distinct confirmation of what I was asking about. Interestingly, however, my prayer was answered more in the form of, “You already know this to be true, why are you asking me now?” At that point it hit me, I had known these truths for years, I just never knew that I knew it. Through countless temple trips, testimony meetings, scripture studies, prayers, family home evenings, etc, I realized that I had been receiving revelation of truth all along without being aware of it.

I feel this happens to many of us quite often, members and non-members alike. To Oliver Cowdery, the Lord explained that “for thou hast inquired of me, and behold, as often as thou hast inquired thou hast received instruction of my Spirit. If it had not been so, thou wouldst not have come to the place where thou art at this time” (D&C 6:14) (emphasis added). It's often the case that only as we grow in the things of the Spirit are we able to look back on our lives and realize how completely our course was actually directed by the Divine.

The Lord continued to Oliver, “Behold, thou knowest that thou hast inquired of me and I did enlighten thy mind; and now I tell thee these things that thou mayest know that thou hast been enlightened by the Spirit of truth” (D&C 6:15) (emphasis added). In other words, the Lord verified that Oliver had in fact been receiving revelation all along, and that his prayers had been consistently answered.

Those of us who are maturing spiritually commonly have comparable experiences. For example, the two disciples of Christ did not realize who taught them on the road to Emmaus until the day’s end and Christ ultimately departed from them: “Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?” (Luke 24:32). Even more remarkable is the account of the Lamanites who, after their conversion, “were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and they knew it not” (3 Nephi 9:20) (emphasis added).

Though he didn’t realize it, Oliver Cowdery was led by the Divine to Palmyra to teach school and eventually take up lodging with the Prophet’s family. Responding to this same Spirit, he was eventually guided to Harmony, Pennsylvania, where he became the Prophet’s scribe.

In my case, my experience in the MTC made me realize that I was also prepared and directed through the Spirit via countless revelatory experiences to eventually become a missionary. As I eventually discovered for myself, one of the keys to becoming conversant in the language of the Spirit is to learn to recognize the feelings of peace and comfort that accompany revelation. These feelings can be had on a daily basis if we are prepared to receive them.

“The Only True and Living Church”

2010-05-26T09:07:00.003-05:00

When I was a missionary we were still using the 6 discussion program, where the apostasy and restoration were taught in the 3rd discussion. After explaining the restoration of the Church through Joseph Smith, the discussion directed us missionaries to read D&C 1:30 where it stresses that the LDS Church is “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased.”

Was it just me, or did this make anyone else cringe a little when we read this to investigators? I mean, much of the time we barely knew the investigator, and then we essentially denounce their religion as false by referring to a scripture unique to our faith. It’s akin to a Jehovah’s Witness declaring Charles Taze Russell as a prophet of God by quoting one of Mr. Russell’s numerous written works.

While I agree entirely with the text of D&C 1:30, and there are no doubt occasions where this scripture could be effectively used in a missionary setting, I always thought background details, history, and common sense reasoning could have proffered a more tactful and gentle approach. Such an approach can be found in “Revelations of the Restoration,” by Joseph Fielding McConkie and Craig J. Ostler. In the following text, the authors delineate a glaring salvific disconnect between Catholicism and Protestantism. I took the liberty of highlighting a few of the points I thought to be of most interest:

“Catholicism is founded on the idea that authority is necessary to represent God and that certain ordinances are essential to salvation. Those principles in turn dictate that there can be but one true church, meaning one church that has the right to speak for God and perform the ordinances of salvation. Protestantism, on the other hand, in breaking with the mother church, takes the only remaining position–rejecting the need for authority and ordinances. Having done so, Protestantism must of necessity argue that neither ordinances nor church membership is a tenet of salvation and that ‘the one true church doctrine’ is narrow minded, bigoted, and even unchristian. This, of course, is what Protestantism does. Out of this chain of thought grows the popularized notion that it is not what you believe but how you believe that counts and the attendant idea that somehow all churches, even though they teach contradictory doctrines, are true–assuming, of course, that they are Protestant Churches.

“The idea that all churches are true, though satisfying to those who seek salvation on their own terms, defies every principle of truth and logic known to humankind. Let us briefly consider some of the ways it does so.

“First, the essence of Christianity centers on the idea that salvation is in Christ. That being the case, everyone who truly embraces the Christian faith must at the same time embrace the idea that it is only in and through Christ that salvation comes. Christ himself said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6). The doctrine of all the holy prophets has been that there is “none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12; see also D&C 18:23; 2 Nephi 25:20; 31:21). Within the ranks of those professing to be Christians may be differences on the requirements of salvation, but all must agree on the acceptance of Christ as the source of salvation. At issue here is not whether a line must be drawn between the believer and the nonbeliever but simply where that line should be drawn. Historically Protestants do not hesitate to draw that line in such a manner as to exclude Catholics, Latter-day Saints, Seventh-day Adventists, and Jehovah Witnesses. In practice, then, it becomes a Christian duty for Protestants to draw that line, doing so in such a manner as to exclude all who dare disagree with them. It only becomes an unchristian practice when someone suggests that they are on the wrong side of the line.

“Second, to argue that the power of salvation rests in the Protestant world is to argue that a live branch can be cut from a dead tree…. Protestants claim to have rejected corrupt Catholic traditions in a return to Bible religion. This argument raises two great difficulties. The first is that they simply do not do it. They have retained as foundational to their faith the most corrupting traditions of the old mother church, namely her creeds. The second great difficulty is that Bible religion is itself unbiblical because no one within the covers of the Bible ever had a Bible. Their religion was one of prophets, apostles, and continuous revelation. Never in Bible times was the Church and kingdom of God governed by a book. Now it is important to get our history straight. Christian existence predates the Bible by more than three centuries. The great Christian creeds, the very foundation upon which Protestantism’s whole concept of Deity rests, are Bible free. Their creation predates that of the Bible. Protestantism holds fast to these creeds, refusing to acknowledge that they are part of the Catholic tradition that they claim to have rejected. It is allegiance to these creeds that predetermines the manner in which they interpret the Bible. At the same time they claim the Bible to be the last word on all things. Thus traditions rooted in historical creeds rather than the Bible have been retained as the guiding revelations of the Protestant faith.

“Third, the notion that salvation can be found in any of a host of contradictory doctrines defies reason and argues that God’s kingdom is one of chaos and disorder. We are being asked to believe that if a dozen people add a column of figures and each arrives at a different sum, we must accept each of them as right. It is not the sum that you come to that matters but the zeal with which you add the figures that counts. Similarly, this notion argues that all men, women, and children who receive a prescription from a doctor are entitled to go to the pharmacists and concoct their own mixture of drugs….

“To maintain that all churches are true—meaning that they possess the power of salvation and the authority to act as the agent of God—may have some resemblance to Christian tolerance. But upon examination such a notion reveals itself to be a deceptive ploy lulling people into the belief that it is for them to dictate the terms of salvation and to determine the nature and character of God. In such a god we have no interest” (pp. 53-55) (emphasis added).

Hyrum Strikes Back! Thank You For Helping Me Break My Writing Cramp, Namelka!

2010-05-20T23:00:00.005-05:00

I haven’t posted anything for a long time. I guess I chalk this up to changing jobs and moving from Texas to the Garden State. (In case you were wondering, New Jersey is surprisingly nice. In most places, at least.) Now that I am settled and mostly unpacked, I have wanted to post something as Jeremy had been steering the ship for awhile. Lo and behold, Christopher Namelka made my job easier for me, at least I think he did.

Some of you may have read our previous posts on the coming forth of the Sealed Portion of the Gold Plates. You will probably know through the comments that The Prophet Christopher Namelka, hereinafter The Prophet, claims to have translated these into the Last Testament of Jesus Christ from the Gold Plates. There was some delightful banter in the comments.

Earlier today I found a link to “Without Disclosing My True Identity -
The Authorized and Official Biography of the Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith Jr.” Apparently, the resurrected Prophet (Joseph) appeared to someone named Christopher, no last name give, and dictated his life story. From the publisher’s website, here are some of the highlights:

“…With his own testimony, Joseph Smith has outlined the official and ONLY authorized manner in which truth can be established upon this earth. In order for real truth to be established, a fully resurrected being must return to the earth and initiate its establishment. Without following this protocol, no other work can be deemed official and authorized.”

"Ironically, since Joseph Smith, not even one of the mainstream Mormon/LDS leaders has claimed to have been visited by a resurrected human being and received instruction face-to-face from an advanced and eternal resurrected being. There have been some spurious and unscrupulous men and women who have made the claim, but with an honest and sincere investigation into what the fruits of their claim have produced, their lies and imaginations are quickly discounted.”

“During Joseph Smith’s tenure as a true messenger of God upon the earth, he was instructed NOT to disclose his true identity, as the LDS Temple endowment teaches. His brother Hyrum, who is now Christopher, was instructed TO disclose his true identity and to do what Joseph was not allowed to do.”

“And because the resurrected Joseph instructed and oversaw the publication of SACRED not SECRET, the book can appropriately and legally be entitled, “The OFFICIAL Guide.”
For the same reason, this book is the ONLY authorized and official biography of Joseph Smith Jr.”

I really don’t have my sources with me now, but I was under the impression that Lorenzo Snow claimed to have seen Jesus at the Salt Lake Temple and spoke to him face-to-face. Are the spurious and unscrupulous men supposed to be said LDS leaders? If so, I see the statement as a logical fallacy. The wording says that LDS leaders haven’t claimed to see resurrected beings. Lorenzo Snow said he did, no?

The real question is whether Christopher/Hyrum is really Namelka. My guess is that Blair Hodges will confirm that he is. So, feel free to share your thoughts in the comments section below about this game changer in the Joseph Smith book market. Had Bushman known, I think he would have saved his time writing his magnum opus and instead interviewed Hyrum. I will make a good bet that Namelka, I mean Christopher, I mean Hyrum’s followers will find this as they troll the web for places to promote the work and will share testimony. This is fine with me.

Repentance “Nigh Unto Death”

2010-05-17T09:09:00.002-05:00

It has been my experience from teaching in various organizations of the Church, and from my limited understanding of the Atonement while growing up, that many in the Church falsely assume that Christ’s suffering in Gethsemane and at Golgotha replaces any suffering on the part of the repentant sinner beyond what is deemed godly sorrow. These same individuals will often quote from D&C 19:16 and conclude that Christ has already “suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent.” The purpose of my remarks below is to show that this simply is not the case.

Alma the younger and the sons of Mosiah made it a habit of going about “seeking to destroy the church” when “the angel of the Lord appeared unto them” and turned them from the error of their way (Mosiah 26:10-11). Now, these guys weren't your average anti-Mormons with an axe to grind. Astonishingly, Alma admits to having “murdered many of [God’s] children, or rather led them away unto destruction” (Alma 36:14), and Mormon characterizes Alma and his companions as “the very vilest of sinners” (Mosiah 28:4).

Alma was so overcome by the angelic vision that he was left in a somewhate vegetative state for three days and three nights (Alma 36:10), during which time he reports that “after wading through much tribulation, repenting nigh unto death, the Lord in mercy hath seen fit to snatch me out of an everlasting burning, and I am born of God” (Mosiah 27:28) (emphasis added). He explained to his son Helaman that during this time he was “racked, even with the pains of a damned soul” (Alma 36:16).

The pain and suffering that Alma underwent while repenting was so exquisite that it ostensibly took him to the brink of physical death. As is often the case, the depth of one’s repentance must be in proper proportion to the severity of the transgression. I conclude that Alma’s punishment was just, and simply proportional to the seriousness of his sins.

Because many in the Church falsely believe that Christ’s atonement effectively removed all pain and suffering for the penitent individual, they find it hard to grasp why Alma suffered so intensely while honestly embarking in the repentance process. In this they are misled. What they fail to realize, and something that I certainly did not grasp when I was a youth, is that there is no repentance without suffering.

Alma himself understood this concept very well, undoubtedly doctrinally as well as experientially. In teaching his son Corianton, Alma explained that “repentance could not come unto men except there were a punishment, which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be” (Alma 42:16). Having quoted this scripture, President Spencer W. Kimball instructed the priesthood leaders of the Church as follows: “Ponder on that for a moment. Have you realized that? There can be no forgiveness without real and total repentance, and there can be no repentance without punishment. This is as eternal as is the soul. . .” (CR, April 1975, p.115) (emphasis added).

The Lord warned us that “if they would not repent they must suffer even as I” (D&C 19:17). In other words, if we repent we will not be required to suffer “even as” the Savior suffered, but there is no indication that we will forego all suffering. Instead, besides having to bear the burden of any natural consequences of our sins and express godly sorrow, each of us will have to experience the full anguish associated with true repentance. President Kimball taught that suffering “is a very important part of repentance. One has not begun to repent until he has suffered intensely for his sins. … If a person hasn’t suffered, he hasn’t repented” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982, pp. 88, 99).

In the eternal scheme of things, all individuals are required to suffer as long as they remain in sin. Joseph Smith taught that “[a]ll will suffer until they obey Christ himself” (TPJS, p.357). Once each of us repents and justly suffers for our sin, Christ’s atonement may then lay claim upon us.

“[A] seer is greater than a prophet”?

2010-04-12T10:49:00.005-05:00

After learning of the Jaredite 24 gold plates found by King Limhi’s people, Ammon indicated that King Mosiah had a gift from God that allowed him to “look, and translate all records that are of ancient date” (Mosiah 8:13). In brief, the gift allowed its possessor to use the Nephite interpreters, “[a]nd whosoever is commanded to look in them, the same is called seer” (Id.)(emphasis added). Upon hearing this, King Limhi concluded that “a seer is greater than a prophet” (Mosiah 8:15). Without correcting Limhi’s statement, Ammon expanded on this conclusion and taught that “a seer is a revelator and a prophet also” (Mosiah 8:16).

While we semi-annually sustain all our general authorities in the Quorum of the 12 and the First Presidency as prophets, seers, and revelators (see D&C 21:1), is the calling of a seer greater than that of a prophet?

The word “prophet” as found in the Old Testament comes from the Hebrew nabiy, the verbal root of which means to “bubble” or “spring forth.” Used as a noun, however, nabiy means one in whom the message of God springs forth, or in other words, a “speaker” or “spokesman” for God, or “one who is called.” In short, a prophet is one who is commissioned by God to make known his will.

In contrast, the word “seer” as found in the Old Testament comes from the Hebrew ro’eh, meaning “one who sees,” and contextually carries the idea of one who sees that which is hidden to others. For example, Enoch “beheld also things which were not visible to the natural eye; and from thenceforth came the saying abroad in the land: A seer hath the Lord raised up unto his people” (Moses 6:36). In the Old Testament, a prophet was oftentimes characterized as a seer, without any differentiation between the two terms (see 1 Sam. 9:9).

Contrary to popular belief, a prophet is not necessarily one who prophesies, or foretells the future. Instead, one can be a prophet without doing so, since the role of a prophet is simply to declare the word of God by the authority of the Holy Ghost. To call a man a prophet merely emphasizes his role in declaring the word of God, whereas to call him a seer emphasizes the manner in which that word is received.

Consequently, King Limhi was most likely correct in postulating that a seer is greater than a prophet, since all seers are prophets but not all prophets are seers. Elder John A. Widtsoe provided an impressive definition of a seer:

“A seer is one who sees with spiritual eyes. He perceives the meaning of that which seems obscure to others; therefore he is an interpreter and clarifier of eternal truth. He foresees the future from the past and the present. This he does by the power of the Lord operating through him directly, or indirectly with the aid of divine instruments such as the Urim and Thummim. In short, he is one who sees, who walks in the Lord’s light with open eyes” (Evidences and Reconciliations, p. 528)(emphasis added).

Who Had a Urim and Thummim?

2010-03-22T09:10:00.003-05:00

The Hebrew words urim and thummim (both plural) are typically translated by LDS scholars as “lights” and “perfections,” respectively. This seeric device is generally used for receiving revelations and translating ancient scriptural records written in tongues unknown to the translator. The scriptures are clear that the content of such records can be manifest only as the Lord wills and through his appointed prophet and seer.

As I explained in a previous and related post, the expression "Urim and Thummim" is never used in the Book of Mormon. Instead, the term was likely adopted by the Prophet during or after his translation of the Old Testament once he became familiar with the Old Testament revelatory device known to the ancients as the Urim & Thummim. In fact, the reference to the “Urim and Thummim” found in D&C 10:1 was added in the 1835 edition of the D&C. Prior to that the word “interpreters” was used, which is consistent with Book of Mormon terminology referring to the Nephite interpreters. While it isn’t technically correct, it eventually became common for members of the Church to call the Nephite interpreters the Urim & Thummim.

So, who do we know of that had a Urim & Thummim, and do any of them relate to each other?

1) “And I, Abraham, had the Urim and Thummim, which the Lord my God had given unto me, in Ur of the Chaldees” (Abr. 3:1). A Urim & Thummim was given to Abraham while he resided in Ur, and he was taught astronomy through it (Abr. 3:1-4). “And the Lord said unto me, by the Urim and Thummim, that Kolob was after the manner of the Lord” (Abr. 3:4). It’s interesting to note that, although Abraham used the Urim & Thummim to receive revelation from the Lord, he also “talked with the Lord, face to face, as one man talketh with another” (Abr. 3:11). The scriptures are silent as to what happened to Abraham’s Urim & Thummim.

2) Aaron and the priests of Israel also had a Urim & Thummim that was passed down from generation to generation (see Ex. 28:30; Lev. 8:8; Deut. 33:8; 1 Sam. 28:6; and Neh. 7:65). Although not stated in scripture, it is not improbable nor would it be surprising if this were the same Urim & Thummim that Abraham had. Nevertheless, the scriptures do not indicate how Aaron received the Urim & Thummim.

Though no clear explanation has been preserved for us scripturally, the device used by Aaron likely consisted of ocular objects belonging to the ephod or vestment of the high priest. The Urim & Thummim were carried in the breastplate of judgment, which bore the names of the 12 tribes of Israel on 12 precious stones so as to be on the high priest’s heart when he went before the Lord (see Exodus 28:15-30). Through apostasy, the use of the Urim & Thummim was lost to Israel. Thus, when the Jews returned from their Babylonian captivity and they were faced with a tough question, it was agreed to postpone their answer until there should rise up “a priest with Urim and with Thummim” (Ezra 2:63).

3) The brother of Jared received a Urim & Thummim, or "two stones" adapted for interpretation. Atop Mount Shelem, the brother of Jared was privileged to see and record some of the most sacred things ever revealed unto a mortal, including single-handedly parting the veil through his own faithfulness in order to behold the Lord Jesus Christ before he took upon himself a mortal tabernacle. Indeed, “there never were greater things made manifest than those which were made manifest unto the brother of Jared” (Ether 4:4). Because of the sacred nature of his visions, the brother of Jared was commanded to record what he saw “in a language that they cannot be read,” “[f]or behold, the language which ye shall write I have confounded” (Ether 3:22, 24).

In order to provide an interpretation for future righteous generations privileged to read his record, the Lord provided the brother of Jared with “two stones” (e.g., Nephite interpreters) that were to be sealed up with his record (Ether 3:23, 28).

4) King Mosiah I, the father of King Benjamin, translated engravings written on a large Jaredite stone “by the gift and power of God” (Omni 1:20). As understood by LDS, translating “by the gift and power of God” is synonymous with using a Urim & Thummim, or the Nephite interpreters as it were in this case (see D&C 135:3; Introduction to the Book of Mormon). The Nephite interpreters were described as “two stones which were fastened into the two rims of a bow” (Mosiah 28:13). How King Mosiah I received the stones is not readily apparent, neither is it known who put them into the rims of a bow. The interpreters eventually passed from Mosiah I to his grandson King Mosiah II, who translated the Jaredite record found by Limhi’s people (see Mosiah 8:13-14; Mosiah 28:11-15).

I feel it is plausible that the Nephite interpreters used by Kings Mosiah I & II were likely the same interpreters (i.e., two stones) used by the brother of Jared. Mormon explained that the interpreters had “been kept and preserved by the hand of the Lord” to translate the brother of Jared’s writings (see Mosiah 28:15), and Moroni indicated that Mosiah II received (and likely translated/read) the brother of Jared’s account (see Ether 4:1). While the scriptures do not specifically state this, it may be reasonable to assume that whoever brought Mosiah I the Jaredite stone to translate also delivered to him the brother of Jared’s interpreters.

On the other hand, if that were the case, why didn’t these individuals also grab and deliver up the brother of Jared’s record to Mosiah I, which was specifically sealed up with the stones? Why did his record not come forward until Limhi’s people found it? Unfortunately, there is no explanation given in the scriptures. Regardless, the scriptures are clear that Mosiah II had interpreters in his possession when Limhi’s people presented him with the Jaredite record. Whether his interpreters were those had by the brother of Jared, we cannot be certain, but a reasonable argument can be made to that effect.

5) Alma received the Nephite interpreters from King Mosiah II (Mosiah 28:20). The interpreters were then passed from one record keeper to the next until Mormon gave them to Moroni who was commanded to seal up the interpreters (specifically, the brother of Jared’s interpreters) in the Hill Cumorah (Ether 4:5). Since there is no record of Mormon or Moroni receiving any other interpreters besides those coming through Mosiah I & II, and we know it was the brother of Jared’s interpreters that were sealed within the Hill Cumorah (see point 6 below), I again feel it plausible that Kings Mosiah I & II used the stones had by the brother of Jared.

On a side note, we also know that Moroni was privileged to read the brother of Jared’s record (see Ether 4:4), which would have required him to translate it using the two stones. Also, there is a good possibility that the righteous generations spoken of in 4 Nephi were privileged to translate and read the record (see Ether 4:1-2).

6) The Prophet Joseph Smith unearthed and used the brother of Jared’s Urim & Thummim to translate the Book of Mormon (D&C 17:1). The Prophet described the Urim & Thummim as “two transparent stones set in the rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate” (History of the Church, 4:537). Lucy Mack Smith was able to inspect the Urim & Thummim the morning after Joseph had obtained them from the Hill Cumorah. She stated that she “took the article in [her] hands and, examining it with no covering but a silk handkerchief, found that it consisted of two smooth three-cornered diamonds set in glass, and the glasses were set in silver bows connected with each other in much the same way that old-fashioned spectacles are made” (History of Joseph Smith, 1996, p.139).

7) The planet on which God resides is also described as being “a great Urim and Thummim,” and the earth itself in its “sanctified and immortal state,” will also be a Urim & Thummim (D&C 130:8-9).

Finally, the white stone given to each inhabitant of celestial glory will be a Urim & Thummim “whereby things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms will be made known” (D&C 130:10; see also Revelation 2:17).

Feel free to comment if I missed something.

Of Priesthood(s) and Casting out Devils

2010-03-14T21:32:00.013-05:00

A recent article gave an interesting look into exorcism as practiced within the Roman Catholic Church. According to Father Gabriele Amorth, the Vatican's chief exorcist, the unfortunate sex abuse scandals in the Catholic Church is proof that "the Devil is at work inside the Vatican." Astonishingly, Father Amorth indicated that he participated in around 70,000 exorcisms during his 25 years as a Catholic exorcist. For any of you who are counting, that's a claim of approximately 7.5 exorcisms per day, for the last 25 years!

While Father Amorth's description of satanic possession seems quite graphic, from at least one personal experience I can affirm that a good portion of it is fairly accurate. I previously wrote about Satan's power and influence in a related post.

Without delving into the controversial sex abuse scandals or trying to figure out how Father Amorth has time to sleep or eat with his busy exorcist schedule, I'd like to discuss priesthood authority and its connection to rejecting satanic presence. Particularly, is Christ's true priesthood required to command Satan and his subjects? Can the faith of an individual (or the combined faith of those present) be used in an exorcism instead of invoking or wielding the true priesthood authority?

The apostle John once remarked to the Savior that "[the apostles] saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us" (Luke 9:49-50)(emphasis added).

Does this mean that those without Christ's true priesthood authority are able to command and cast out devils as much as one with authority? Commenting on the phrase "he followeth not us," Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote:

"He was not one of the Twelve to whom the express power had been given to cast out devils (Matthew 10:8); he was not one of the inner circle of disciples who traveled, ate, slept, and communed with the Master. Luke has it: 'He followeth not with us'; that is, he is not one of our traveling companions. But from our Lord's reply it is evident that he was a member of the kingdom, a legal administrator who was acting in the authority of the priesthood and the power of faith. Either he was unknown to John who therefore erroneously supposed him to be without authority or else John falsely supposed that the power to cast out devils was limited to the Twelve and did not extend to all faithful priesthood holders. It is quite possible that the one casting out devils was a seventy.

...

"Only righteous men who are members of the Church, who hold the priesthood, and who are keeping the commandments, have power to perform miracles.... Our Lord had many faithful followers who had power by faith to cast out devils" (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 1:417)(emphasis added).

To be clear, I do not believe the Catholic Church wields the true priesthood of God. Consistent with LDS theology, I believe Christ's true priesthood was lost to the world at large during the great apostasy. However, I also do not believe that Catholic exorcists, such as Father Amorth are followers of Satan. (See Matt. 12:25-26) Notwithstanding, is it possible that exorcisms can still be effectuated by individuals lacking the priesthood through an exercise and display of faith?

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that "faith is not only the principle of action, but of power also, in all intelligent beings, whether in heaven or on earth" (Lectures on Faith, 1:13)(emphasis added). Indeed, it was faith that was invoked to frame the worlds (Heb 11:3), and it is through faith that all created things exist. "[Faith] is the principle by which Jehovah works, and through which he exercises power over all temporal as well as eternal things.... And if the principle of power, it must be so in man as well as in Diety" (Id. at 1:16, 18)(emphasis added).

When the Twelve were unable to cast a devil out of a "lunatick," they queried the Savior on how He was able to finish what they could not. Christ then proceeded to teach them doctrines of faith, not of priesthoods. "Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting" (Matt. 17:20-21)(emphasis added). Thus, since prayer and fasting doesn't have any effect on whether one possesses the priesthood but instead affects one's level of faith, it appears that exorcism relies more on the principle of faith than on one's authority.

Admittedly, I have not taken part in or seen a Catholic exorcism (apart from what Hollywood concocts). I have, however, taken part in a handful of LDS exorcisms and can attest that one's faith plays an enormous role. Still, I am not certain of the extent that God's priesthood plays in such instances. Is the pristhood required simply to keep order? Yet, if an individual lacks the priesthood but has sufficient faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, can that individual command evil in His name? And, if that is the case, does Father Amorth truly exorcise evil spirits during his claimed frequent encounters?

Trading Your Book of Mormon for Porn?

2010-03-03T21:58:00.007-06:00

A group of atheists at the University of Texas in San Antonio is trying to tempt college kids into trading religious texts for pornography. It's part of a program called Smut for Smut sponsored by the student organization called Atheist Agenda. See article here.

It sounds like a ploy for attention, but what really bothers me is the insistence on the part of some of its members that religious texts are as detrimental to society as pornographic material is. The prophet Isaiah spoke of times like these:

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness” (Isaiah 5:20)

While some in the Atheist Agenda admitted that pornography can be bad, it astounds me that those same people can assert that the Bible and similar other texts can be just as bad. Really? I understand that many arguments and wars have been fought in the name of the Bible, but when weighed against all the good that it has provided to the human race, the Bible is hands down better for humanity than pornography ever will be.

Mormon also provided a few words on this subject:

“For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.

“For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

“But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him” (Moroni 7:15-17) (emphasis added).

It would be interesting to hear how the Atheist Agenda would argue that pornography invites individuals to “do good,” or “persuade to believe in Christ.”

Our world is arguably much better because of the introduction of the Internet. However, with this great power came with it an accelerated and more private means of accessing adult material. Because of the effect pornography has on the individual and those closest to the individual, the Internet has also arguably made our world a bit worse.

Interestingly enough, one of the prophecies of the last days is that “because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold” (Matthew 24:12). I believe that with the influx of increasingly accessible iniquity, such as pornography, we have become more desensitized and cold to the human emotion. Is it any wonder that Alma urged his son Shiblon to “bridle all your passions, that ye may be filled with love" (Alma 38:12)? This counsel applies equally to all of us. The more our society indulges in iniquity and accepts it as normal, the colder we become.

Atheist or not, I don’t think anyone can make a case of a wise trade in exchanging religious texts that promote love of fellow man and repentance for pornography that destroys the souls of men.

At What Point Can We Shamelessly Plagiarize Scripture?

2010-02-14T13:38:00.002-06:00

It should be an ongoing goal of each follower of Christ to continuously search the scriptures and make them part of their lives. However, knowledge of the scriptures by themselves does not make one a competent witness of the truthfulness of the gospel principles taught therein. In fact, there are a myriad of people who could quote scripture ‘til sunset, and yet lack a fundamental understanding of basic principles, such as the Fall and the Atonement.

Instead, it is the witness of the Spirit that allows us to stand independent of the scriptures and testify that we in fact “know” something in the scriptures to be true. In a very real way, it is this point that the words of the scriptures become our own words because we know them to be as true as did the author who originally penned the words.

Such was the case with Jacob in quoting Zenos’ allegory:

“And now, behold, my brethren, as I said unto you that I would prophesy, behold, this is my prophecy—that the things which this prophet Zenos spake, concerning the house of Israel, in the which he likened them unto a tame olive-tree, must surely come to pass” (Jacob 6:1) (emphasis added)

There can be no doubt that Jacob studied, pondered, and prayed much over this allegory. And now Zenos’s words had, in effect, become Jacob’s words, as if Jacob had been the original recipient of the allegory.

The same principle can be found in the words of Alma to the people of Zarahemla:

“Do ye not suppose that I know of these things myself? Behold, I testify unto you that I do know that these things whereof I have spoken are true. And how do ye suppose that I know of their surety?

“Behold, I say unto you they are made known unto me by the Holy Spirit of God. Behold, I have fasted and prayed many days that I might know these things of myself. And now I do know of myself that they are true; for the Lord God hath made them manifest unto me by his Holy Spirit . . . .

“And moreover, I say unto you that it has thus been revealed unto me, that the words which have been spoken by our fathers are true . . . .

“I say unto you, that I know of myself that whatsoever I shall say unto you, concerning that which is to come, is true; and I say unto you, that I know that Jesus Christ shall come, yea, the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace, and mercy, and truth” (Alma 5:45-48) (emphasis added).

I believe that each of us is entitled to the witness of the Spirit that will justify our free usage of scriptural accounts and verbiage. In his last general conference address, Elder Bruce. R. McConkie highlighted this concept with the following words:

“In speaking of these wondrous things I will use my own words. Though you might think these are the words of scripture, words spoken by other Apostles and Prophets, true it is that they were first proclaimed by others, but they are now mine. For the Holy Spirit of God has born witness to me that they are true and it is now as though the Lord has revealed them to me in the first instance. I have thereby heard his voice and know his word” (CR, April 1989, p.9) (emphasis added).

It is my hope and goal to attain such an understanding and witness of the scriptures so as to be able to use them as if they were my own.

UVU Drops Prophet's Name from Events Center

2010-01-20T10:33:00.002-06:00

It was recently announced that Utah Valley University will remove "David O. McKay" from the name of their events center and place the name on a nearby education building. See article here. The idea for the name change apparently came from the original anonymous donors who initially donated $3 million to the college in order to place the prophet's name on the arena.

Am I the only one who cringed when the McKay Events Center would host entertainers with questionable morals and values? I could be mistaken, but I think Ozzy Osbourne played there once. Didn't he once tear up a copy of the Book of Mormon while on stage?

Although there are those seeing this as simply a move for the University to attract a new nameplace donor, I think the move to place the prophet's name on an education building was a good move in light of what David O. McKay stood for.

He’s Rich, He Must Be Very Righteous

2010-01-17T19:07:00.002-06:00

It’s interesting to me that Latter-day Saints often equate financial success with personal righteousness when it comes to fellow members of the Church. It’s probably a result of living in such a success-oriented and materialistic world. However, I think most would agree that anyone can be monetarily rich, regardless of their status before God, as long as they are determined enough to make it so.

As Latter-day Saints, apparently one of our greatest tests we must endure in these last days is the acquisition of and proper use of wealth. Brigham Young once declared that “[t]he worst fear I have about this people is that they will get rich in this country, forget God and His people, wax fat, and kick themselves out of the Church and go to hell. This people will stand mobbing, robbing, poverty, and all manner of persecution, and be true. But my greater fear … is that they cannot stand wealth” (James S. Brown, Life of a Pioneer, Salt Lake City: Geo. Q. Cannon and Sons Co., 1900, pp. 122–23) (emphasis added).

Is wealth evil, then? Certainly not, since it is “the love of money” that constitutes the “root of all evil,” not money itself (see 1 Tim. 6:10). Indeed, President David O. McKay counseled that “[g]old does not corrupt man; it is in the motive of acquiring that gold that corruption occurs” (Treasures of Life, p.175). The false idea that financial success follows righteousness may stem, at least partly, from the following statement from Jacob:

“But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God. And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted” (Jacob 2:18-19)(emphasis added)

Accordingly, all those who have received a hope in Christ, who are true and faithful to every covenant, and who further seek for riches, will be prospered, right? Not quite. There have been too many righteous men and women (i.e., men and women that know true success in life) who have lived and died in humble circumstances for us to conclude that financial success = righteousness.

Instead, I propose an alternative interpretation to the term “riches.” The Lord explained in modern revelation the following:

“Seek not for riches but for wisdom, and behold, the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto you, and then shall you be made rich. Behold, he that hath eternal life is rich” (D&C 6:7) (emphasis added).

“And if ye seek the riches which it is the will of the Father to give unto you, ye shall be the richest of all people, for ye shall have the riches of eternity; and it must needs be that the riches of the earth are mine to give; but beware of pride, lest ye become as the Nephites of old” (D&C 38:39) (emphasis added)

Thus, I submit that, in at least one interpretation, “riches” may consist of intangible heavenly goods, such as an increase in spiritual guidance, revelation, and, above all, eternal life. This interpretation further accords with the Lord’s admonition that where one’s treasure is, there will his heart be also (see Matt. 6:21). Indeed, if our treasure is God’s greatest gift (i.e., eternal life), our heart will certainly be willing to “clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted.”

LDS Family Services: Isn't It About Time...To Get It On?

2010-01-10T15:27:00.005-06:00

My previous post on Marijuana and the Word of Wisdom (WoW) was inspired by what I viewed as an irony where the government may in some cases dictate what is permissible for medical use under the WoW. Another irony came to mind as I was thinking a few days ago about Alma's advice to his son Corianton, that wickedness never was happiness.

In full disclosure, my wife and I are trying to adopt through LDS Family Services. We have already adopted once and it was a great experience. We occasionally are contacted by various birth mothers and will reply to emails, hoping that someone will choose us. After recently being contacted by a potential birth mother, I inadvertently thought to myself that I was grateful that she had gotten pregnant out of wedlock, so that some family could have children, even if it was not mine. And that is where the irony kicks in.

There are hundreds of couples that are waiting, praying, fasting, and sacrificing so that they will be chosen for adoption. And the only way for this to happen is for, in most cases, a boy and a girl to commit a serious violation of the Law of Chastity. That leads me to wonder, only hypothetically, should I pray for more of these scenarios to happen so that I can adopt? It blesses the lives of many. I suppose it's just one of those things where a good situation can occur from a bad one, but I do find it ironic that the happiness that I experience with my son was caused by the wickedness of someone else. Perhaps God does have a sense of humor, or at least a sense of irony.

How Are We to be Perfect in Mortality?

2010-01-03T13:16:00.006-06:00

Latter-day Saints believe that our Heavenly Father’s plan of salvation aims to transform those who are saved by Christ to be like Christ. We take literally the words of Paul that “[t]he Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God” (Rom. 8:16). Indeed, He is the Father of our spirits (Heb. 12:9) and we are his offspring (Acts 17:29); it only makes sense that offspring will eventually grow up to be what their parents are.

The New Testament itself contains Jesus’ directive to “[b]e ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matt. 5:48) (emphasis added). President Hugh B. Brown emphasized that “[w]e take seriously and literally the injunction of the Savior to be perfect” (Conference Report, Oct. 1966, 102).

But what is the perfection that our Heavenly Father expects us to achieve while in mortality?

Today, we often characterize perfection as “sinless” or “flawless,” but there has only been One that truly meets that classification. And yet the scriptures attest that “Noah was a just man and perfect” (Gen. 6:9); Job was “perfect and upright” (Job 1:1); and Seth was “a perfect man” (D&C 107:43). Consequently, the scriptural definition of perfection seems to differ from our modern definition.

There are only 5 words in the Bible that are translated as “perfect”: (Hebrew) 1) shalem (1Kings 8:61; 15:14; 2Kings 20:30); 2) tam (Job 1:1); 3) tammim (Gen. 6:9; 17:1; Duet. 18:13); (Greek) 4) teleios (Matt. 5:48; 19:21; Eph. 4:13; Col. 4:12; James 3:2); and 5) artios (1Tim. 3:17). And yet, none of these words actually mean “sinless.” Instead, each is better depicted as “whole,” “complete,” “undefiled,” “upright,” or “just.”

So, what type of a person is someone who is whole, complete, undefiled, etc., if we are to obtain such a state of being? To help explain this, Elder Bruce R. McConkie stated the following:

“We don’t need to get a complex or get a feeling that you have to be perfect to be saved. You don’t. There’s only been one perfect person, and that’s the Lord Jesus, but in order to be saved in the Kingdom of God and in order to pass the test of mortality, what you have to do is get on the straight and narrow path – thus charting a course leading to eternal life – and then, being on that path, pass out of this life in full fellowship… If you’re on that path and pressing forward, and you die, you’ll never get off the path.

“There is no such thing as falling off the straight and narrow path in the life to come, and the reason is that this life is the time that is given to men to prepare for eternity. Now is the time and the day of your salvation, so if you’re working zealously in this life – though you haven’t fully overcome the world and you haven’t done all you hoped you might do – you’re still going to be saved…

“You don’t have to live a life that’s truer than true. You don’t have to have an excessive zeal that becomes fanatical and becomes unbalancing. What you have to do is stay in the mainstream of the Church and live as upright and decent people live in the Church – keeping the commandments, paying your tithing, serving in the organizations of the Church, loving the Lord, staying on the straight and narrow path. If you’re on that path when death comes – because this is the time and the day appointed, this is the probationary estate – you’ll never fall off from it, and, for all practical purposes, your calling and election is made sure” (McConkie, “Probationary Test of Mortality,” p.8) (emphasis added; paragraphing altered).

Accordingly, someone who is whole, complete, upright, and so forth (i.e., “perfect”), is someone who lives as an upright member of the Church and avoids unbalanced, fanatical Church zeal. It is someone who, upon sinning, immediately repents and is once again reconciled to God. In other words, perfection in mortality simply amounts to living our lives by doing those things we know to be right and true, for if we are doing this and we die while in the process, we cannot fall from that path in the world to come.

Back to the Basics? Our New/Old Gospel Principles Manual

2009-12-23T07:31:00.017-06:00

As most of us know by now the Church has decided to use the "Gospel Principles" manual for Priesthood and Relief Society lessons next year. I know that this has raised many questions in my own mind, so I thought I would put some of them out on this blog to see what everyone thinks.

I personally like this move. I have taught the Gospel Essentials class for the past 2 years. I often find that the class tends to have more stimulating discussion, which generally fosters an atmosphere of learning. If you have not looked at the lessons, after a brief look and you will easily see that discussions are necessary at least because many of the lessons only take 1-2 pages.

But the real question is: why would the leaders of the Church utilize this lesson book in this setting? I have a couple of theories, neither of which reflect well on the general membership of the Church... so hopefully there is an alternative theory that one of you are thinking.

A few posts back Jeremy discussed 2 Ne 9:48 which states "Behold, if ye were holy I would speak unto you of holiness; but as ye are not holy, and ye look upon me as a teacher, it must needs be expedient that I teach you the consequences of sin." Granted, the material in the Gospel Essentials manual certainly consitutes things of "holiness." However, is it possible that our Church leaders are looking upon the Church as a whole and making a judgment that the general membership needs to revert back to the basics? Could this decision be tied to the general spiritual state of the Church membership? Are we predominantly not prepared to receive higher, or holy, doctrine through our Sunday School manuals?

Along the same lines, in February I posted about my own perceived differences in the doctrine taught in Gospel Essentials class versus doctrine taught in the regular Sunday School classes. Our discussion seemed to conclude that there are a great deal of cultural expectations or teachings that seem to infect the actual doctrine of the Church. Are the bretheren perceiving similar occurrences?

Joseph Smith stated that for the Saints "I teach them correct principles, and let them govern themselves." (“The Organization of the Church,” Millennial Star, Nov. 15, 1851, 339). I believe that the general membership of the Church could use more of this concept in our lives. I have found that learning principles, and then determining by means of personal revelation how I am to apply those principles in my life is probably the most effective way to progress, commit to living a teaching, etc.

So what do you think? Was it some or all of the above, or something different which has inspired this change. Either way it will be an interesting year and I look forward to going back to the basics.

Is There a Right/Wrong Way to Perform a Baby Blessing?

2009-12-20T22:34:00.004-06:00

Technically, the naming and blessing of an infant is nothing more than a father’s blessing, a blessing that a father has the right to give any and all of his children at any time – not just when they are infants. At its core, it is not an ordinance of salvation. It will not make an ounce of difference in the salvation of the child if this ordinance is not performed, even if it is not performed correctly.

Because it’s not a saving ordinance, guidance from the Church on how the ordinance is to be performed is quite scarce. As a result, this has led to many traditions that may or may not be in tune with the purpose of the ordinance. Since the Church is silent on these traditions, I guess we have to be the judges for ourselves.

In a revelation concerning the government of the Church, the Prophet Joseph Smith received the following instructions on this ordinance: "Every member of the Church of Christ having children is to bring them unto the elders before the church, who are to lay their hands upon them in the name of Jesus Christ, and bless them in his name" (D&C 20:70) (emphasis added). What does it mean to “bring [the child] unto the elders before the church”? Some perform this ordinance at home with their family. Does this count as “before the church”? What if a member of the Bishopric is present as a representative of “the elders”? What if a Bishopric member is not there, but it is nonetheless performed under the direction of the Bishopric?

The Priesthood Handbook of Instructions teaches that “[c]hildren normally should be named and blessed during fast and testimony meeting in the ward where the parents are members of record.” Thus, although not a strict regulation, parents have at least been encouraged to name and bless their children at their home ward on fast Sunday.

One reason to do this may be for the benefit of the parents, and not the child. For example, John Taylor taught that “by bringing their child before the Church [the parents] manifest their faith in the sight of their brethren and sisters, in God's word and in his promises, as well as their thankfulness to him for increasing their posterity and for the safe delivery of his handmaiden.” Thus, blessing the child before the congregation may comprise a miniature test of faith for the parents. President Taylor continued, “The child is also benefited by the united faith and responsive prayers of the assembled Saints . . .” [Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-75), 2:311]. The combined faith principle in favor of another is similarly involved in the blessing of the sick. See James 5:14-15.

As most active priesthood holders know, the fixed portions of the ordinance are 1) addressing Heavenly Father, 2) invoking the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood, 3) giving the child its name, and 4) closing in the name of Jesus Christ. At its core, then, this ordinance is simply a prayer where the person giving the blessing speaks directly with our Heavenly Father. So, what happens if he fails to address Heavenly Father at the outset? This happened a few months ago in my home ward in two separate blessings – one of which was given by our Elder’s Quorum President. Does the Bishop stop the ordinance and request that it be correctly redone? What if the Melchizedek Priesthood is not mentioned nor invoked?

There is also an unfixed portion where the person giving the blessing generally adds words of blessing as the Spirit dictates. This is where the ordinance gets fairly nebulous. Because this is simply a prayer, does he ask Heavenly Father to bless the child in the form of a prayer or does the person giving the blessing personally invoke the blessings upon the child? In other words, does he say “we bless you…” or “we ask thee to bless this child…”? I have seen it done both ways. It may just be me, but to me it sounds odd to hear the ordinance start out like a prayer, and then subsequently hear the person giving the blessing begin to pronounce blessings upon the child. Is there a right way or a wrong way to do this? In preparation of blessing my first child, I asked this question to two temple presidents at two different temples and received two separate responses.

For me, I keep in perspective the fact that the blessing has no bearing on the salvation of my children. In reality, if I didn’t like the way it turned out before the congregation, there is absolutely nothing stopping me from re-doing it at home later that day. When I blessed my two children, I personally kept a tone of prayer throughout the blessing. I petitioned Heavenly Father to bestow blessings upon my children as I felt was needed or essential through the Spirit. Was I right? Who knows? But it felt right to me…

Any thoughts?

Marijuana and the Word of Wisdom

2009-12-13T14:40:00.003-06:00

Here's a hypothetical that I was thinking about when driving to work last work. Right now, smoking marijuana is against the Word of Wisdom. However, in states like California, using and selling marijuana is legal for medicinal purposes when prescribed by a doctor. If a member lives in California and is prescribed medical marijuana, or the federal government legalizes it in the future under similar circumstances, would that member be violating the Word of Wisdom?

If you think it would be ok, it seems funny that the government becomes a de facto interpreter of the Word of Wisdom. I'm not really sure what to make of that.

How Wicked Were the Jews that Demanded Christ’s Crucifixion?

2009-11-29T21:30:00.002-06:00

I’m certain I am not the only one who has contemplated the depth of hatred and wickedness that consumed the souls of the Jewish leaders who demanded that the Romans crucify Jesus of Nazareth. The Bible and secular accounts, such as Josephus, teach us that several chief members of the Sadducees and Pharisees witnessed many miraculous events at the hand of Jesus on numerous occasions. Blind men received their sight, people were raised from the dead, the lame walked, the leprous were cleansed, and the maimed healed - all in the presence of these leaders. It always baffled me how the Jewish leaders could witness such marvelous works, and yet harbor such hatred against the Savior.

From the Pearl of Great Price, we learn that the Lord has created “worlds without number” (Moses 1:33). “And were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea, millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations” (Moses 7:30). And yet, of this Earth the Lord exclaimed to Enoch: “[A]mong all the workmanship of mine hands there has not been so great wickedness as among thy brethren” (Moses 7:36) (emphasis added). In other words, our Earth has known greater wickedness than can be found among any of the billions of God’s creations; sadly, our Earth stands preeminent in wickedness, especially the people of Enoch’s day.

So, do the Jewish leaders in Christ’s day outrank those individuals in Enoch’s day on the ole’ wickedness meter? Yes, in fact they do.

Jacob, Nephi’s brother, teaches that “it must needs be expedient that Christ…should come among the Jews, among those who are the more wicked part of the world; and they shall crucify him—for thus it behooveth our God, and there is none other nation on earth that would crucify their God” (2 Nephi 10:3) (emphasis added). Think of the enormity of this statement! It is a sad distinction to be identified as the most wicked of nations on an Earth that had been identified as the most wicked of all God’s creations.

Could that wickedness ever be replicated today?

Of the persecutors of the Latter-day Church, Joseph Smith commented that “[t]his generation is as corrupt as the generation of the Jews that crucified Christ; and if He were here to-day, and should preach the same doctrine He did then, they would put Him to death” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 328). Thus, there seems to be a common link between the detractors in Christ’s day to those of the Prophet’s day.

Have you ever wondered how you would have reacted to Christ’s message if you were living at the time? What of the words and teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith? Both these men taught seemingly strange doctrines that could only make sense with the eye of faith. I often wonder if I would have been one to discount their message as outlandish and peculiar.

I take heart in this statement by Bruce R. McConkie:

“If you believe the words of Joseph Smith, you would have believed what Jesus and the ancients said. If you reject Joseph Smith and his message, you would have rejected Peter and Paul and their message. If you accept the prophets whom the Lord sends in your day, you also accept that Lord who sent them. If you reject the restored gospel and find fault with the plan of salvation taught by those whom God hath sent in these last days, you would have rejected those same teachings as they fell from the lips of the prophets and Apostles of old” (Conference Report, October 1981, p.69) (emphasis added).

I Don’t Remember Reading That Before…

2009-11-15T20:51:00.002-06:00

I recently began a new study of the Book of Mormon. It always amazes how many new and interesting things jump out at me each time I read that book. I guess it all ties into one’s personal spiritual progress; and if that’s the case, let’s hope we find new and interesting things each time we read the Book of Mormon.

The following two scriptures jumped out at me so far this time into my study, and I thought I would share:

1st Scripture

“Prepare your souls for that glorious day when justice shall be administered unto the righteous, even the day of judgment, that ye may not shrink with awful fear” (2 Ne. 9:46) (emphasis added).

When we think of God’s justice being meted out, we typically stress the negative, in that God will eventually punish the wicked and ungodly. Of this there can be no doubt. But I don’t ever remember reading that God’s justice would be also administered to the righteous. We normally think of God’s mercy being extended to the righteous, but not his justice. How will this justice be extended to the righteous? Will the wrongs committed against the righteous be made right at this time? How will this occur?

As a side note, notice how Alma personifies “justice” and “mercy” in the following verse:

“For behold, justice exerciseth all his demands, and also mercy claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved” (Alma 42:24).

Isn’t it interesting that the personal pronoun for justice is masculine, and the personal pronoun for mercy is feminine? Children typically think of the father as meting out punishment, whereas the mother generally provided the loving comfort of mercy. On occasion, I recall my mother warning me with, “you just wait until your father gets home.” This personification is also consistent with Paul’s characterization of charity as a feminine trait in 1 Corinthians 13:5.

2nd Scripture

“Behold, if ye were holy I would speak unto you of holiness; but as ye are not holy, and ye look upon me as a teacher, it must needs be expedient that I teach you the consequences of sin” (2 Ne. 9:48) (emphasis added).

When God’s people are holy, the Lord is willing and pleased to speak of holy and sacred matters. When they are sinful, however, he speaks of the awfulness of sin and the necessity of repentance.

This makes me wonder where the Church stands as a people today. If there were a spiritual barometer measuring from 1-10, where 1 is unholy and 10 is holy, where does the Church stand today? Are we hearing the same things over and over again because we are sinful and aren’t getting it, or is it because we are a global Church now, and the more sacred things should not be revealed over the pulpit but instead through personal study?

When I read some of the General Conference addresses from the 1800’s, and even some in the early 1900’s, I am impressed at how much our leaders felt at liberty to divulge to the Saints. There is obviously the argument that our current leaders do teach sacred doctrines, but only “those with ears may hear” and understand. But honestly, there is a stark contrast between the tone and content of the talks from a century ago (and even a few decades ago with the McConkie era) and what we hear every six months today.

We can only imagine what profound topics would be discussed if we were only more prepared.

A Shield and a Protection

2009-11-07T22:40:00.008-06:00

Soon after I had received my endowment in preparation for my mission I recall seeing a 60 Minutes report (April 1996) on the Church that featured a few famous Mormons. One Mormon guest was Bill Marriott, the owner of the Marriott hotel chain. On the topic of temples and the garment received by the faithful LDS within the temple, Marriott explained to Mike Wallace that the garment offered its wearer physical protection. As an example, Marriott proceeded to relate a fantastic story of how, when he was in a fiery boating accident, his garment protected him from being burned.

During my mission I heard several other tall tales of missionaries surviving knife thrusts, machete blows, and even gun shots where the garment was not penetrated. Anyone that has served a mission is likely to have heard a variation of at least one of these stories. The stories are fantastic, but is there any truth to them? When a person receives the garment, the promise is given that as long as that person is faithful, the garment will serve as "a shield and a protection to you against the power of the destroyer until you have finished your work here on earth." But does the protection extend to physical maladies? Could the cotton-poly mesh really stop a .38 caliber bullet? Maybe just the 100% polyester blend...

It is well-documented that when Joseph Smith went to Carthage jail he not only went “as a lamb to the slaughter,” but he also went without the protection of the temple garment. Before leaving Nauvoo for Carthage, Joseph instructed those that were to accompany him that they should remove the garment prior to leaving, possibly to avoid potential ridicule and mockery of the garment if it were to fall into the hands of an enemy. Accordingly, John Taylor and Hyrum Smith removed their garment. Willard Richards, however, refused to do so.

Interestingly enough, it was the three that had removed their “shield and protection” that were eventually either killed or injured during the ensuing melee, thus giving rise to the idea that one’s garment could serve as a bona fide physical protection. “[Heber C. Kimball] Spoke of Elder Richards being protected at Carthage Jail -- having on the robe, while Joseph & Hyrum, and Elder Taylor were shot to pieces” (Heber C. Kimball's diary for 21 Dec. 1845 kept by William Clayton as cited in The Nauvoo Endowment Companies, p. 117).

Through modern-day mission stories, this theory is alive and well. In fact, I recall one Ecuadorian companion of mine declare that he was not worried about physical harm during his mission since he had complete faith that the garment would wholly protect him. This theory, however, is not entirely correct.

In a First Presidency Letter dated October 10, 1988, members of the Church were counseled as follows:

“Church members who have been clothed with the garment in the temple have made a covenant to wear it throughout their lives. This has been interpreted to mean that it is worn as underclothing both day and night. This sacred covenant is between the member and the Lord. . . . The promise of protection and blessings is conditioned upon worthiness and faithfulness in keeping the covenant.
. . .
“Endowed members of the Church wear the garment as a reminder of the sacred covenants they have made with the Lord and also as a protection against temptation and evil. How it is worn is an outward expression of an inward commitment to follow the Savior.”

Thus, modern-day Church leaders have clarified that the garment serves as "a protection against temptation and evil" that is "conditioned upon worthiness and faithfulness," instead of it being some type of bullet-proof vest. On a side note, the last sentence of the previous quote, once correctly understood, should completely trasnform how the wearer of the temple garment treats the "shield and protection."

A similar principal applies to the promise given to the Apostles that “[t]hey shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them” (Mark 16:18). The Lord’s disciples cannot be justified in testing the Lord’s promise of protection by seeking out these dangers. “[W]hen a man designedly provokes a serpent to bite him, the principle is the same as when a man drinks deadly poison knowing it to be such. In that case no man has any claim on the promises of God to be healed” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 72).

[NOTE 1: For further information on Joseph Smith removing the garment prior to the martyrdom, see Did Joseph and Others with him Remove their Garments in Order to Avoid Being Identified as Polygamists?, found at the FAIR Wiki.]

[NOTE 2: For a great article on proper garment usage, see The Temple Garment: An Outward Expression of an Inward Commitment, by Elder Carlos E. Asay, Ensign, August 1997]

Larry David and Religious Double Standard

2009-10-28T12:48:00.002-05:00

Larry David, probably best known for creating and producing "Seinfeld," also is the creator and producer of "Curb Your Enthusiasm," a show that airs on HBO. Although I haven't seen an episode myself, I hear that it's much like the Seinfeld series, except not rated for family audiences.

In his latest episode, however, he may have crossed the line regarding religion. As an article on Fox News reports, in the recent episode David's character "visits a bathroom in his assistant's home and splatters urine on a picture of Jesus. Instead of wiping it off, David leaves the restroom. Minutes later, David's assistant enters the bathroom and concludes that Jesus is crying. She then summons her mother to the bathroom, where both women kneel in prayer."

It amazes me to see what passes today as art or humor. There has to be a line somewhere, right?

Not surprisingly, this stunt has prompted outrage from numerous religious groups all decrying a blatant double standard when it comes to how the Christian religion is treated as opposed to other religions, for example Muslims. Opponents assert that quite a different reaction would have ensued had the religious context been an image of Muhammad, or the Quran.

On the other hand, proponents of the show remind the viewers that it is satire, and intended to entertain. Further, they assert, if you may be offended by such things…change the channel. Is it as easy as that? Just change the channel and nothing bad happens, right?

Are Christians the unofficial whipping boy of the liberal-thinking public? Is there really a double standard in religion in America? If so, why? Aren't we a predominantly Judeo Christian nation? Does a potential double-standard play into the Gospel teachings of being a "peculiar people"?

Priest + Marriage = Catholic Priest?

2009-10-23T10:48:00.005-05:00

In light of the recent news that the Vatican has reached its hand out to the Anglican clergy, put off by liberal reforms in the Anglican church, by offering acceptance into the Catholic Church yet allowing them to retain Anglican traditions, I began to wonder what implications this would have.

The Anglicans and Catholics are not that different in their traditions. Following its break with the Vatican, the English church kept most of the liturgy and tradition that characterized the Catholic tradition. After 475 years of separation, there are some dogmatic differences, but the two are still very similar when compared to the direction other Protestant groups have taken. The one big exception that comes to mind, however, is celibacy of the clergy. As things currently stand, clergy in the Catholic tradition are celibate and Anglicans may marry, have families, and still serve their flocks.

How will the Vatican’s grafting in of these married priests affect its current priests who are still limited by vows of celibacy? I see a few potential points to mention:

The divide between the two clergies won’t survive for long. Young Catholic men who want to serve and yet would like to have families will enter the Anglican priesthood. There’s no way the Catholic orders would be happy about that.

It could cause a total repeal of Catholic celibacy as the Pope takes a more pragmatic line towards reconciliation with Anglicans, Orthodox, Arians, etc. over doctrine that your typical Catholic doesn't know or care about. (What?! You dare believe that the Trinity is homoousian and not homoiousian?!)

Maybe this backfires when conservative elements in the Vatican disagree. I remember when the Pope was selected that many liberals were disappointed that he was considered to be a hard liner, when it looks like he is much more pragmatic.

Update: The Economist has a nice article summing up some of the implications for Anglicans and Catholics.

Pres. Monson - "Most Powerful Octogenarian"

2009-10-22T10:53:00.002-05:00

For the sake of those who don't know, an "octogenarian" is someone who is in their 80's. In Slate.com's annual "80 over 80" ranking, our beloved Prophet, Thomas S. Monson was ranked as the most powerful octogenarian in America, which also included those in their 90's and beyond. This is not surprising seeing as how he leads a Church with millions of faithful followers.

Other notables on this list, although I'm not sure why they are considered "powerful," were Joe Paterno at #25, Jack Kevorkian at #38, Betty White at #40, and Stan Lee at #45. Interestingly, Billy Graham was ranked at #78. Also, this may be one of the only times a Prophet of God would be associated with the likes of an adult magazine peddler - Hugh Hefner at #19.

Remember when General Conference was like a Soap Opera?

2009-10-03T19:17:00.000-05:00

In the October session of General Conference in 1866, Brigham Young made these comments:

“To my certain knowledge, Emma Smith is one of the damnedest liars I know of on this earth; yet there is no good thing I would refuse to do for her, if she would only be a righteous woman; but she will continue in her wickedness. Not six months before the death of Joseph, he called his wife Emma into a secret council, and there he told her the truth, and called upon her to deny it if she could. He told her that the judgments of God would come upon her forthwith if she did not repent. He told her of the time she undertook to poison him, and he told her that she was a child of hell, and literally the most wicked woman on this earth, that there was not one more wicked than she. He told here where she got the poison, and how she put it in a cup of coffee; said he 'You got that poison from so and so, and I drank it, but you could not kill me.' When it entered his stomach he went to the door and threw it off. he spoke to her in that council in a very severe manner, and she never said one word in reply. I have witnesses of this scene all around, who can testify that I am now telling the truth. Twice she undertook to kill him. [Utah Historical Quarterly, vol. 48, Winter 1980, 82] (emphasis added)

If they had popcorn back then, the congregation was just shoveling it in. Can you imagine if one of the General Authorities spoke like that today?

Indeed, Brother Brigham and Emma had a colorful past. From what I understand, the issue between these two was Emma's adamant denial of Joseph's teaching of plural marriage. Brigham didn't take too kindly to anyone contradicting the Prophet; hence the outrage.

The FAIR Wiki does a great job of discussing their relationship in an article titled "Emma Smith and Brigham Young."

The Martin Handcart Company and Brigham Young

2009-09-30T12:09:00.011-05:00

Our Gospel Doctrine class recently covered Lesson 35, which reviewed the bittersweet Martin and Willie handcart experiences. Of course, the famous Solomon Kimball quote was used:

“After they [Martin Company] had given up in despair, after all hopes had vanished, after every apparent avenue of escape seemed closed, three eighteen-year-old boys belonging to the relief party came to the rescue, and to the astonishment of all who saw, carried nearly every member of the illfated handcart company across the snowbound stream. The strain was so terrible, and the exposure so great, that in later years all the boys died from the effects of it. When President Brigham Young heard of this heroic act, he wept like a child, and later declared publicly, 'that act alone will ensure C. Allen Huntington, George W. Grant and David P. Kimball an everlasting salvation in the Celestial Kingdom of God, worlds without end'” (Solomon F. Kimball, “Belated Emigrants of 1856,” Improvement Era 17, no. 4 (February 1914): 288) (emphasis added).

Solomon Kimball was the younger brother of David P. Kimball, and was nine years old at the time of the rescue. Undoubtedly, this report spurs thoughts of sacrifice and faith among the faithful Saints. Indeed, it is an accurate example of true consecration and being found possessed of charity (Moro. 7:47). However, although most LDS are familiar with Kimball’s account, it is not the only account of the rescue that we have access to. In fact, several other accounts shed additional perspective on the heroic rescue, and potentially expose inaccuracies or misstatements on the part of Kimball. A few examples are listed below:

1) Evidence indicates that more than just Kimball, Grant, and Huntington braved the icy waters of the Sweetwater that day. In fact, one account reports that there was a group of at least twenty-seven rescuers. (Daniel W. Jones, Forty Years among the Indians. A True Yet Thrilling Narrative of the Author’s Experiences among the Natives (Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1890), 63.) Of the rescuers mentioned by Daniel W. Jones, eighteen were positively identified as assisting the Martin Company on the day they crossed the Sweetwater.

2) Of those positively identified as rescuers during the Sweetwater crossing, none were actually eighteen years of age. As for the ages of a few of them on November 4, 1856, C. Allen Huntington was 24 and was the oldest of those named in the records. Stephen W. Taylor was 20. Ira Nebeker and David P. Kimball were both 17. George W. Grant, the youngest of the named group, was only 16 years old. To be able to physically carry several individuals over icy banks and through soft river bottoms, these boys must have been quite powerful and well-built at their respective ages

3) Evidence indicates that the rescuers did not “carr[y] nearly every member of the illfated handcart company across the snowbound stream,” as reported by Kimball. There were upwards of 500 emigrants stranded on the one side of the Sweetwater and, although the rescuers helped a great many across the river, they physically carried only a portion of the company across. Exactly how many is not known, but several factors argue against the idea that three rescuers carried the whole company, or even a majority, over the Sweetwater. At least one factor is that there was simply not enough time to carry 500 individuals across the river. Reports indicates that the company did not reach the Sweetwater until the afternoon, leaving them only mere hours before darkness fell.

4) While some of the rescuers reported health problems resulting from the rescue, most lived long and active lives that terminated in deaths that cannot be definitively attributed to their exposure to the icy water that day. Here are a few examples:

George W. Grant was the first of the named heroes to die, passing away in August 1872, at age 32 and nearly sixteen years after the Sweetwater rescue. He served a 4-year mission to England just five years after the rescue.

David P. Kimball died next at the age of 44. Just a few months after the rescue he married Caroline Williams following which they honeymooned on Antelope Island (huh, go figure, I never thought Antelope Island to be a honeymoon destination). He helped build the transcontinental railroad through Utah (1868–69), and during the 1870’s he worked as a teamster in Arizona. Concerning his death, the Deseret News erroneously reported that he had died as an effect of the Sweetwater rescue, but the newspaper later retracted that statement explaining that his death was brought on by “pneumonia and lung fever” he contracted during a snowstorm in 1881.

C. Allen Huntington died shortly before his 65th birthday. He was apparently the rebel among the rescuers, having served time in the Utah territorial penitentiary in March 1860 for charges of horse and cattle thievery. It was also reported that he had once been in a knife fight where he encountered a ‘Greaser’ and “he had cut him.” (Reported by Langdon Gibson to Dana Gibson, December 25, 1889, copy included in Otis Marston Collection, Huntington Library, San Marino, Calif.)

Ira Nebeker died shortly before his 65th birthday also. He reportedly died of kidney failure. During his long life he worked as a stockman and a farmer, and also served in the “Indian wars.” There is no indication of his death being brought on from the effects of the rescue.

Stephen W. Taylor died at 84, six years after Solomon Kimball’s account appeared in print. During his life, Taylor served a 3-year mission to England, served as a messenger for the territorial legislature, and served in the Black Hawk War. He was also a Salt Lake City police officer and was appointed as Sherriff of Summit County.

5) Solomon Kimball’s declaration that Brigham Young publicly proclaimed that this one heroic act alone guaranteed "everlasting salvation in the Celestial Kingdom; worlds without end" is the only account of such a statement. Did the Prophet actually seal the eternal exaltation of these men as a result of this one heroic act? What about Huntington’s colorful past as a thief and a knife wielding outlaw?

Kimball’s statement is not supported and is likely taken out of context considering the following scriptural truths:

“I would that ye should learn that he only is saved who endureth unto the end” (D&C 53:7)

“There is a possibility that man may fall from grace and depart from the living God; Therefore, let the Church take heed and pray always, lest they fall into temptation; Yea, and even let those who are sanctified take heed also” (D&C 20:32 –34)

In Kimball’s first published account of the Sweetwater rescue, he included a different, more plausible promise: “When President Brigham Young heard of this heroic act, he wept like a child, and declared that this act alone would immortalize them” (Solomon F. Kimball, “Our Pioneer Boys,” Improvement Era 11 (July 1908): 679)

[NOTE: The preceding information was mostly derived from Chad M. Orton’s article in BYU Studies 45, no.3, (2006), entitled “The Martin Handcart Company at the Sweetwater: Another Look.” For those interested in the Sweetwater rescue, I highly recommend the article.]

We Thank Thee, Oh God, For A Profit - Part 1

2009-09-24T15:30:00.003-05:00

One of my pet peeves, among many like “Thank-imonies” and “burying” one’s testimony, is when people use the church to sell something. Even when the church gets involved in a worthy capital venture I get uneasy, but am very willing to give it deference because there is usually always a good explanation.

And then there are situations where church relationships or positions are abused. Other times it is rather harmless but comes across as not really appropriate. Fast forward to this past Sunday when I was walking through the halls because my son wanted to play basketball in the EQ overflow hall (nothing makes Joseph Smith’s teachings more inspiring than looking at the basketball net over my head or sitting on the 3-pt line). As I walked by the RS room, I noticed a few tables set out with various goods. By the goods there were small price tags next to each item. See pictures below (I apologize if they are fuzzy, but the light in the corridor isn’t really designed for a smart phone camera. But I did get them, didn’t I?).

I do not know what this was for, whether as part of an activity or a charitable enterprise. But I came away with a feeling that it was completely inappropriate. I do believe that there are some situations where goods may be sold at church meetings, but they should be very limited to things like Bishop’s Storehouse items. Even that makes me feel uncomfortable, but I can live with it. However, birthday signs (you can see the bottom of the sign in picture #2), metallic clipboards, crafty-creepy-Texas-Ranger-wooden tombstone imitations, and doilies (?) while appropriate for the Quilted Bear, are not appropriate to be sold at church. Perhaps I will try to sell tools or DVDs in Elder’s Quorum? Perhaps a stuffed elk?

I don’t think I really need to add some verses without people thinking about it, but think about Jesus and the money changers:

14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables;

John 2:14-15

My question to the reader is whether it is appropriate to sell items like this in church? Part 2 will follow, hopefully it won’t take me too long to post.

Gazelem's Seer Stones

2009-09-20T21:40:00.003-05:00

I have recently been studying about Joseph Smith’s usage of seer stones in place of the Urim & Thummim for the process of translating the Book of Mormon. Since some of the information I encountered was new to me, I thought a few quotes and commentary may help those who read this better understand at least a portion of how the Book of Mormon was translated.

It should be noted that the expression Urim & Thummim is never used in the Book of Mormon, but was likely adopted by the Prophet after becoming familiar with the Old Testament revelatory device through his translation of the Old Testament. Instead, the Urim & Thummim wielded by the Prophet included the Nephite interpreters comprising “two stones” fastened into the “two rims of a bow” as the “interpreters.” (See Mosiah 28:13; Ether 3:23) In other words, the Urim & Thummim known to the Prophet consisted primarily of a couple of seer stones that could be attached to a device for ease of viewing. It eventually became common for members of the Church to call the Nephite interpreters the Urim & Thummim, which isn’t exactly correct.

When he finally received the Nephite interpreters in September of 1827, Joseph was already quite familiar with seer stones and how they worked. In fact, Joseph had discovered at least 2 seer stones, the first in 1822 while digging a well with Willard Chase:

“In the year 1822, I was engaged in digging a well. I employed Alvin and Joseph Smith to assist me.... After digging about twenty feet below the surface of the earth, we discovered a singularly appearing stone, which excited my curiosity. I brought it to the top of the well, and as we were examining it, Joseph put it into his hat, and then his face into the top of his hat.... The next morning he came to me, and wished to obtain the stone, alleging that he could see in it; but I told him I did not wish to part with it on account of its being a curiosity, but I would lend it.” (Eber Dudley Howe, Mormonism Unvailed (Painesville, Ohio: Telegraph Press, 1834), 241-242; cited in Richard Van Wagoner and Steven Walker, "Joseph Smith: 'The Gift of Seeing," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15:2 (Summer 1982): 48–68) (emphasis added).

Of this seer stone, one witness reported that “[i]t was about the size of a small hen's egg, in the shape of a high-instepped shoe. It was composed of layers of different colors passing diagonally through it. It was very hard and smooth, perhaps by being carried in the pocket” (W. D. Purple, The Chenango Union (3 May 1877); cited in Francis Kirkham, A New Witness for Christ in America: The Book of Mormon, 2 vols., (Salt Lake City: Utah Printing, 1959[1942]), 2:365). This seer stone was eventually consecrated on an altar in the Manti Temple in 1888 by Wilford Woodruff.

The source of the second seer stone is uncertain, but in 1841 the Prophet showed it to the Council of the 12 in Nauvoo and told them, Brigham Young reported, “that every man who lived on the earth was entitled to a seer stone and should have one, but they are kept from them in consequence of their wickedness.” The second seer stone was described as in “the shape of an egg though not quite so large, of a gray cast something like granite but with white stripes running around it. It was transparent but had no holes, neither on the end or in the sides” (Richard Marcellas Robinson, "The History of a Nephite Coin," manuscript, 20 December 1834, LDS Church archives; cited in Mark Ashurst-McGee, "A Pathway to Prophethood: Joseph Smith Junior as Rodsman, Village Seer, and Judeo-Christian Prophet," (Master's Thesis, University of Utah, Logan, Utah, 2000), 264).

During the translation process of the 116 pages, the Prophet used not only the Nephite interpreters but also regularly employed at least one of his seer stones placed in the bottom of a hat. Contrary to frequent Church criticism, our Church leaders have hardly tried to conceal this fact as evidenced by the following recent quote:

“Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.” (Elder Russell M. Nelson, "A Treasured Testament," Ensign, July 1993, p.61) (emphasis added)

Interestingly enough, using a seer stone in this seemingly odd manner was nothing out of the ordinary for Joseph Smith and practically everyone else at this time. (See “Joseph the Seer—or Why Did He Translate With a Rock in His Hat?,” Brant A. Gardner) In fact, what seems quite strange to us today was a widely accepted practice, even among the highly religious during the early 19th century. Joseph apparently had a gift to use his seer stones to see things others could not, including discerning property and the location of hidden treasure. Hence, Mr. Josiah Stowell’s interest in Joseph Smith to help him search for hidden Spanish treasure (see JSH 1:56).

Since Joseph openly employed the seer stone in the hat for translation, at one point during the translation of the 116 pages, Martin Harris apparently tested the Prophet’s abilities. After translating for a time each day, the two would often take a break and walk to a nearby river and throw rocks into the river to unwind:

“Once Martin found a rock closely resembling the seerstone Joseph sometimes used in place of the interpreters and substituted it without the Prophet’s knowledge. When the translation resumed, Joseph paused for a long time and then exclaimed, ‘Martin, what is the matter, all is as dark as Egypt.’ Martin then confessed that he wished to ‘stop the mouths of fools’ who told him that the Prophet memorized sentences and merely repeated them.” (Told in Millennial Star 44:87; quotation from Kenneth W. Godfrey, "A New Prophet and a New Scripture: The Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon," Ensign, January 1988, p.6)

In an apparent reference to at least one of Joseph Smith’s seer stones, the Book of Mormon makes reference to “a stone” as distinct from the Nephite interpreters:

23 And the Lord said: I will prepare unto my servant Gazelem, a stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light, that I may discover unto my people who serve me, that I may discover unto them the works of their brethren, yea, their secret works, their works of darkness, and their wickedness and abominations.
24 And now, my son, these interpreters were prepared that the word of God might be fulfilled, which he spake, saying:
25 I will bring forth out of darkness unto light all their secret works and their abominations; and except they repent I will destroy them from off the face of the earth; and I will bring to light all their secrets and abominations, unto every nation that shall hereafter possess the land. (Alma 37:23-25)

Gazelem is a name given to a servant of God, generally thought to be Joseph Smith. The word appears to have its roots in gaz – a stone, and aleim, a name of God as a revelator, or the interposer in the affairs of men. If this suggestion is correct, its roots admirably agree with its apparent meaning – a seer.

Notice that Alma speaks of a singular “stone” as separate and distinct from the plural Nephite “interpreters,” both of which are to be used for basically the same purpose. The stone, however, was to “shine forth in darkness unto light,” possibly referring to its usage in a hat as was Joseph Smith’s revelatory practice.

While it is not certain how much of the Book of Mormon was eventually translated using the seer stones, it is evident that their usage was typical.

[NOTE: For more information on the Prophet’s seer stones, see Joseph Smith/Seer Stones found in the FAIR Wiki.]

Health Care Reform – A Step Towards a Welfare State?

2009-09-13T22:25:00.002-05:00

Health care reform is necessary and should be implemented soon. To my knowledge, no one is arguing that reforming the system is essentially a bad thing. Instead much of the controversy lies in how it is reformed. Any reform, however, should be discussed and debated thoroughly by both sides of the aisle since each side touts valid points.

A good portion of the opposition to the current reform has been focused on the non-transparency of the process, and the sudden rush to just “do something.” With a proposed bill of over 1,000 pages, not including the thousands of amendments that will certainly follow, it is imperative that our representatives have sufficient time to know what they are signing into law. They must understand the long-term implications of such a move since it will likely comprise 1/7th of our nation’s economy.

Another reason this must be debated thoroughly is because health care reform will undoubtedly include entitlement programs, where individuals will receive free services simply by having a valid social security number – and possibly those without a social security number. Reversing government entitlement programs is an incredibly difficult task. Recipients eventually feel “entitled” to those free services and ultimately rely thereon for their livelihood instead of being personally responsible – the ‘give a man a fish, or teach a man to fish’ principle comes to mind. Little by little, government entitlements create a “welfare state” where the government assumes the primary responsibility for the welfare of its citizens.

I am generally opposed to government entitlements since I believe personal welfare is an individual responsibility that should not be shouldered by others. In my opinion, government entitlements tend to harm the individual more than help because labor and enjoying the fruits of one’s labor are blessings from the Lord, and an essential requirement in our eternal progression. I firmly believe that nothing destroys the individuality and freedoms of a man as much as the failure to be self-reliant.

Obviously there are several exceptions to this, for example, individuals who lack the physical or mental capacity to survive without the goodwill of the people. In those cases, entitlements serve a valid and needed purpose. Nevertheless, those who have the means to provide for their own welfare and yet seek a free ride are, in essence, restricting their own freedom and the freedoms of those who pay the price. The following quote by Howard W. Hunter explains:

“What is the real cause of this trend toward the welfare state, toward more socialism? In the last analysis, in my judgment, it is personal unrighteousness. When people do not use their freedoms responsibly and righteously, they will gradually lose these freedoms…

“If man will not recognize the inequalities around him and voluntarily, through the gospel plan, come to the aid of his brother, he will find that through ‘a democratic process’ he will be forced to come to the aid of his brother. The government will take from the ‘haves’ and give to the ‘have nots.’ Both have lost their freedom. Those who ‘have,’ lost their freedom to give voluntarily of their own free will and in the way they desire. Those who ‘have not,’ lost their freedom because they did not earn what they received. They got ‘something for nothing,’ and they will neither appreciate the gift nor the giver of the gift.

“Under this climate, people gradually become blind to what has happened and to the vital freedoms which they have lost." [Speeches of the Year 1965-1966, pp. 1-11, “The Law of the Harvest.” Devotional Address, Brigham Young University, 8 March 1966.]

Of late, it seems as though we are losing our freedoms through the democratic process. More and more people are choosing the easy way out instead of properly sacrificing like our predecessors had. As a result, the ‘haves’ continually lose their freedoms by being forced to be charitable, and the ‘have-nots’ become more and more complacent and apathetic.

I truly hope that our elected officials view any reform to our health care system through the lens of self-reliance and the blessings that inevitably will come when one earns their bread by the sweat of their own brow.

Hispanic Church Growth and Illegal Immigration

2009-09-02T13:15:00.016-05:00

An article was recently published at the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University describing LDS missionary activities in and around the city of Chicago. [The article can be found here] In particular, the article focused on missionaries called to serve in Spanish-speaking areas. Although there were a few things in which the writer erred, overall it was a fair article.

Of interest to me, however, were the following quotes:

"In Chicago, Hispanics, which account for about a third of the population, make up more than half of converts to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as more missionaries are reaching out to inner-city populations in Spanish. About a quarter of the 32 congregations on the city’s North Side are Spanish-speaking."

"The number of the Spanish-speaking Mormon congregations in the U.S. has grown by more than 80 percent in the last decade, now up to around 700."

Amazing! Spanish wards have grown by 80% since 1999! Living in Texas, I can see how this is possible. It is inevitable as the stone that is cut out of the mountain continues to roll forth until it fills the whole earth.

The Seer Stone recently discussed Predictions of Globalization of the Church. Part of that globalization must, of necessity, be related somehow to the various cultures and laws of each nation involved. Here in America, there is the ever-growing debate about illegal immigration from Hispanic nations and the effect it can have on our society. My questions are three-fold:

1) How should the Church deal with "illegal" immigrants that desire baptism? How does this coincide with the Church's admonition to be "subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law"?

2) Should the Church be actively concerned about the legal status of its members?

3) Should the members of the Church be concerned about the legal status of the members of their Ward/Branch?

Why the Nicene Creed?

2009-08-17T23:00:00.003-05:00

There have always been two criticisms of the Church that always irk me.

1) Latter-day Saints don’t believe the Bible. Those that assert this falsity usually insist that the Bible is the sole authoritative source of inspired information. However, they also insist that the Bible can only be interpreted within limits set by later councils and creeds. In other words, when they assert that I don’t believe in the Bible, they usually mean that I don’t believe in the post-biblical interpretations of creeds and councils.

2) The canon of scripture is closed, therefore the Book of Mormon is false. Those that assert this also demand that Latter-day Saints accept and honor the added doctrines of the councils and creeds in order to be Christians.

One of the more well-known post-biblical creeds is the Nicene Creed. Long after they had declared the heavens sealed and prophets and apostles to be a thing of the past, the leaders of what called itself the Christian faith met in Nicaea to determine the nature of the God they worshipped. The event is known as the church’s first ecumenical council, and out of it came the first formal Christian creed.

It was during the reign of Constantine, who became Caesar in A.D. 306. Prior to Constantine, the pagan emperors of Rome had persecuted the Christians because of their disbelief in “the gods.” According to the pagans, the gods provided the good things in life: health, prosperity, love, peace, etc., and when when bad things transpired to the Romans, it was only natural to blame the Christians who refused to pay homage to the pagan gods.

However, Constantine changed things. As recorded by Eusebius, a 4th century Christian writer, Constantine was converted to Christianity while at a major battle at Milvian Bridge in A.D. 312. Before the battle, Constantine had a vision in broad daylight depicting a standard in the shape of a cross – above the cross were the words, “By this sign, conquer.” That night he dreamed that Christ came to him with the same sign and told him to use it as a protection against his enemies. The next morning he commissioned a lavish replica of what he saw, with two Greek letters at the top, a chi and rho – the first two letters of Christ’s name. He later engaged in battle and won a resounding victory.

Being a long-time sun worshipper, Constantine naturally assumed that the Christian God and the sun god were one and the same, and subsequently decreed that the Christian God was to be worshipped on the day of the sun (Sunday), and that the birth of Christ was to be celebrated at the time of the winter solstice (Christmas-time). Upon conversion, Constantine also declared an empire-wide cessation of Christian persecution and actually provided a society of religious freedom not unlike what we enjoy in the U.S. today. By the end of the 4th century, Christianity was the state religion of the Roman Empire.

So, where does the Nicene Creed come into the picture? Well, Constantine decided to unify his vast empire under the dogma of Christianity. However, the Christian church by this time was severely disunified over several fundamental theological issues. In order for Christianity to unify the Roman Empire, Constantine had to first unify Christianity.

One of the major issues of contention at the time was the question of Jesus’ divinity, or how to understand His divinity in light of the fact that he was also human. Also, they wondered how both Jesus and God could be God if there is only one God.

At the time there were two schools of thought:

A) Arius of Alexandria, Egypt taught that in the beginning there was only God the Father. But at some point in the eternities, God brought his Son into existence, and it was through this Son that God created all things. Thus, Christ was divine, but subordinate to God the Father. (Sounds pretty much like what the Latter-day Church believes)

B) Athanasius, a young deacon in the Alexandrian church opposed Arius’ view. Athanasius taught that Christ had always existed – he did not come into existence at one point in time – and he was separately divine, not inferior to God the Father. Indeed, he was of the same essence as God the Father. This obviously led to the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.

In an attempt to unify the Christian church, in A.D. 325 Constantine called 200-250 bishops to decide the issue. Everything associated with this council was at odds with the pattern of faith preserved in the scriptures. Here prophets were formally replaced with the learned men of the say and the revelations of heaven were replaced by philosophical speculations. The majority sided with Athanasius.

The following is the resulting creed of the council at Nicaea:

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit.

"[But those who say: ‘There was a time when he was not;’ and ‘He was not before he was made;’ and ‘He was made out of nothing,’ or ‘He is of another substance’ or ‘essence,’ or ‘The Son of God is created,’ or ‘changeable,’ or ‘alterable’—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church]" (emphasis added).

Notice the last paragraph of the creed; the council actually condemned the doctrine espoused by Arius and exiled him and any followers for their belief.

In 2007, President Hinckley said the following about the Nicene Creed during the October conference:

“When Constantine became a Christian in the fourth century, he called together a great convocation of learned men with the hope that they could reach a conclusion of understanding concerning the true nature of Deity. All they reached was a compromise of various points of view. The result was the Nicene Creed of a.d. 325. This and subsequent creeds have become the declaration of doctrine concerning the nature of Deity for most of Christianity ever since.

“I have read them all a number of times. I cannot understand them. I think others cannot understand them. I am sure that the Lord also knew that many would not understand them. And so in 1820, in that incomparable vision, the Father and the Son appeared to the boy Joseph. They spoke to him with words that were audible, and he spoke to Them. They could see. They could speak. They could hear. They were personal. They were of substance. They were not imaginary beings. They were beings tabernacled in flesh. And out of that experience has come our unique and true understanding of the nature of Deity” (Pres. Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Stone Cut Out of the Mountain,” Ensign, Nov, 2007, 83–86) (emphasis added).

It is interesting to note that when the Prophet received the First Vision, the Lord declared that it was the creeds of modern Christianity that were “an abomination in his sight” (JSH 1:19). “[T]his is because creeds are philosophical idols created by human minds, imposed upon the Scriptures and then revered as God’s word in place of God’s word. Those who believe such creeds are not ‘abominable.’ They are just wrong” (Craig L. Blomberg & Stephen E. Robinson, “How Wide the Divide: A Mormon & an Evangelical in Conversation,” pg. 161).

The Nicene Creed is not found in any Gospel. It derives from no utterance of Christ nor from the words of any of his apostles. The ideas portrayed therein are instead cloaked in Greek philosophy from whence it came. In fact, it directly contradicts the langauge of the New Testament.

At the risk of extending this already lengthy post, any thoughts?

Coming Up Next At Sunstone: A Critical Look At Cipher In The Snow

2009-08-14T10:35:00.012-05:00

I think Sunstone Symposiums produce some quality scholarly works that do not always have a place in conferences at BYU or FAIR. It may be the only venue where you can learn about things that aren’t generally spoken of. But sometimes, or perhaps more often than not, it becomes a place to grind an axe.

You know when you are at work or with friends/family and you are both upset about a co-worker or family member. And what happens is that you are both so upset that you keep going on about things that annoy you even though you start to realize that you are getting to the point where you are embellishing, but you both continue to do it anyways? I see this happen at work a lot when people complain about a boss where I start thinking, “Ok, I agree somewhat, but you are overdoing it now.”

Enter writer Holly Welker at Sunstone’s Symposium. I refer to her presentation on Johnny Lingo, entitled, “A Price Far Above Rubies Vs. Eight Cows: What’s a Virtuous Woman Worth?”. The always objective Salt Lake Tribune gives a report here. In full disclosure, I have never seen the movie but am familiar with the plot. It seems a little hokey but there is a good underlying moral. It is, essentially, that people should value intrinsic worth and beauty.

This does not please Welker. As the Tribune reports:

Welker said the film often is cited "as a wise, compassionate story of male sensitivity to female identity, a positive demonstration of how to foster female self-worth." But Welker argues it instead is about male identity and power, the power to assess and determine female worth, the power to claim or create a desirable mate, the power to see what others do not, the power to manipulate less insightful people around you, and the power to acquire what one truly desires."

Really? Hold on, let me say that again. Really? Maybe it’s just me, but this strikes me as looking beyond the mark. Is Ms. Welker incapable of reading anything hyperbolic into a story which millions of teenagers are capable of doing? Does holding a doctorate in English from the University of Iowa absolve a person from using common sense?

The report continues:

Mahana has no say in the marriage. She cannot refuse the husband who has bought her, even if she doesn't like him or believes that his price is too low. The bridal bargain is a contest of wills between two men: Mahana's father and her future husband. "Johnny Lingo" is about its active and powerful hero, not the passive heroine.

Indeed, Mahana's transformation is "not because someone loves her, or because she loves someone, or because she is treated with respect and kindness, but because she knows she is the most expensive commodity on the island," said Welker, who earned a doctorate in English at the University of Iowa. "The fact that women are bought and sold in this culture, their thorough objectification, is not open to scrutiny, only the damaging effects of being sold cheaply.

I agree that these are problems in society and perhaps LDS culture, but are you really seeing all these issues in Johnny Lingo? Isn’t it possible that it’s a 24-minute film set in a Polynesian culture where the moral is more important than some of the details? Do young LDS women come away from that movie really thinking that they have no say in marriage and that their church is telling them that they shouldn’t? Or do they come away thinking that even though some people don’t value them very much based on their looks, men and women should value their internal beauty.

Is the objectionable part the use of cows as chattel? Or is it objectionable that the man is the instigator (astonishing for a film form 1965, isn’t it!). I personally would not buy a spouse with cows, maybe chickens…no, probably not those either, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t see the moral of (or SHOCK, enjoy!) the story where this does happen. This strikes me as stretching for something to complain about at the perfect place to grind an axe. J. Stapley touched on this as well a few days ago in his critique of Sunstone Symposiums and their drift from actual religious scholarship.

I expect Ms. Welker to provide a hard hitting critique of how Curious George is really an example of racist undertones in children’s media. Or how Clifford is an evil portrayal of Ginger kids. As a fellow blogger here at The Seer Stone would say, it seems a little “Hoity Toity”.

And from Sunstone, I expect next year a critical look at the shameful portrayal of alcoholic Step Fathers in next year’s Symposium: “A Critical Look at the Cipher in the Snow, the Untold Story of That Step Father Who Was Kind of Mean To That Kid Who Asked to Get Off The Bus to Fall Into The Snow And Died, At Least That’s What I Think Happened Because I Didn’t Really Pay Attention To The Movie When I Was 14 In Sunday School”.

Religion and LA Fitness Shooter

2009-08-06T07:39:00.010-05:00

I have been reading up on the shooting that happened the other day in PA (for those who have not seen the story--this man went into a gym and fired something like 65 bullets, injured many, and killed something like 3 people and himself) and one thing stuck out to me that I doubt anyone in the press would ever talk about. It comes as no surprise that a man capable of such an act has many twisted thoughts in his mind, but let's take a look at this one.

The shooter's last journal entry was this:

August 3, 2009: I took off today, Monday, and tomorrow to practice my routine and make sure it is well polished. I need to work out every detail, there is only one shot. Also I need to be completely immersed into something before I can be successful. I haven't had a drink since Friday at about 2:30. Total effort needed. Tomorrow is the big day.

Unfortunately I talked to my neighbor today, who is very positive and upbeat. I need to remain focused and absorbed COMPLETELY. Last time I tried this, in January, I chickened out. Lets see how this new approach works.

Maybe soon, I will see God and Jesus. At least that is what I was told. Eternal life does NOT depend on works. If it did, we will all be in hell. Christ paid for EVERY sin, so how can I or you be judged BY GOD for a sin when the penalty was ALREADY paid. People judge but that does not matter. I was reading the Bible and The Integrity of God beginning yesterday, because soon I will see them.

I will try not to add anymore entries because this computer clicking distracts me.

It's a funny twist on the faith/works issue and shows a very fundamental misunderstanding of the atonement. What sticks out to me though, is how at least part of the rationalization and logic of this shooter is not a huge leap from what some people actually teach.

I wonder whether if this understanding of the atonement were corrected, would there have been a different path? I tend to doubt it. But did this man really believe that there were no consequences for his actions because he has faith in Christ? A belief like is immensely dangerous and could lead to a great deal of evil acts. Do you think this type of teaching is being taught, or rather, that it is being taught in a form that easily allows a minor twist to lead to the shooter's conclusion?

I Wonder Who the Pope's Guardian Angel is...

2009-08-02T11:00:00.000-05:00

A few weeks ago Catholic Pope Benedict XVI fractured his right wrist when he fell while on vacation. When queried about his misfortune, he stated that “[u]nfortunately, my own guardian angel did not prevent my injury, certainly following superior orders.” (See article reported in Breitbart here)

I wonder if he was being coy, or if he truly believes there is some being on the other side of the veil dedicated to his safety and protection. Admittedly, I do not know Catholic doctrine well enough to affirm this. However, I am somewhat versed in Latter-day Saint teachings.

Do Latter-day Saints believe in guardian angels? Is there a spiritual being assigned to each mortal to aid us through mortality? If there is such a thing, could we potentially offend that being and lose any offered protection?

By revelation Joseph Smith learned that “there are no angels who minister to this earth but those who do belong or have belonged to it” (D&C 130:5). Thus, Joseph F. Smith observed that:

“When messengers are sent to minister to the inhabitants of this earth, they are not strangers, but from among our kindred, friends, and fellow-beings and fellow-servants. The ancient prophets who died were those who came to visit their fellow creatures upon the earth. . . . Our fathers and mothers, brothers, sisters and friends who have passed away from this earth, having been faithful, and worthy to enjoy these rights and privileges, may have a mission given them to visit their relatives and friends upon the earth again, bringing from the divine Presence messages of love, of warning, or reproof and instruction, to those whom they had learned to love in the flesh” (Gospel Doctrine, pp. 435-437) (emphasis added).

So, who is it that protects the Pope? A former prophet of the Lord, or maybe a deceased relative?

The scriptures are replete with instances where angels have been marshaled to protect the Saints. One of my favorite instances took place when an army from Syria surrounded the city of Dothan to take Elisha prisoner. Having arisen early, one of Elisha’s young disciples discovered the trap that had been laid for the prophet and feared greatly. Untroubled, Elisha responded:

“Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them.

“And Elisha prayed, and said, Lord, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the Lord opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

“And when they came down to him, Elisha prayed unto the Lord, and said, Smite this people, I pray thee, with blindness. And he smote them with blindness according to the word of Elisha” (2 Kings 6:16-18) (emphasis added).

Nephi and Sam were spared from Laman and Lemuel through the intervention of an angel of the Lord (1 Ne. 3:29); Daniel had an angel as his companion when he was thrown into the lions’ den (Daniel 6:22); Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego also enjoyed the company of an angel (Jesus Christ himself) when they were cast into the fiery furnace (Daniel 3:25); Helaman’s sons, Nephi and Lehi, were protected by fire from those who sought to kill them, “and behold, they saw the heavens open; and angels came down out of heaven and ministered unto them,” before some 300 witnesses (Helaman 5:21-49).

Similar instances have happened in our dispensation, also. On one occasion, Joseph Smith saw Brigham Young in a vision “standing in a strange land in the far South and West in a desert place on a rock in the midst of about a dozen men of color. He was preaching to them in their own tongue, and the angel of God standing above his head, with a drawn sword in his hand, protecting him.” Commenting, Joseph said, “But he did not see it” (History of the Church, 2:381) (emphasis added).

In the April 1973 General Conference of the Church, Pres. Harold B. Lee shared the following experience:

“May I impose upon you for a moment to express appreciation for something that happened to me some time ago, years ago. I was suffering from an ulcer condition that was becoming worse and worse. We had been touring a mission; my wife, Joan, and I were impressed the next morning that we should get home as quickly as possible, although we had planned to stay for some other meetings.

“On the way across the country, we were sitting in the forward section of the airplane. Some of our Church members were in the next section. As we approached a certain point en route, someone laid his hand upon my head. I looked up; I could see no one. That happened again before we arrived home, again with the same experience. Who it was, by what means or what medium, I may never know, except I knew that I was receiving a blessing that I came a few hours later to know I needed most desperately.

“As soon as we arrived home, my wife very anxiously called the doctor. It was now about 11 o’clock at night. He called me to come to the telephone, and he asked me how I was, and I said, ‘Well, I am very tired. I think I will be all right.’ But shortly thereafter, there came massive hemorrhages which, had they occurred while we were in flight, I wouldn’t be here today talking about it” (“Stand Ye in Holy Places,” Ensign, Oct 2008, pp. 44–49) (emphasis added).

Since the passing of my grandfather and mother I have, on at least one occasion, felt a distinct impression from one of them. Specifically, I was prompted to encourage a cousin to serve a mission. The feeling I received was one that my cousin needed to serve a mission so as to prepare himself spiritually to be a worthy husband and father to several children waiting to enter mortality.

I think that when a righteous man or woman dies, they do not cease to love their family still in mortality, they probably don't cease to pray for them, nor labor in their behalf. And in some instances, they may be given the opportunity to serve as “guardian angels” to their estranged loved ones. Elder Charles W. Penrose of the Quorum of the 12 (1911-1925) stated the following:

“As the living are not in their mortal condition, able to see and converse with the dead, so it is rational to believe, the inhabitants of the spiritual domain are, in the normal condition, shut out from intercourse with men in the flesh. By permission of the Lord, persons on either side of the veil may be manifest to those on the other, but this will certainly be by law and according to the order which God has established” (“Masterpieces of Latter-day Saint Leaders,” Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1953), pp. 66-67) (emphasis added).

It is comforting to think that my deceased loved ones may be watching over me and, when permitted, protecting me. It only seems rational that those who found joy in their family during mortality will only have those feelings intensified on the other side of the veil. Thus, most of us have likely entertained “guardian angels” unaware.

Thursday Morning Poll - Is Healthcare a Right or a Privilege?

2009-07-30T09:08:00.004-05:00

So, Did You Get Your House in Order?

2009-07-25T22:13:00.003-05:00

Recent estimates have pegged our National Debt at $11 trillion (that’s the number 11 followed by 12 zeros!). Our interest payment to service this enormous debt now stands at $26 billion…per month. That’s over $300 billion a year that will be sent (mostly overseas) to our creditors instead of being used to upgrade our schools, roads, or national defense. If this were happening in your house, you’d put a stop to it, right? Rational thinking dictates that if it doesn’t work in your house, it won’t work in the White House.

Recently, the Wall Street Journal reported the following:

“The Bureau of Labor Statistics preliminary estimate for job losses for June is 467,000, which means 7.2 million people have lost their jobs since the start of the recession. The cumulative job losses over the last six months have been greater than for any other half year period since World War II, including the military demobilization after the war. The job losses are also now equal to the net job gains over the previous nine years, making this the only recession since the Great Depression to wipe out all job growth from the previous expansion.” (emphasis added)

Now, our current administration is contemplating yet another trillion dollar stimulus package and the largest tax ever levied upon the American people in the form of Cap and Trade legislation. What is more, we are apparently rushing forward to pass a universal health care plan that will undoubtedly bankrupt our system. Thomas Jefferson once said that “[t]he principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” If that weren’t clear enough, he also said that politicians should consider themselves “unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves…”

What is going on here? The recent and ongoing economic turmoil is taking a visible toll on most everyone. I believe each of us know someone, if not yourself, who has been directly affected by it.

So, were you prepared?

In the October, 1998 General Conference President Hinckley warned us about todays events by admonishing the “older men” concerning “temporal matters.” His talk, entitled “To the Boys and to the Men,” can be found here. As you may recall, a good portion of Genesis 41 was quoted, which treats Joseph’s interpretation of Pharaoh’s iconic dream of seven years of plenty followed by seven years of famine. Under the direction of Pharaoh, during the seven years of plenty Joseph gathered up food “as the sand of the sea, very much, until he left numbering; for it was without number” (Gen. 41:49).

Thus, heeding the wisdom of an inspired man, Pharaoh undertook an immense preparation for the oncoming storm – in fact, they stored so much food and provisions that they lost count. That same food eventually fed Jacob’s family when they were forced to flee the famine that “was over all the face of the earth” (Gen. 41:56).

Upon concluding Joseph’s story, Pres. Hinckley then uttered these prophetic words:

“Now, brethren, I want to make it very clear that I am not prophesying, that I am not predicting years of famine in the future. But I am suggesting that the time has come to get our houses in order.

“So many of our people are living on the very edge of their incomes. In fact, some are living on borrowings. . . . The economy is a fragile thing. . . . There is a portent of stormy weather ahead to which we had better give heed” (emphasis added).

I remember hearing those words. I recently returned from my mission and I was sitting in a chapel in Pleasant Grove, UT, with my father. At the time I had no debt, I was living at home in my parent’s basement, and couldn’t fathom that his counsel would ever affect me.

In my opinion, we eventually saw our symbolic “seven years of plenty” as the U.S. experienced record highs in both the stock and housing markets. Things were looking good up until around the end of 2007, almost 9 years after the prophet counseled us to prepare for this “portent of stormy weather” of which we are currently undergoing.

Our beloved prophet concluded his talk by saying:

“I urge you, brethren, to look to the condition of your finances. I urge you to be modest in your expenditures; discipline yourselves in your purchases to avoid debt to the extent possible. Pay off debt as quickly as you can, and free yourselves from bondage.

“This is a part of the temporal gospel in which we believe. May the Lord bless you, my beloved brethren, to set your houses in order. If you have paid your debts, if you have a reserve, even though it be small, then should storms howl about your head, you will have shelter for your wives and children and peace in your hearts. That’s all I have to say about it, but I wish to say it with all the emphasis of which I am capable” (emphasis added).

Clearly, storms are howling about our heads today, and there does not seem to be an end in sight. You may have your job and some sense of security now, but where will you turn if your situation changes and you are left in an unprepared state? Will the government step in? In light of its present actions, one wonders whether the government will have the means to. And if so, at what cost? The uncertainty of how that would work alone is enough of a motivator for me to change my habits. Unfortunately, getting out of debt takes time and discipline.

Are our houses in order? Is it too late to change our current situation, or can we start now and heed an inspired man’s advice and fortify ourselves against this raging storm?

Beer for my Brothers (and Sisters)?

2009-07-19T23:02:00.012-05:00

LDS Teachings and the Culture/Doctrine Divide, Part II

In my last post on this topic (see here) I discussed how the line between cultural and doctrinal aspects of the LDS church can often become fuzzy, and such uncertainty may prompt pharisaical behavior. One example used was whether one would violate a commandment by getting a tattoo in light of President Hinckley’s ‘body is a temple’ talk. I personally believe that getting a tattoo would not be breaking a commandment per se; to me the no tattoo rule is simply a cultural position instituted by a wise leader. In fact, in some cultures, tattoos and body piercings are considered not only beautiful, but a sign of devotion to their Creator.

However, as can be expected, many in the Church would be quick to pass judgment on such behavior. As generations pass, they will progressively look at these actions even more negatively because, if for nothing else, they would have been raised to believe that these actions are wrong. This pattern can clearly be seen in the case of caffeinated beverages.

So how does this relate to beer? Well, I submit that this very phenomenon took place with regards to barley-based “mild drinks,” or beer, as outlined in the Word of Wisdom (WoW). In particular, the WoW teaches that “barley,” among other things, should be used “for mild drinks” (D&C 89:17). Mild drinks should be directly contrasted with the prohibited “strong drink” of verse 5, which obviously corresponds to hard liquors as known in 1833.

Beer is produced by the brewing and fermentation of starches, mainly derived from grains – the most common of which is malted barley, although wheat, corn, and rice are also widely used. Interestingly enough, verse 17 does not limit mild drinks to a barley-based platform, but further counsels that “other grain” should also be used to make these “mild drinks.”

At the time of the revelation, it was certainly understood that beer was not a prohibited substance. In fact, as recently as 1901, Apostles Brigham Young, Jr. and John Henry Smith argued that beer was not prohibited by the WoW. See Thomas G. Alexander, “The Word of Wisdom: From Principle to Requirement,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 14:3 (1981) pp. 78–88. In fact, while the original Word of Wisdom as a “principle with promise” was given by revelation, there is no evidence that any Church leader has claimed a separate new revelation, or even a spiritual confirmation, of changing the Word of Wisdom from “a principle with promise” to a commandment. Id.

So, when did drinking beer become a violation of a commandment? In order for any doctrine to be officially binding on the church it must be presented by a unanimous First Presidency and sustained by the body of the church. See D&C 26:2; 107:27-31. It does not appear that this happened for beer.

Instead, it wasn’t until 1921, under the auspices of Pres. Heber J. Grant, that the WoW finally became a test of faith (i.e., temple recommend question). If you know your history, this occurred just after the commencement of the Prohibition movement (circa. 1920-1933). Therefore, one might argue that in the LDS culture beer evolved into a prohibited substance as a byproduct a time when all alcohol was prohibited by law, thereby creating a habit of abstaining from beer and not simply "strong drinks" and creating a situation where that habit was taught as wise counsel. It is notable that even at the end of Prohibition the Saints did not agree that alcohol should be banned. In fact, despite the pleadings of Pres. Grant, Utah became the 36^thstate, and final vote, to repeal prohibition.

The point I want to emphasize is that our great-grandparents knew that beer was not doctrinally prohibited, per se, just as we know today that tattoos are not doctrinally prohibited. Nonetheless, both beer and tattoos have eventually become “discouraged” by priesthood leaders. Such admonitions as we have seen, although not specifically defined in any canonized work, eventually become binding on later generations. Will we teach our children the evils of tattoos and multiple piercings until one day it ends up as a temple recommend question?

As we all know, LDS Church leaders today teach that the consumption of any form of alcohol, including beer, is a manifest violation of the WoW. Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Body Is Sacred,” New Era, Nov. 2006, pp. 2–5. As members of the Church, can we accept this as doctrine based on modern revelation which teaches us that “[w]hether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same” (D&C 1:38)? Or do we note an apparent conflict between the permissive language of the WoW (barley for mild drinks is acceptable), and current doctrine and heed subsequent teachings from church leaders stating that: if something a person says contradicts the scriptures, then we may know that it is false. See “The Place of the Living Prophet, Seer, and Revelator,” in Charge to Religious Educators, p. 111; see also “Teachings of the Presidents of the Church, Harold B. Lee” at 66. However, the facts/history listed above raises the question: could someone consume beer and then honestly assert in a temple recommend interview that he/she adheres to the WoW?

In sum, I am not going to change my “no alcohol” policy any time soon (and I hope readers won’t use this as fodder for rationalization). Clearly, the LDS are better off for not consuming alcohol as can be proven by several scientific measures and just plain common sense. I’d be interested in reader’s comments on this topic (e.g. beer, or the broader topic of cultural expectations vs. commandments). Another interesting occurrence that happens as a result of these doctrinal evolutions is that it creates situations where we could possibly judge someone for doing something that is not necessarily contrary to commandments (i.e. pharisee-behavior). Do we run this risk when we give a member or new convert a hard time when we see them struggle with something like drinking beer?

End Note: I'd like to thank Jeremy for his considerable contributions and editing of this post.

Predictions of Globalization of the Church

2009-07-13T22:10:00.004-05:00

A few days ago, or as President Monson would begin a talk, "Many years ago...", I was chatting with Jeremy over IM at work about random thoughts that we were having. Such occasions are what helped start The Seer Stone. This post is a product of some of the ideas generated during that discussion.

Jeremy and I were discussing some cultural norms about the church and even the LDS blogosphere, where a majority of participants are within a small geographical area. I think that being in Texas as we are makes us a minority in a way. This is even more true when one heads south of Texas and abroad. I think that the church's history can be roughly divided into two parts: 1) The foundational period, roughly 1820-1890, which includes the Restoration as well as an attitude of seclusion from the outside world; 2) includes the modern period (1890 to present) where the church as a whole decided to participate in society and has helped us to a certain extent become mainstream. I understand that I am oversimplifying but it you want to make it easy, then I suggest these dates.

I believe that at some point, it may have happened already or may yet arrive, we will hit stage 3, massive globalization. Yes, I know that numbers of members in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa have grown exponentially recently, but ultimately have we seen the influence of this boom yet? I think overall the answer is no. Yes, we did have our first 70 called from Kenya recently, and there are many 70's from Latin America, yet the overall feeling I get is that is that we are still an Anglo-American organization whose cultural norms (not doctrine) still clash with the background of many of our converts from successful conversion areas.

Let me highlight a few conclusions I have come to. Some of these thoughts were sparked by a T&S post recently but I apologize as I don't remember when or by whom. Acknowledgement is appropriate but I unfortunately don't know who to provide it to.

1) Whether we like it or not, we are a de minimus Protestant religion. Yes, we are unique and did not break off from any other sect thus making us Protestant in the conventional way, but the young church inherited Protestant cultural baggage and ideas that existed in the 1800's. We still see them today. Common justifications for the priesthood ban were very much in line with Protestant ideas at that time. What instruments do you hear in church? The piano, harp, flute, etc. You don't hear drums or sacred instruments of an indigenous tribe of the Amazon, right? Our depiction of Jesus is the stereotypical fair skinned Caucasian. Obedient LDS males dress as if they are on the board of a Fortune 500 company. Men should be clean shaven; even the leaders of the church who are foreign are those who appear the most Western/American. (President Uctdorf is almost more American than me sometimes. I swear he told a story about being a young boy on a farm in South Eastern Idaho...). Politically we line up as a whole with Evangelical Christians to a large extent.

If the church continues to grow, and we know it will, I predict that this model will be unsustainable. Yes, there are already many members in these countries, but their influence is minuscule to what Western LDS cultural is producing. What if in a country wearing a white shirt is not considered respectful but disrespectful? It's as if we force converts to confirm to an American standard for church, which is cultural, when they are already conforming to gospel doctrines, which is spiritual. What if the wearing of facial hair is part of the cultural norm as is common in many places? Are priesthood holders who wear something that would be considered business casual going to become the norm when LDS in the US are vastly outnumbered?

2) I predict that it will take more time that when General Authorities are called from other countries that will really begin to influence the globalized church's norms. This leads me to believe that many of our current practices are as they are because it reflects the ideas of our current leaders. It just seems that the leadership doesn't reflect the make up of the membership...yet. I don't mean this as a criticism, just as an observation. When the time comes that 5 apostles are Latino, 1 is Philippino, 1 African and the remainder have never lived in Utah, I think that a global LDS culture will strongly be in place. We will focus less on the handcarts of American ancestors and more on the pioneers in Ecuador, Mongolia, and other places that reflect the true composition of the church and the sacrifices of all and not just the original pioneers.

Will this mean that I can wear a blue shirt without feeling guilty? Will this mean that a member of the bishopric can wear a beard without "special" Stake President approval? I don't know. But I do know, or at least predict, that what Joseph Smith said about the babe on its mother's lap and not knowing anything about our destiny has not come to pass yet, though sometimes we like to think so. In 50 years, the make up of the church will be so vastly different and diverse, that we cannot comprehend it now and it will influence the way that we think as a whole, instead of as Conservative Western Americans, speaking as a whole generally.

One final note, this is not a criticism of leadership, just a commentary on where culture, not doctrine, dictates our practices. I whole-heartedly support the Brethren and believe the Lord guides them to lead us appropriately. I do recognize, however, that sometimes their personal views can seep into our cultural understanding of Orthodox Mormonism, and that is what I expect to see change. Yes, I was referring to Elder McConkie.

The handlbar mustache could make a comeback, no?

Using the "Priesthood" to Cast Out Homosexuality?

2009-06-24T17:15:00.003-05:00

Breitbart reported today that a non-LDS church (thank-you Serendipity) in Connecticut posted a video to YouTube showing an attempt to cast homosexuality out of a 16 (or possibly 18) year old male. Does this seem odd to anyone else?

Now, I admit upfront that I do not understand the underpinnings to homosexuality. I don't think anyone "knows" for certain whether homosexuality is something you are born with or that it can be "acquired" somehow through societal elements, nor do I think it matters in this case. The issue here, in my opinion, is how Christ would have us use His priesthood.

Attempting to cast out homosexuality by means of the priesthood seems akin to using the priesthood to root out sin from an individual instead of helping that individual acheive the required change of heart. If Christ wanted it this way, why did He continually exhort His followers to "Go and sin no more"? He could have just cast out the evil adultery spirits from the woman, or cast out the evil hardened heart of the Pharisees.

Removing sin and/or faults from our lives is not as easy as calling the Elders of the Church and having them lay hands upon us. Repentance is a gift! Although difficult, and sometimes long, the repentance process refines us and makes us better. Without repentance, we would never be able to correctly channel the Atonement into our lives, whithout which, exaltation would be impossible.

In a situation like the one reported in Breitbart, to what extent can the Lord's priesthood bless the lives of others? Is the priesthood supposed to be used to tie the hands of the adversary? If not, then what is the point of dedicating a home by the power of the priesthood?

Fatherhood

2009-06-21T10:03:00.003-05:00

I stumbled by this video on LDS.org today while I was preparing a lesson. It is a story of a simple person that is a clear example of what all men should be striving to be.

Apparently, the church has its own youtube channel where it puts out short, decently well-produced vidoes (see the website here). I thought I'd point it out to everyone because I found this (and some of the other videos on this site) to be a video that I could easily share with some of my non-mormon friends.

I am a father of 2 children. I hope they can someday speak of me how the daughter of this video speaks of her father. I lost my dad more than 8 years ago. He was an amazing example in many ways. He had many faults, but the amazing part is that he knew them all. This made him humble, non-judgmental, and very forgiving. As a result of his example I feel that I have gained, at least in part, some of these attributes.

I try to imagine what this world would be like if there were better fathers. It is no coincidence that in almost every preisthood session of general conference there is some sort of a "be a man" talk. In fact, I can think of nothing that would have a greater impact on this world for good. We all have the chance to create and mold such men, whether it be by raising our sons, participating in youth/cub scouts/and boy scout activities, or by raising our daughters to expect men to act as such. Hopefully we can think of these responsibilities with an added measure of purpose.

And if we find such men in our lives, let us take the time to thank them--because we all know it isn't easy.

Revolutionize our Sacrament Meetings

2009-06-12T17:12:00.007-05:00

I just read about an incredible idea on how we may revolutionize our weekly Sacrament meetings. The idea was presented here by Sixteen Small Stones, and is followed by a fantastic analysis on how it could work and its potential ramifications.

In short, the idea involves issuing a few invitations to each sacrament meeting speaker which may be passed out to the speaker's non-member friends, co-workers, neighbors, etc. In essence, it is a less-intrusive way to introduce your acquaintances to the Church. As the article states:

"Real or imagined, inviting someone to church feels awkward. It often doesn’t feel socially comfortable or even appropriate to invite someone to church without an antecedent that indicates some kind of existing interest or disposition. So we wait around forever for the topic to come up and the right opportunity to make the leap.

"But inviting people to come to hear you speak in church is different. It’s about you, not just the church. It’s like inviting people to come hear your band play, or attend a baby shower or your daughter’s dance recital, or to come to a barbecue at your house. There is no reason to wait for conversational queues that might indicate interest or disposition. If they can’t make it or aren’t interested that’s fine."

In my opinion, this is a great way to increase the member-missionary efforts throughout the Church. I, for one, am going to pitch this idea to our Bishopric.

“The Most Correct of ANY Book on Earth”?

2009-06-07T22:08:00.008-05:00

In 1842, Joseph Smith wrote a letter to John Wentworth, the editor of the Chicago Democrat, who was asked by an acquaintance, George Barstow, for information about the Saints. Barstow was writing a history of New Hampshire and wanted to include information about the Mormons. In response, the Prophet sent Mr. Wentworth a very brief history including thirteen statements of belief, what we today know as the thirteen Articles of Faith.

The eighth article of faith states that “we believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." Since the phrase “as far as it is translated correctly” does not follow our statement of belief in the Book of Mormon, some critics of the Church charge that we believe the Book of Mormon to be perfect.

Do we believe that the Book of Mormon is inerrant? It is no secret that there have been numerous changes to the text of the Book of Mormon between the 1830 edition and modern LDS editions; almost four thousand changes according to the Tanners, Salt Lake City-based Mormon critics.

Sadly, many uninformed LDS do make the inerrancy assumption and back it up with a typically misconstrued passage in the Introduction to the Book of Mormon:

“Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: ‘I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.’” (emphasis added)

The term “correct” in this instance, however, does not necessarily mean perfect. In fact, in 1841 when Joseph uttered these words, the word “correct” meant “set right, made straight,” or “conformable to truth, or conformable to a just standard.” In accordance with this definition, the Book of Mormon indeed is correct.

What is more, the book itself repeatedly feigns inerrancy. Moroni himself acknowledged that “if there are faults they are the mistakes of men” (Book of Mormon, Title Page; see also Mormon 8:17). Similarly, the Brief Explanation about the Book of Mormon includes the following statement:

“About this edition: Some minor errors in the text have been perpetuated in past editions of the Book of Mormon. This edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith.”

[Now, be honest, did you know this statement was in the Book of Mormon before now? I actually just read that for the first time last week, and I deem myself fairly well-read in the scriptures.]

In other words, the same text-critical concerns that LDS have with the Bible certainly exist with the various Book of Mormon manuscripts. Scripture, including the Book of Mormon, is recorded by fallible men who can and do make mistakes. Therefore, the possibility of mistranslation or misinterpretation of Hebrew and Greek (or reformed Egyptian, for that matter) exists. Undoubtedly, however, the Book of Mormon is much less textually uncertain than the Bible as a result of the shorter and simpler transmission history. Nonetheless, I don’t think anyone can authoritatively state that we believe either text is free from verbal inerrancy in their present form.

What is more, a closer reading of the Prophet’s statement reveals his stress on the “precepts” of the book, and therefore his inference to the correctness of the book’s doctrinal content, not the book itself. Read in this view, the Book of Mormon certainly is correct in the doctrines and principles it teaches, however, it does not claim to contain all truth. Although it may constitute “the most correct of any book on earth,” according to this interpretation, it unmistakably is not comprehensive in its truth.

Satan's Power and Influence

2009-05-31T22:49:00.006-05:00

While serving a mission in Ecuador, I encountered a handful of experiences that confirmed to me the reality and power of Satan. At least one experience is so sacred (or frightening?) that I have yet to recount the event in its fullest, even to those closest to me. I find that when I dwell on those experiences, I can literally feel the Spirit drain out of me. Therefore, I try to avoid relating those experiences, especially to the youth who curiously seem to be interested in such stories.

However, there are a few recorded experiences not of mine that I typically will share with those of a curious disposition. One experience is documented in the Life of Heber C. Kimball, while Orson Hyde, Heber, and five other missionaries were in England proselytizing. One of the missionaries, Joseph Fielding, had a brother, Reverend James Fielding, who allowed them to preach in his church. However, after several individuals believed the missionaries’ testimonies and asked to be baptized, Reverend Fielding no longer allowed them to preach in his chapel.

Nevertheless, the missionaries decided to hold a baptismal service in a nearby river on July 30, 1837. Heber C. Kimball described that “by this time the adversary of souls began to rage, and he felt determined to destroy us before we had fully established the kingdom of God in that land, and the next morning I witnessed a scene of satanic power and influence which I shall never forget” (Orson F. Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball (Salt Lake City: Kimball Family, 1888), p.129)(emphasis added).

The night before the service, the missionaries were attacked by a host of evil spirits. Elder Kimball recounts the experience as follows:

“‘Sunday, July 30th (1837), about daybreak, Elder Isaac Russell (who had been appointed to preach on the obelisk in Preston Square, that day), who slept with Elder Richards in Wilfred Street, came up to the third story, where Elder Hyde and myself were sleeping, and called out, ‘Brother Kimball, I want you should get up and pray for me that I may be delivered from the evil spirits that are tormenting me to such a degree that I feel I cannot live long, unless I obtain relief.’

“‘I had been sleeping on the back of the bed. I immediately arose, slipped off the foot of the bed, and passed around to where he was. Elder Hyde threw his feet out, and sat up in the bed, and we laid hands on him, I being mouth, and prayed that the Lord would have mercy on him, and rebuked the devil.’

“‘While thus engaged, I was struck with great force by some invisible power, and fell senseless on the floor. The first thing I recollect was being supported by Elders Hyde and Richards, who were praying for me. . . . Elder Hyde and Richards then assisted me to get on the bed, but my agony was so great I could not endure it, and I arose, bowed my knees and prayed. I then arose and sat up on the bed, when a vision was opened to our minds, and we could distinctly see the evil spirits, who foamed and gnashed their teeth at us. We gazed upon them about an hour and a half (by Willard’s watch). We were not looking towards the window, but towards the wall. Space appeared before us, and we saw the devils coming in legions with their leaders, who came within a few feet of us. They came towards us like armies rushing to a battle. They appeared to be men of full stature, possessing every form and feature of men in the flesh, who were angry and desperate; and I shall never forget the vindictive malignity depicted on their countenances as they looked me in the eye; and any attempt to paint the scene which then presented itself, or portray their malice and enmity, would be vain. . . . I cannot even look back on the scene without feelings of horror; yet by it I learned the power of the adversary, his enmity against the servants of God, and got some understanding of the invisible world. We distinctly heard those spirits talk and express their wrath and hellish designs against us’” (Id. at 130-131)(emphasis added).

Orson Hyde subsequently described the events of that day in a letter to Heber C. Kimball:

“‘Every circumstance that occurred at that scene of devils is just as fresh in my recollection at this moment as it was at the moment of its occurrence, and will ever remain so. After you were overcome by them and had fallen, their awful rush upon me with knives, threats, imprecations and hellish grins, amply convinced me that they were no friends of mine. While you were apparently senseless and lifeless on the floor and upon the bed (after we had laid you there) I stood between you and the devils and fought them and contended with them face to face, until they began to diminish in number and to retreat from the room. The last imp that left turned around and apologized to me as he was going out and said, as if to apologize, and appease my determined opposition to them, “I never said anything against you!” I replied to him thus: “It matter not to me whether you have or not; you are a liar from the beginning! In the name of Jesus Christ, depart!” He immediately left, and the room was clear. That closed the scene of devils for that time’” (Id.)(emphasis added).

After returning from his mission, Heber C. Kimball inquired of the Prophet Joseph Smith as to the reason for the manifestation and, particularly, if there was anything wrong with him. The Prophet replied that “No, Brother Heber, at that time you were nigh unto the Lord; there was only a veil between you and Him, but you could not see Him. When I heard of it, it gave me great joy, for I then knew that the work of God had taken root in that land. It was this that caused the devil to make a struggle to kill you. The nearer a person approaches the Lord, a greater power will be manifested by the adversary to prevent the accomplishment of His purposes” (Id. at 131-132)(emphasis added).

One Elder I personally knew during my mission was once “possessed” by an evil spirit that was ultimately cast out by our mission President. At the inquisitive age of 20, I wondered how a seemingly righteous missionary could be susceptible to such a satanic manifestation. Indeed, I had encountered others similarly situated while tracting, but these individuals were typically living a lifestyle that would invite such an influence. The question I then asked was how Satan is able to possess the bodies of the righteous?

Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote briefly on this issue:

“We cannot tell and do not know how it is that evil spirits – few or many – gain entrance into the bodies of mortal men. We do know that all things are governed by law, and that Satan is precluded from taking possession of [and destroying] the bodies of the prophets and other righteous people. Were it not so, the work of God would be thwarted – always and in all instances – for Lucifer leads the armies of hell against all men, and more especially against those who are instrumental in furthering the Lord’s work.

“There must be circumstances of depression and sin and physical weakness that, within the restrictions of divine control, permit evil spirits to enter human bodies” (McConkie, Mortal Messiah, 2:282)(emphasis added).

I cannot be certain that the Elder I knew was personally righteous, but it has always perplexed me as to how this Elder found himself in that situation. That being said, am I also susceptible to such forces? Are we all possessed by Satan’s power to some extent until we become whole in the Savior? If this is the case, then, isn’t most of the world in that state? What are a few of the things that bring one under Satan’s power? And how does the priesthood of God fit into all this?

“For they that come shall burn them….”

2009-05-17T21:30:00.002-05:00

On the night of September 21, 1823, the angel Moroni visited Joseph Smith in response to a prayer seeking “forgiveness of . . . sins and follies” (JSH 1:29). The Prophet was shockingly honest in admitting that it was fear of condemnation that brought him to his knees that night. Although letters published in the Messenger and Advocate by Oliver Cowdery reveal that an overall thirty texts from both the Old and New Testaments were part of Moroni’s instructions to the Prophet that night (Messenger and Advocate, 1:79-80), the Joseph Smith History recites just five of them.

One of the passages recited is Malachi 4:1 which reads in the King James Version (KJV): “For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts.” There is an interesting discrepancy between the KJV and the version Moroni quoted that night: “For behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly shall burn as stubble; for they that come shall burn them, saith the Lord of Hosts” (JSH 1:37).

The KJV harmonizes with 3 Nephi 25:1 and also in the James Mulholland manuscript, the earliest source for Joseph’s work. Mulholland was the prophet’s scribe during the period when he dictated this portion of his history. The manuscript was later revised, some of it after the Prophet’s death, and became the source for the History of the Church and the material now found in the Pearl of Great Price. This “revised” material includes the phrase “they that come shall burn them.” As far as I know, we are not sure if Joseph Smith or a later editor made this change.

However, the change seems to fit quite nicely into other revelations dealing with the destruction of the wicked in the last days. In Revelation 7:1, John sees “four destroying angels holding power over the four corners of the earth” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.321), who are “sent forth from God, to whom is given power over the four parts of the earth, to save life and to destroy; these are they who have the everlasting gospel to commit to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people; having power to shut up the heavens, to seal up unto life, or to cast down to the regions of darkness” (D&C 77:8).

In other words, these are the angels of heaven who Christ taught were to come in the authority of the Lord to separate the wheat from the tares and then burn the latter (Matt 13:39-41). These “angels are waiting the great command to reap down the earth, to gather the tares that they may be burned” (D&C 38:12). Indeed, “at that hour cometh an entire separation of the righteous and the wicked; and in that day will I send mine angels to pluck out the wicked and cast them into unquenchable fire” (D&C 63:54). “Behold, verily I say unto you, the angels are crying unto the Lord day and night, who are ready and waiting to be sent forth to reap down the fields” (D&C 86:5).

In 1879, Wilford Woodruff spoke concerning these angels:

“Wickedness and abominations of every kind have increased a hundredfold within the last few years, until the whole earth is filled with murders, whoredoms, blasphemies and every crime in the Black Catalogue that was manifest in the antediluvian world or Sodom and Gomorrah . . . the heavens weep and all eternity is pained and the angels are waiting the great command to go forth and reap down the earth. This testimony I bare to all nations under heaven and I know it is true by the inspirations of the Almighty God.” (Epistle of Wilford Woodruff, Millennial Star, April 21, 1879) (emphasis added).

Fifteen years later, after referring to D&C 86:5, he spoke these somber words:

“God has held the angels of destruction for many years, lest they should reap down the wheat with the tares. But I want to tell you now that those angels have left the portals of heaven and they stand over this people and this nation now . . . . And from this very day shall they be poured out.” (President Wilford Woodfruff, Temple Workers Excursion Salt Lake City Tabernacle Sunday, June 24 1894).

While we cannot be sure if the slight alteration to the text of Malachi 4:1 was intentional or not, it clearly agrees with ancient and modern revelation. All the same, whether it is the day that comes or the four destroying angels that come, the wicked will nonetheless eventually be burned.

Must the Gospel be Preached in ALL the World Before the 2nd Coming?

2009-05-09T12:19:00.003-05:00

“And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come” (Matt. 24:14)

A few weeks ago, President Obama eased a half-century American policy toward the communist nation of Cuba. Briefly, restrictions were lifted on Cuban-Americans who want to travel and send money to their island homeland. The broader U.S. trade embargo, however, remained unaffected.

Politics aside, this decision got me wondering about potential expansion of LDS missionary efforts into the Cuban island. Could this move by the Obama administration be a precursor to the Gospel being preached “in all the world”? On the other hand, in light of today’s expansive technological resources, is it even necessary to have a missionary force present in similarly situated countries? I see no reason why we couldn’t teach the missionary discussions via webcam since we have already set precedent by dedicating temples and other holy edifices via satellite.

Paul once stated that, since Christ’s death, the Gospel had been preached “in all the world,” when missionaries certainly had not reached all the known regions of the Earth, let alone the unknown inhabitants of the Americas. (See Col. 1:5-6) So, was Paul there referring to physical nations or that the Gospel had simply been extended to the two types of people representative of the world – i.e., Jews and Gentiles? Does a similar line of reason follow for the prophecies of the last days?

The question then becomes, does scripture or modern revelation support a vast missionary effort where our missionaries physically trod the soil of the various nations of all the Earth?

It is true that every person must have the opportunity to hear the gospel, either here or hereafter. In fact, eventually “the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 4:540).

Elder Bruce R. McConkie explained that before the Lord Jesus can return in glory, two things must take place:

“The first . . . is that the restored gospel is to be preached in every nation and among every people and to those speaking every tongue. Now there is one immediate reaction to this: Can’t we go on the radio and preach the gospel to . . . the nations of the earth? We certainly can, but that would have very little bearing on the real meaning of the revelation that says we must preach it to every nation, kindred, and people. The reason is the second thing that must occur before the Second Coming: The revelations expressly, specifically, and pointedly say that when the Lord comes the second time to usher in the millennial era, he is going to find, in every nation, kindred, and tongue, and among every people, those who are kings and queens, who will live and reign a thousand years on earth (Revelation 5:9-10).

“That is a significant statement that puts in perspective the preaching of the gospel to the world. Yes, we can go on the radio; we can proclaim the gospel to all nations by television or other modern invention. And to the extent that we can do it, so be it, it’s all to the good. But that’s not what is involved. What is involved is that the elders of Israel, holding the priesthood, in person have to trod the soil, eat in the homes of the people, figuratively put their arms around the honest in heart, feed them the gospel, and baptize them and confer the Holy Ghost upon them. Then these people have to progress and advance, and grow in the things of the Spirit, until they can go to the house of the Lord, until they can enter a temple of God and receive the blessings of the priesthood, out of which come the rewards of being kings and priests.

“The way we become kings and priests is through the ordinances of the house of the Lord. It is through celestial marriage; it is through the guarantees of eternal life and eternal increase that are reserved for the Saints in the temples. The promise is that when the Lord comes he is going to find in every nation and kindred, among every people speaking every tongue, those who will, at that hour of his coming, have already become kings and priests. . . . All this is to precede the Second Coming of the Son of Man” (quoted in Spencer J. Palmer, The Expanding Church [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co. (1978), 141-142).

Although some readers of this blog make it general practice to second guess controversial doctrinal topics explained by Elder McConkie (I admit I fall victim to this tendency also), he seems quite clear here. When Christ returns, He will return to a world where ALL nations include at least a handful of peopple who have obtained the promised blessings of the temple. Thus, opening up Cuba’s borders, according to McConkie’s reasoning and explanation, may in fact be a foreshadowing of the time when the Church opens the Havana, Cuba mission.

However, it does not follow that every person or even the majority of people must hear the gospel before the Second Coming. In fact, the great day of gathering – the day when millions upon millions will come into the fold of God – is millennial. According to Doctrine and Covenants 45: 50-54, the heathen nations will not be redeemed until the millennial era. Therefore, whether you lean toward the McConkie interpretation, or follow a more realist approach, the REAL great missionary effort will eventually take place during the Millennium under the direction of Christ Himself.

I would like to hear reader’s thoughts on McConkie’s statements above.

A Prophetic Voice During the Apostasy

2009-05-06T14:48:00.003-05:00

"The end of the law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all states of created beings capable of law, when there is no law, there is no freedom."

John Locke

"And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin."

2nd Nephi 2:13

Why Did Jesus Anoint with Spittle and Clay to Heal a Blind Man?

2009-04-25T12:57:00.003-05:00

While serving a mission in Ecuador, I was privileged to witness the healing of an elderly woman stricken with rheumatoid arthritis. She hadn’t been able to leave her bed for over six months. After having anointing her with consecrated oil, the local Elder’s Quorum President laid his hands upon her head and uttered a simple, but faith-filled sealing of the anointing. Later that evening, my companion and I saw her in a downtown park with her grandchildren, where she described to us how she literally felt the malady drain out of her body through her feet.

As Latter-day Saints, we follow James’ teachings on giving blessings: “Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick” (James 5:14-15). Consequently, James teaches a two-part ordinance; first anointing the afflicted with consecrated oil, and second sealing that anointing with a prayer of faith.

Knowing this procedure, it has always baffled me why the Savior would use spit and dirt to heal a man blinded from birth, as described in John 9. In another instance, Christ heals a man’s blindness at Bethsaida by simply spitting on his eyes and giving him a pair of priesthood blessings (see Mark 8:22-26).

With reference to the account in John, Jesus and his disciples encounter this man and the disciples query, “Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?” (John 9:2). This question apparently reveals the disciples’ understanding of a pre-existence. Christ answered saying, “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him” (John 9:3). In other words, in all His omniscience, God had arranged this man’s maladies in order to demonstrate the Master Healer’s miraculous power over the physical body; over life and death. Indeed, this man was foreordained from the counsels in heaven to be blind so that Christ’s power could be made manifest therein.

[NOTE: Lazarus’ death and subsequent “resurrection” likely had the same implication. Concerning his sickness that eventually ended in his death, Jesus said, “This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby” (John 11:4).]

“When he had thus spoken, he spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and he anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay” (John 9:6). The Savior, therefore, apparently fashions a make-shift mud pie out of some nearby dirt and his saliva, and subsequently coats the man’s eyes with it. He is then commanded to “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam” whereby he “washed, and came seeing” (John 9:7).

No consecrated oil, no laying on of hands, and apparently no prayer of faith. Yet the man was healed. So, what significance does the saliva or clay in the eyes serve for healing purposes?

I believe the Savior was teaching his disciples a much deeper lesson; one where he is typified as Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament and Creator of mankind. “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him” (Col. 1:16).

In the creation account from Genesis, Moses describes the entrance of mankind as follows:

“But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Gen. 2:6-7).

As Moses details, Jehovah symbolically used a bit of water and dust to fashion man’s body. Thoughts of a potter’s clay come to mind. Christ’s disciples were likely well aware of these verses, yet they may not have understood the symbolic nature taught therein. That is, until they saw Christ, or Jehovah in the flesh, “create” new eyes for this blind man using essentially the same props as described in Genesis.

What is just as important, I believe, is the spiritual blindness of the blind man that is concurrently remedied. When questioned by his neighbors about his miraculous healing, he first referred to Christ as “a man that is called Jesus” (John 9:11). Later, upon be interrogated by certain Pharisees, he states that “[Jesus] is a prophet” (John 9:17). Gradually, as he is repeatedly questioned and discredited by the Pharisees, his testimony grows to where he testifies that Jesus is of God (John 9:30-33). When lastly confronted by the Savior, the man exclaimed, “Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him” (John 9:38). Where he was once “spiritually” blind, he was now able to see and recognize his Lord and Savior.

Not unlike the blind man’s experience, Enoch was once commanded to “anoint thine eyes with clay, and wash them” whereby he “beheld the spirits that God had created; and he beheld also things which were not visible to the natural eye” (Moses 6:35-36). Thus, Enoch’s eyes were opened as his spiritual blindness was alleviated.

I’m not entirely sure why clay was used in Enoch’s case, but the lesson still remains. All of us have need to be cured of our spiritual blindness so that we may clearly see God’s plan.

The Seven Deadly Heresies - Part 6 (The Adam/God Theory)

2009-04-10T11:01:00.005-05:00

It really has been a long time since I posted something substantive. Seriously, it has been about six or seven months. Now that I have gotten around to it, I want to continue from the previous postings of The Seven Deadly Heresies series from last year. As in previous posts, the Seven Deadly Heresies are taken from Elder Bruce R. McConkie's (in)famous talk (see here).

Effectively speaking, we are really on the downhill part of our clime after BRM took on blasphemies like organic evolution, eternal progression of God, and second chance salvation. Without further adieu, Elder McConkie's sixth heresy:

Heresy six: There are those who believe or say they believe that Adam is our father and our god, that he is the father of our spirits and our bodies, and that he is the one we worship.

The devil keeps this heresy alive as a means of obtaining converts to cultism. It is contrary to the whole plan of salvation set forth in the scriptures, and anyone who has read the Book of Moses, and anyone who has received the temple endowment, has no excuse whatever for being led astray by it. Those who are so ensnared reject the living prophet and close their ears to the apostles of their day. "We will follow those who went before," they say. And having so determined, they soon are ready to enter polygamous relationships that destroy their souls.

We worship the Father, in the name of the Son, by the power of the Holy Ghost; and Adam is their foremost servant, by whom the peopling of our planet was commenced.

The source of the Adam/God theory comes from this Brigham Young quote:

Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, the thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal.

Simply a Misreading?

I see some major issues with the simple approach by some apologists that BY was simply misunderstood. First, BY expected his associates to accept the doctrine or at least sit back and not complain if that person did not agree. Of the well-known conflicts between BY and Orson Pratt, the Adam-God theory was contentious.

In a great article by the Journal of Mormon Thought, Volume 13 Number 2, Summer 1980, page 13, the battle lines are drawn out:

The President took issue with Pratt's acceptance of Adam's having been created out of the dust of this earth. Young maintained "Adam came from another world & brought Eve with him partook of the fruits of the Earth begat children & they ware Earthly & had mortal bodies & if we are faithful we should become Gods as [Adam] was." Apostle Wilford Woodruff recorded that President "told Brother Pratt to lay aside his Philosofical reasoning & get revelation from God to govern & enlighten his mind more...[he] said [Pratt's] Phylosophy injured him in a measure...."

Pratt was not the only unwilling member to embrace certain of Young's views. Yet his calling as an Apostle placed him at the forefront of dissent. Following a strong Adam-God statement delivered during the October 1854 General Conference, one member observed, "[T]here were some that did not believe the sayings of the Prophet Brigham. Even our beloved Brother Orson Pratt told me he did not believe it."

Secondly, BY also claimed in the Deseret News, 18 June 1873, p. 308, that he was taught the doctrine by Joseph Smith.

How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me—namely that Adam is our Father and God—I do not know, I do not inquire, I care nothing about it. Our Father Adam helped to make this earth, it was created expressly for him, and after it was made he and his companions came here. He brought one of his wives with him, and she was called Eve, because she was the first woman upon the earth. Our Father Adam is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to all his children who have or who ever will come upon the earth. I have been found fault with by the ministers of religion because I have said that they were ignorant. But I could not find any man on the earth who could tell me this, although it is one of the simplest things in the world, until I met and talked with Joseph Smith.

Current State of the Doctrine

Besides Elder McConkie's statements from The Seven Deadly Heresies, we have this statement from President Spencer W. Kimball from the October 1976 General Conference:

We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.

Now for the crux of this post. Based on my reading, BY claimed that he received this truth from Joseph Smith and by revelation. Spencer W. Kimball as successor with the appropriate keys as prophet, seer, and revelator, discredited the doctrine. My questions are (1) If Brigham Young did receive this by revelation, then where does this leave us?; (2) Does Spencer W. Kimball's use of priesthood keys take precedent?; (3) Is there any way that we can reconcile the two sides?; (4) Is it possible that we just don't know and the revelations as now received are not clear on this point? I say this under the assumption that many of our current methods of instruction are symbolic in nature (the temple).

For more information, check out fairwiki.org as a great source for other theories.

The Science Behind Biblical Creation (Part 2 of 2)

2009-04-05T18:05:00.010-05:00

The following comrises part 2 of my comments regarding how the Biblical creation account may fit into what modern science today teaches about Earth's history. In Part 1, I commented on the First through the Third Creationary Periods. Below, I have included thoughts on the Fourth through the Sixth Creationary Periods.

[NOTE: Since I am neither an astrophysicist nor a biologist, I have placed my scientific references at the bottom of this post]

The Fourth Period – The Appearance of the Sun, Moon, and Stars

“And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; . . . And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so” (Gen. 1:14-15)

As explained previously, once the fusion of hydrogen and helium in the sun had commenced, light pressure gradually drove out the remaining gases and astro-dust of the original cloud from which the solar system was formed. Once driven out, the various heavenly bodies we see today progressivley became visible. During this period, the positions and motions of the various heavenly bodies were arranged to provide light, heat, and a means of keeping track of time.

The Fifth Period – The Creation of Sea Animals and Birds

“And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven” (Gen. 1:20).

In significant agreement with scriptural accounts, both plant and animal life first appeared in the oceans. Once oxygen levels reached about 5% of our present value around 800 million years ago, more complex multicellular life besides cyanobacteria and green algae began to appear. About 600 million years ago there was a rapid increase in higher forms of life, and by 590 million years ago exoskeletal animals such as trilobites, brachiopods, and shelled mollusks appeared. Around 145 million years ago the first aviary species appeared.

The Sixth Period – The Creation of Land Animals and Man

“And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so” (Gen. 1:24)

The weathering of rocks on the Earth’s surface eventually produced soil to establish land plants that would one day provide food and oxygen for the land animals. Fossil records indicate that about 370 million years ago amphibian species appeared, while 20 million years later the earliest reptiles were present. Twenty 20 million years after that mammal-like reptiles emerged. Winged insects appeared around 310 million years ago, followed by dinosaurs around 240 million years ago. It wasn’t until 90 million years ago that marsupials, or placental animals (animals that develop their young in either a pouch, womb, or placenta), appeared.

Is is well documented, around 65 million years ago there was a period of mass extinction in which the dinosaurs and many other kinds of life disappeared. Some scientists believe this was the result of a massive asteroid crashing into our Earth’s surface. Interestingly, fossil records also indicate about 250 million years ago there was another massive extinction event. About 62 million years ago the first primates appeared. Rodents arrived on the scene about 45 million years ago, and hominids (man-like creatures) about 19 million years ago.

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Gen 1:26). Laying religion aside for the moment, from the scientific perspective, the first appearance of fossilized remains of homo sapiens (human beings) seems to have been about 125,000 years ago.

Sources:
Emiliani, Cesare, “The Scientific Companion,” New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1988.

Rich, Patricia V., Thomas Hewitt Rich, Mildred Adams Fenton, and Carroll Lane Fenton, “The Fossil Book, A Record of Prehistoric Life,” 2d rev. ed. Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1996.

Zeilik, Michael, Stephen A. Gregory, and Elske V. Smith, “Introductory Astronomy and Astrophysics,” 3d ed. New York: Saunders College Publishing, 1992.

The Science Behind Biblical Creation (Part 1 of 2)

2009-04-05T17:23:00.009-05:00

I tend to lean towards Abraham’s interpretation of the creation found in Abraham 4, wherein the Gods continually “prepared” or “organized” the several elements so that they might subsequently “bring forth” the desired outcome. Thus, in my opinion, Abraham teaches that the Gods did not simply snap their fingers and BAM! there is a whale or a mountain. Instead, they allowed things to progress according to the laws of nature and watched them until they obeyed correctly.

I recently read a post on Mormon Insights that does a good job of relating current scientific information to the Genesis creation account. Before reading the post I had been studying almost parallel to this line of reasoning and had encountered several interesting tidbits of information not shared by S.Faux (author of Mormon Insights). To merely add to what S.Faux has already laid out, I have separated the Six Creationary Periods and commented briefly on each to demonstrate that we may continue to believe in the creation story from the Bible and still accept what science has to offer. Because of the length, I will divide my comments into two separate posts. Below I have posted comments for the First through the Third Creationary period.

[NOTE: Since I am neither an astrophysicist nor a biologist, I have placed my scientific references at the bottom of this post]

PREFACE: The Bible is not a scientific treatise and should not be treated as such. However, as Brigham Young said, “The idea that the religion of Christ is one thing, and science is another, is a mistaken idea, for there is no true religion without true science, and consequently there is no true science without true religion” (JD, 17:35). Our emphasis, of course, must rest on true science and true religion. With this in mind, whenever there seems to be a conflict between the two, the revealed word of God must take precedence. In that same vein, however, we must be careful in our interpretation of revealed truth that we not “wrest the scriptures,” as Peter warns (2 Pet. 3:16), and attempt to draw conclusions that are not warranted.

The First Period – The Formation of our Solar System

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1)

Using the most recent scientific dating techniques, scientists postulate that some 4.7 billion years ago there was a large cloud of dust and gas which began to rotate and collapse upon itself because of the mutual and intense gravitational forces present in the gas molecules and dust particles. Astrophysicists believe that this rotation may have been stimulated by the shock wave of a nearby supernova.

As the gas and dust cloud began to collapse, it gradually became denser and eventually blocked out the light completely, therefore, “darkness was upon the face of the deep” (Gen. 1:2). Interestingly enough, today we see these dark clouds in which infrared telescopes show the process of the formation of new stars. One example of this is the Horse Head Nebula as shown at the right. As the cloud continued to collapse upon itself, regions at the center became especially dense and gradually increased the overall temperature to the point where it was able to sustain nuclear fusion and result in what we know today as our sun.

“And God said, Let there be light: and there was light” (Gen. 1:3). Note that this light is not the same as spoken of in the fourth period. Instead, the creation of light during the first period may refer to the commencement of nuclear fusion in the core of the sun. Ever wonder why it took until the fourth period for the various “lights in the firmament of the heaven” (Gen. 1:14) to become visible? One explanation may be that it took some time before the incident light pressures of the sun could disperse the dark clouds of gas and dust by which the solar system was formed.

Smaller regions of high density distant from the sun eventually formed the planets of our solar system; and likely the comets and asteroids we can see. This Earth too was formed in the cloud of gas and dust. The decay of radioactive elements produced a rapid internal heating, which drove off the initial atmosphere of hydrogen and inert gases and subsequently melted the entire planet. In due time, the lighter materials rose to the surface to ultimately form the crust of the Earth, and the denser materials sank to form the molten nickel-iron core. Scientists postulate that the earth began to cool, and by about 3.7 billion years ago, the first continents appeared and plate tectonics began.

The Second Period – The Formation of the Atmosphere

“And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters” (Gen. 1:6)

The second period describes the formation of the earth’s atmosphere. About 4 billion years ago, volcanic activity caused by interior heating in the earth’s crust created an atmosphere containing gaseous water, methane, ammonia, sulfur dioxide, and carbon dioxide. Ocean floors were formed by large objects crashing into the Earth’s crust, and ultimately the Earth’s surface cooled enough for water to condense and rain to fall and fill in the oceans – “And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so” (Gen. 1:7).

Ozone was also formed during this period and filters out harmful ultraviolet light. Since ultraviolet light is lethal to most organisms, our ozone layer allows life to flourish. Also protecting the Earth’s surface is the electromagnetic field produced by its rotating liquid nickel-iron core. The field deflects the steady stream of harmful charged particles coming from the sun; i.e. solar wind and Van Allen radiation belts.

The Third Period – The Formation of the Oceans, the Continents, and Plant Life

“And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so” (Gen. 1:9).

Besides the great basins being formed by the infall of asteroids or other heavenly objects, plate tectonics served to fashion the Earth’s surface to allow for both ocean and dry land. As the various continental plates collided with each other, mountain ranges formed; a process that continues today.

When the Earth was first formed, it was far from being a favorable environment for life. The atmosphere, although consisting in great measure of carbon dioxide, hydrogen, sulfur, methane, etc, was lacking oxygen. “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so” (Gen. 1:11). Plants are the obvious thing to place first because of their ability to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen, thus preparing the earth for animal life.

Cyanobacteria, the oldest fossils dating back to 3.5 billion years ago, likely appeared first. The process of photosynthesis by the cyanobacteria began to release oxygen into the atmosphere. About 1.5 billion years ago, green algae, a more efficient photosynthesizer, began to appear. Land plants appeared much later, some 420 million years ago. The first appearance of flowering plants was not until about 120 million years ago, and grasses are not found until around 57 million years ago.

TO BE CONTINUED...

Sources:
Emiliani, Cesare, “The Scientific Companion,” New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1988.

Rich, Patricia V., Thomas Hewitt Rich, Mildred Adams Fenton, and Carroll Lane Fenton, “The Fossil Book, A Record of Prehistoric Life,” 2d rev. ed. Mineola, New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1996.

Zeilik, Michael, Stephen A. Gregory, and Elske V. Smith, “Introductory Astronomy and Astrophysics,” 3d ed. New York: Saunders College Publishing, 1992.

Predictions for New Apostle

2009-04-03T10:25:00.003-05:00

As J. Golden Kimball used to say, and I am paraphrasing, one becomes a leader in the church through revelation or relation. With that thought in mind, I wanted to open the speculation for the newest member of the 12 to be announced tomorrow morning. Some of the strong candidates that I can think of are:

Kim Clark - President of BYU-Idaho, and President of Harvard Business School. Good PR.
Cecil Samuelson - President of BYU-Provo
Marlin Jensen - Church Historian
Richard Hinckley - I believe he is a 70 and there's nothing like being related to a former President
Yoshihiko Kikuchi - Potential first Apostle from Asia
Carlos Asay - or some other 70 from Latin America
Frank Vinceguerra - hymn passer-outer, home teacher and first to testify every fast Sunday in Concord, NH ward

I think that there is another Oaks in there too but I am not sure on his chances. Any other guesses?

Mossad, 9/11 and.....Mormons?

2009-04-02T16:24:00.002-05:00

In case you need an afternoon laugh to get you through the day, check out this OpEd piece from the self-proclaimed cause of the 1978 revelation on the priesthood.

You are welcome for the laugh.

Where Did the Book of Abraham Come From?

2009-03-31T22:39:00.008-05:00

Upon entering the MTC, I was “issued,” among other books, “A Marvelous Work and a Wonder,” by LeGrand Richards. It was an amazing book to read, and it opened my eyes to many new gospel truths. After time, however, I realized that at least a few things are erroneously taught therein.

For example, in the book, Richards gives a brief history of how Joseph Smith acquired the papyrus to translate the Book of Abraham. He explains how a man named Michael Chandler inherited several mummies from his uncle, a French explorer named Antonio Lebolo. Upon accepting the Egyptian relics in New York City, Chandler discovered numerous rolls of papyri therewith and was allegedly told by “a stranger” that he should “seek out the Mormon Prophet, Joseph Smith, as probably the only man who could render a correct translation of the ancient manuscripts.” (A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, LeGrand Richards, pg. 404) Richards continues to describe how Chandler sold the artifacts to the Prophet and how they eventually fell victim to the great fire of Chicago in 1871. I can’t begin to count how many times during and after my mission I had taught this story as I learned from Richards' book.

In 2001, however, I attended a lecture on the Book of Abraham at BYU, where Dr. John Gee briefly mentioned a few historical differences that I had never heard before and were not mentioned in Richards’ book. After his presentation I approached him and asked him about the contradictions - he opened my mind to the real story.

While most of the facts and information remain true today, Richards erred in a few respects. First, Chandler certainly was not of any relation to Lebolo, and Lebolo was not French but Italian. Chandler was simply a salesman who took advantage of an opportunity to make money by touring the northeast with mystic Egyptian artifacts. Secondly, as a salesman, Chandler purposefully crafted a sensational story of how he happened upon the artifacts, and how he was directed to seek out a Prophet of God. In reality, there was no “stranger” at the port of New York City, but it made Chandler’s story more appealing to the early Saints.

Lastly, because Richards’ book was printed in 1950, it did not contain the most significant change to the storyline wherein the LDS Church ultimately acquired 11 of the original papyri originally owned by Joseph in 1967. These 11 fragments are today in the exclusive possession of the Church and have been extensively translated and studied.

The following is, to my current knowledge, an accurate timeline of the acquisition, loss, and rediscovery of the Book of Abraham (or at least a portion thereof):

- 1818-1822: Antonio Lebolo worked as superintendent of the archeological excavations in Upper Egypt for the French consul general, Bernardino Drovetti. During this period he discovered 11 mummies in a tomb in Thebes.
- 1822: Lebolo returned to his native town of Castellamonte, Italy, taking these mummies with him. Sometime between then and his death, he arranged with the Albano Oblasser Shipping Company in Trieste to sell the 11 mummies.
- 1830: Antonio Lebolo dies. The 11 mummies are subsequently shipped to New York City to be sold.
- 1833: Michael H. Chandler purchases the mummies either for himself or acting as an agent for others. Chandler unwraps the mummies and discovered several papyri therein.

“On opening the coffins,” the Prophet Joseph Smith tells us, “[Chandler] discovered that in connection with two of the bodies, was something rolled up with the same kind of linen, saturated with the same bitumen, which when examined, proved to be two rolls of papyrus.” These rolls of papyrus were beautifully written “with black, and a small part red, ink or paint, in perfect preservation.”

- 1833-1835: Chandler travels throughout the northeastern United States displaying the mummies and selling one now and then as opportunity arose.
- 1835 (July): Chandler arrives in Kirtland, OH, to display the mummies and papyri there. At this point he only has 4 mummies left. Due to Smith's notoriety and claim to have translated the golden plates of the Book of Mormon, Chandler asks Joseph Smith to look at the scrolls and give some insight into what was written on them. The Prophet takes an interest in the papyri and purchases them and the mummies for $2400 (approx. $60,500 in 2008). Joseph chipped in $1800, Simeon Andrews $800, and Joseph Coe $800. Joseph stated:

“... with W.W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc. — a more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them.” (History of the Church, vol. 2, pg 236.)

- 1844: Joseph Smith dies. Sometime after Joseph’s death, Emma marries Lewis C. Bidamon. The mummies and papyri remain in the possession of his mother, Lucy Smith, until her death. They display the artifacts in Nauvoo for an admission price for some time.
- 1856 (May): Lucy Smith dies on the 14th, and on the 26th Emma Smith Bidamon sells the artifacts to Abel Combs. Ten weeks Combs sells two of the mummies and some of the papyri to the St. Louis Museum.
- 1863 (July): The St. Louis Museum was closed and its collection moved to the Chicago Museum.
- 1864: The Chicago museum is sold to Joseph H. Wood, and renamed as Wood’s Museum.
- 1871: The 2 mummies and the papyri were destroyed in the great fire of Chicago.

Contrary to what LeGrand Richards claims in "A Marvelous Work and a Wonder," Abel Combs had, in fact, not sold all of the papyri to the St. Louis museum but had kept some pieces that had broken off the main rolls and were later mounted in picture frames. When Combs died, he willed these papyri to his housekeeper, Charlotte Weaver Huntsman, who had nursed him during his final illness before his death. When Charlotte died, her daughter, Alice Combs Weaver Heusser, inherited the fragments.

- 1918: Alice Heusser approached the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art with some papyri in her possession; the museum declined to accept them. Alice later dies and the papyri are inherited by her husband, Edward Heusser.
- 1947: Edward Heusser sells the papyri to the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art.
- 1966 (May): Aziz Suryal Atiya, a non-LDS distinguished professor of history at the University of Utah, discovered 11 papyri fragments in the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art archives when he recognized one as the vignette known as Facsmile No. 1 from the Pearl of Great Price.
- 1967: An anonymous donation to the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art made it possible for the LDS church to acquire the papyri.

The 11 papyri fragments that the LDS Church has in its possession today came from 3 separate rolls containing ancient Egyptian religious texts:

1) A Book of Breathings – A sort of abbreviated Book of the Dead, that belonged to a man named Hor the son of Usirwer.
2) A Book of the Dead – Belonging to Tshemmin, the daughter of Eschkons
3) A Book of the Dead – Belonging to a woman named Neferirnub.

Although not found among the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Prophet also owned a third Book of the Dead belonging to Amenhotep son of Tanub, and the hypocephalus (Facsimile 2), that belonged to a man named Sheshonq.

(NOTE: The picture accompanying this text is extant papyri showing the original vignette considered to be the source of Facsimile 1)

Was “Adam’s Transgression” Actually a Sin?

2009-03-22T21:43:00.003-05:00

“This was a transgression of the law, but not a sin in the strict sense, for it was something Adam and Eve had to do” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:115).

Most Latter-day Saints have either taught or heard the distinction between Adam’s partaking of the forbidden fruit as a “transgression” rather than a “sin.” We even have an Article of Faith that states that we will not be punished for “Adam’s transgression,” instead of “Adam’s sin” (AofF 2). This belief has been a longstanding point of criticism by those not of our faith who contend that failure to abide by any of God's laws inherently constitutes sin.

As explanation, the LDS typically qualify Adam’s actions as a transgression of the law and not a sin, since he had no knowledge of good or evil. It has also been explained, by some, that Adam’s actions constitute a transgression and not a sin because he was the recipient of two conflicting commandments, where one commandment would have to be broken to fulfill the other. Since he was compelled to violate one command to fulfill the other, God could hardly hold him accountable for this as a sin.

Elder Bruce R. McConkie taught that “the use of the term transgression lays emphasis on the violation of the law or rule involved, whereas the term sin points up the wilful nature of the disobedience” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 804). In the present context, does this mean that Adam was incapable of willful disobedience in the Garden of Eden and thereby incapable of sinning? We know that Adam was specifically told not to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and, presumably, he willfully disobeyed that command.

In their arsenal of attack, critics typically use the above-quoted reference by Joseph Fielding Smith in conjunction with 1 John 3:4 wherein John teaches that “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” James further distinguishes this concept when he said, “therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin” (James 4:17). Does this mean that sin is only a sin when the person is aware of goodness, yet denies it? Until he partook of the fruit, according to the account in Genesis, Adam did not know the difference between good and evil (right or wrong). Therefore, James’ definition of sin apparently parallels the LDS explanation.

In the Bible, the fall of Adam is almost universally referred to as a transgression. In fact, the first time the Bible even mentions sin is in context with Cain, the first biblically attested transgression after mankind knew the difference between good and evil. In the only instance in which Adam’s action is referred to as a sin, it is concurrently referred to as an offence and a transgression:

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

One may assume, therefore, that Paul used these terms interchangeably. This is further bolstered by Paul's reference to Judas' obvious sin as a transgression as found in Acts 1:25.

What is more, several Old Testament passages consistently refer to, on the one hand, one’s sins and, on the other hand, to their transgressions, thus illustrating a clear difference between the two. For example, Psalms 25:7 states “Remember not the sins of my youth, nor my transgressions,” and Joshua 24:19 states “he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins.” Therefore, biblical writers consistently either used the terms interchangeably or specifically made reference to both as distinct nouns.

Critics of the Church take special issue with the LDS belief of conflicting commandments in the Garden. The one, “Be fruitful, and multiply” (Gen. 1:28), could be fulfilled only if Adam and Eve were mortal, since before the Fall (for whatever reason) they were incapable of having children (see Moses 5:11, 2 Ne. 2:23). Yet they were commanded not to partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 3:3), which was the only way to become mortal.

Although the eternal plan for the salvation and exaltation of God’s children required a mortal existence in a situation where there was opposition, God, being perfect, could not place Adam and Eve into such an imperfect, fallen world. They had to make that choice for themselves, or else God would have effectively limited their agency.

In any event, the key point here is that Adam and Eve knowingly disobeyed a commandment of God. Were their actions in accordance with the divine plan and, therefore, not a sin but a transgression? Or do you adhere to the strict interpretation found in 1 John 3:4?

Wednesday Afternoon Poll - Is Osama bin Laden Right?

2009-03-12T10:22:00.006-05:00

Is Osama bin Laden correct that he and other Middle Easterners have a legitimate grievance against the West? ( surveys)

This is going into a more random topic that has come to my thoughts lately. I will try to keep it brief.

With the recent worldwide economic problems, we seem to have forgotten about the long-bearded one, Osama bin Laden. The financial crisis, however, actually makes me think more about him. For some time now, he has waged his war against the West, knowing that he will not win on the battlefield, but can win in the pocketbook. He learned this from his experience in fighting an expensive Soviet incursion into Afghanistan in the 1980's, bankrolled by the US taxpayer of course.

I am sure that at this moment, Bin Laden thinks he has us on the run. And if he were standing in front of most of our banks, he would definitely be right that if they weren't on the run, there is most likely going to be a run on them (I just came up with that in like five seconds, seriously!). This leads me to wonder more about his cause.

In 1999, before Bin Laden became the bogeyman of the American imagination, he granted an interview with ABC to discuss his grievances with the West and the recent attacks on US Embassies in East Africa. In this and other interviews he has conducted, Bin Laden has highlighted his main grievances as:

1) Foreign armies (comprised of Christians and Jews) in the land of the two Holy cities, namely Mecca and Medina. Of course he speaks of the US base in Saudi Arabia. According to a moderate Arab friend of mine, this is to a Muslim what having a Muslim army located in Temple Square would be to a Mormon.

2) Support of Israel. I don't think I need to go here, but the last incursion into Gaza didn't do Israel any public relations favors. Yes, they certainly have the right to defend themselves, but responding to rock throwing with an F-15 is not going to win you sympathy points. Let's leave this out of the comments for argument unless it is a substantive comment.

3) Exploitation and death of Muslims. By supporting corrupt regimes who brutalize their own people (i.e. Egypt, Algeria, etc.) for cheap oil, the US is attacking Muslims, or so he says. Our most recent stroll into Iraq, on faulty premises, doesn't exactly help the West's denial of these points.

So, (and I am finally getting to my point) does Osama bin Laden have a legitimate grievance. Perhaps he does. But does this excuse horrific violence of innocent people? Or is he to us what American Colonists were to George III?

See also this article from CNN about an al-Jazeera interview from 2004 where he states that he wants to bankrupt America. I guess that's not hard when we do all the work for him. Well played Osama, well played.

Impending Earth-Shattering Calamity?

2009-03-08T21:22:00.005-05:00

I usually don’t peruse non-LDS blogs, but this one caught my attention – mainly because it was a featured article on the DrudgeReport. Apparently, David Wilkerson, a respected pastor and founder of a Christian ministry to New York City teens, has recently predicted an imminent "earth-shattering calamity" centered in New York City. He describes this in more detail on his personal blog.

Wilkerson warns that this calamity, which will be so frightening that "we are all going to tremble – even the godliest among us," will spread to major urban areas across the country and around the world – part of what he sees as a judgment from God.

"It will engulf the whole megaplex, including areas of New Jersey and Connecticut. Major cities all across America will experience riots and blazing fires – such as we saw in Watts, Los Angeles, years ago. There will be riots and fires in cities worldwide. There will be looting – including Times Square, New York City. What we are experiencing now is not a recession, not even a depression. We are under God’s wrath. In Psalm 11 it is written, 'If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do?'"

While I feign to espouse Wilkerson’s thoughts completely, his words do remind me of a statement made by Wilford Woodruff who addressed a conference in Logan, Utah, on 22 August 1863. Speaking directly to the youth in attendance, he declared:

"Now, my young friends, I wish you to remember these scenes you are witnessing during the visit of President Young and his brethren. Yea, my young friends, treasure up the teachings and sayings of these prophets and apostles as precious treasure while they are living men, and do not wait until they are dead. A few days and President Young and his brethren, the prophets and apostles and Brothers Benson and Maughn, will be in the spirit world. You should never forget this visitation. You are to become men and women, fathers and mothers; yea, the day will come, after your fathers, and these prophets and apostles are dead, you will have the privilege of going into the towers of a glorious Temple built unto the name of the Most High (pointing in the direction of the bench), east of us upon the Logan bench; and while you stand in the towers of the Temple and your eyes survey this glorious valley filled with cities and villages, occupied by tens of thousands of Latter-day Saints, you will then call to mind this visitation of President Young and his company. You will say: That was in the days when Presidents Benson and Maughn presided over us; that was before New York was destroyed by an earthquake; it was before Boston was swept into the sea, by the sea heaving itself beyond its bounds; it was before Albany was destroyed by fire; yea, at that time you will remember the scenes of this day. Treasure them up and forget them not."

President Young followed and said: "What Brother Woodruff has said is revelation and will be fulfilled." (In Lundwall, Temples of the Most High, pp. 97-98.)

Elder Woodruff’s talk was based, at least in part, on D&C 84:114 which says: “Nevertheless, let the bishop go unto the city of New York, also to the city of Albany, and also to the city of Boston, and warn the people of those cities with the sound of the gospel, with a loud voice, of the desolation and utter abolishment which await them if they do reject these things.” Shortly after this revelation was received, the Prophet Joseph Smith accompanied Bishop Newel K. Whitney on a hurried journey to Albany, New York City, and Boston.

While in New York City the Prophet wrote Emma a few of his thoughts upon seeing the great city. Joseph noted the great buildings and material achievements of the city for which he said the Lord could not be displeased: "only aganst man is the anger of the Lord Kindled because they Give him not the Glory." He warned that "their iniquites shall visited upon their heads and their works shall be burned up with unquenchable fire." Joseph found repulsive the worldliness he saw beneath the surface: "nothing but the dress of the people makes them look fair and butiful all is deformity their is something in every countinance that is disagreable with few exceptions." Nevertheless, he refused to condemn these people prematurely, saying, "When I reflect upon this great city like Ninevah not desearning their right hand from their left yea more than two hundred souls my bowels is filled with compasion towards them and I am determined to lift up my voice in this City and leave the Event with God." (The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, pp. 252-253)

The Prophet wrote that in 1832. I wonder what he would say about New York City today. . .

I believe we have already reached the point of impending destruction as we learned from President Woodruff: “Wickedness and abominations of every kind have increased a hundredfold within the last few years, until the whole earth is filled with murders, whoredoms, blasphemies and every crime in the Black Catalogue that was manifest in the antediluvian world or Sodom and Gomorrah . . . the heavens weep and all eternity is pained and the angels are waiting the great command to go forth and reap down the earth. This testimony I bare to all nations under heaven and I know it is true by the inspirations of the Almighty God.” (Epistle of Wilford Woodruff, Millennial Star, April 21, 1879.)

The angels spoken of by President Woodruff are the same four destroying angels seen by John in his Revelation. See Rev. 7:1.

Fifteen years later, in reference to D&C 86:5, he spoke these somber words: “God has held the angels of destruction for many years, lest they should reap down the wheat with the tares. But I want to tell you now that those angels have left the portals of heaven and they stand over this people and this nation now . . . . And from this very day shall they be poured out.” (President Wilford Woodfruff, Temple Workers Excursion Salt Lake City Tabernacle Sunday, June 24 1894.)

I would like to hear your thoughts on whether you think something (i.e., a catastrophe, pandemic, etc.) will strike our nation. If so, when do you believe this will occur? Do you believe there are things that still need to come to pass before we have our “destruction made sure”? Do you think this economic crisis has anything to do with it?

Tuesday Afternoon Poll - Evolution and the Restored Gospel

2009-03-03T16:06:00.005-06:00

Do you believe that evolution is consistent with the restored Gospel? ( polls)

Evolution in the Gospel was touched on briefly in an earlier post and its comments.

Are we Latter Day Pharisees?

2009-02-28T15:07:00.006-06:00

The Seer Stone is pleased to announce an addition to its authorship. Nate also attended law school with us and is a practicing attorney, therefore making the Seer Stone a tri-fecta of overhanded lawyers in the Houston, Dallas, Austin triangle. We anxiously look forward to his posts and insights. -The Seer Stone-

LDS Teachings and the Culture/Doctrine Divide, Part I

Over the past two years I have served as a ward missionary and have also been assigned to teach the Gospel Principles class. While teaching this class, I have found that it is very important to become acutely aware of the differences between actual church doctrine versus what I will refer to as church cultural teachings. It is especially important to be able to explain these differences to new converts/investigators, as they may become easily offended by an offhand remark which, although is usually well intentioned, is negatively received.

One example comes from a class I attended on the subject of keeping the Sabbath day holy. The lesson manual discusses the principle of keeping the Sabbath and stresses that the saints should prayerfully consider their actions, and come to their own conclusions regarding appropriate activities. Understandably, new converts (and maybe some life-long members which we will not name) might not be the type of people that roll out of bed, put on their church clothes, and then read scriptures until their 1:00 PM meetings begin. As such, comments in class regarding the only proper Sabbath observance (from the type of person that won’t eat chocolate because it has caffeine – which is expressly forbidden by the word of wisdom?) can sometimes be counterproductive and even damaging…especially to people who are in need of fellowship.

There are a host of principles that we are meant to prayerfully consider and come to our own conclusions about, e.g. aspects regarding tithing, fasting, fast offerings, word of wisdom, R-rated movies, etc. These teachings are in perfect accord with Joseph Smith’s statement made when commenting on how he is able to govern such a large amount of people in harmony, he simply said: “I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.” (“The Organization of the Church,” Millennial Star, Nov. 15, 1851, 339). Clearly, according to the scriptures we should not need to be commanded in all things (see D&C 58:26). However, if we were to combine church cultural teachings with doctrine, I submit that it would nearly be as though we are “commanded” in all things.

I am certain that we all know of many good members that are a little “looser” on some principles than others, and we have no doubt that they are still pinnacles of integrity. Why is it then, that some members of the church often come off as being --- for lack of a better word --- pharisaical, when it comes to these principles? (on a side note, if you agree that this can happen…is it necessarily a bad thing?) I think it is clear how this happens. We hear certain teachings in, for example, a conference talk. We happen to respect, and maybe even love the person talking. And while these teachings are not “doctrine” per se, they still may be true, or they at least contain truth.

For example, President Hinckley, a man that I personally stand in awe of any time I contemplate his life, gave his ‘body is a temple’ talk a few years back. In this talk he drew very clear bright line rules: no tattoos, 1 pair of earrings for girls, none for guys, etc. These guidelines are now even published in the current For the Strength of Youth pamphlet (which has First Presidency acceptance…and as a result is most likely regarded as doctrine by most members, youth leaders, bishops, etc.). I see how these guidelines are wise, but when it comes down to it, if it is not some sort of a defilement of your body to poke a hole in your ear if you are a girl…how is it different if you are a guy? It makes me wonder: was President Hinckley having a ‘thus saith the Lord’ moment, or is it more likely that a 90 year old man who grew up in a different era and thinks that kids these days look dumb…just like his own mother/step mother might have thought about him (remember the videos of the Beetles where parents thought they were punks for their long hair; and don’t get me started on that Elvis guy and his provocative dancing). I would argue that it is much more likely the latter. However, if not already, give it one more generation and this will be seen as rock solid doctrine and non-compliance will be frowned on at the least (it is getting that way now for white shirts, facial hair for leaders, etc.).

So, what do you think? Are LDS people fostering a culture that is potentially damaging to its members and investigators? Are we on a path where we will look at certain qualities in a person and make judgments based on cultural quasi-doctrine?

In my next segment, I will focus on a particular doctrine (the Word of Wisdom) and illustrate the cultural modifications of its principles, and show in what ways we have potentially stopped allowing the saints to govern themselves…and how we potentially look down on people for not practicing the culturally accepted version of the law.

Can Children Sin Before Reaching the Age of Eight?

2009-02-21T20:33:00.005-06:00

Generally, little children (e.g., under the age of eight) are considered innocent before God because they do not comprehend the difference between good and evil. In a nutshell, it is impossible for the adversary to entice any soul to sin who does not comprehend the good from the bad, regardless of age. This is the thought process behind our belief that children are “unaccountable” before God for their actions.

Moroni taught that “all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing, and thus are unaccountable before God” (Moroni 8:22)(emphasis added). In other words, those “without the law” (i.e., children and mentally deficient individuals) have no need of baptism as they are deemed “unaccountable” before their Maker.

So, if the unaccountable have no need of baptism, is there an “accountability switch” that is flipped once kids hit the 8 year mark? When exactly does a child reach bona fide accountability before God?

James taught that “to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin” (James 4:17). Thus, sinning implies a knowledge of the law and its attendant consequences, then subsequently choosing to go against it. In my opinion, there are children under the age of eight who undoubtedly understand the law and its consequences, and yet choose to rebel. Do we justly classify these little ones as sinners, and accountable before God?

Tying down the age of accountability to eight years is first referenced in the Joseph Smith Translation. While speaking to Abraham, God instituted the covenant of circumcision and declared that “it shall be my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations; that thou mayest know for ever that children are not accountable before me until they are eight years old” (JST Gen. 17:11)(emphasis added). Pretty clear cut, right? This truth, however, must be understood in light of modern revelation.

“But behold, I say unto you, that little children are redeemed from the foundation of the world through mine Only Begotten; Wherefore, they cannot sin, for power is not given unto Satan to tempt little children, until they begin to become accountable before me.” (D&C 29:46-47)(emphasis added)

To be clear, this passage does not say that children cannot sin before they are eight years old. Instead, we learn that children do not sin “until they begin to become accountable before [God],” a process that begins long before the child is eight, and which comes gradually with life experience. To conclude that a child can do nothing deliberately wrong before the age of eight is simply irrational. In fact, considerable accountability must be obtained prior to the child’s baptism, for our “children shall be baptized for the remission of their sins when eight years old” (D&C 68:27)(emphasis added).

Feel free to comment on my thoughts above, but I would also like to hear your comments on whether you think temptation only comes from Satan.

Post Script – Whether baptism always remits one’s sins was discussed in a previous post.

On Military Might

2009-02-15T15:49:00.003-06:00

"[The Romans] were conquerors, and for that you only want brute force - nothing to boast of, when you have it, since your strength is just an accident arising from the weakness of others."

- Heart of Darkness, page 50, Joseph Conrad on the Roman invasion of Britannia.

Is military success a result of an accident that the other side is weaker? How would Mormon or Gidgiddoni respond?