Bold World Cup Predictions

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

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”

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!

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”

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”?

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?

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

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?

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?

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.