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

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?

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

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?

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…

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

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

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?

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"

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?

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."