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.

UVU Drops Prophet's Name from Events Center

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

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?

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?

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

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?