If you were to ask a group of a dozen missionaries what the purpose of the Restoration is/was, you would likely get a dozen answers. Maybe even more! I realized this when I thought long and hard about how I taught the First Discussion from "Preach My Gospel". If you don't know, the First Discussion centered on the need for a Restoration. But as I have reviewed it, "Preach My Gospel" is not as clear as one might think on the purpose.God is our Loving Heavenly Father, he Reveals Truth in Every Dispensation, etc... are all part of it, but in all actuality, "Preach My Gospel" does not spell it out. I do not believe this is a bad thing nor do I think it was a mistake. In fact, I think it is brilliant! The purpose of the Restoration is "Preach My Gospel" and other missionary programs.
Some consider the Restoration too often as an event. Maybe then the only so-called "problem" with "Preach My Gospel" language is that it can somewhat justify the idea that the Restoration happened when in reality, it is happening.
If one does not see how the Restoration is still occurring, go back to this last General Conference and reflect on the magnitude of President Monson's talk. In fact, go back to all the conferences since he has been sustained. Temples are announced, missionary work is promoted, and our push to gather in the Lord's elect is constantly on the forefront of their mind.
The Restoration started with the first vision of Joseph Smith but the mission was not fully realized until 6 years after the Church was established. On April 3rd, 1836, when the keys to the gathering of Israel were restored, the mission of this Church finally was comprehended. It was vital that these keys be restored in order for Abraham's Covenant to be fully realized.
So then what? Well the 1950s came around and Stakes started to spread overseas--no longer was the gathering spot in the mountains of Utah: it was in Temples that were and would be dotting the earth.
President Hinckley made an oft quoted, interesting remark. What we quote, however, is not the most compelling part of his talk:
"Now,
my brethren and sisters, the time has come for us to stand a little
taller, to lift our eyes and
stretch our minds to a greater
comprehension and understanding of the grand millennial mission of this
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is a
season to be
strong. It is a time to move forward without hesitation, knowing well
the meaning, the breadth, and the importance of our mission."
This Church is not complete until the Millennial reign! The Restoration has yet to be complete; in fact, the Restoration of the Church will not be complete until we are personally ready for the Restoration of ourselves; the Resurrection.
So what is the purpose of the Restoration? To gather Israel who has not been scattered for over 2,700 years. As you read the Doctrine and Covenants, the Book of Mormon and the teachings of the Brethren, you will begin to see the gathering of Israel come as a clear picture and the obvious mission of the Church. And thankfully, we can actually participate in it.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Monday, October 15, 2012
The Great Google Apostasy and other Blogernacle Blunders
Lately, I have heard comments on the hardships facing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as many begin doing Google searches and discovering events and quotations that compell them to question their faith. Many are saying things such, "well the anti-Mormon movement is just a product of the adversaries final push in the latter days." However, there is, to my surprise, a much more dangerous thing occurring right now: the seemingly and otherwise faithful are sometimes destroying the belief of the faith-filled. Some intentionally with the hopes to invite people to a more "intellectual" rather than faith-based approach, while others are not intending to: they merely do it because they are laying down a foundation of false or misinformed/misrepresented doctrine.
One such matter that I followed rather closely was on the TempleStudy.com blog/website hosted, owned, and published by Mr. Bryce Haymond. Mr. Haymond, a layman blogger who has attracted a number of readers, had a reader comment that he/she was displeased with some of the comments made concerning the current Temple prep manual (you can read the arguments back and forth at here).
The background of the situation was that Mr. Haymond and other self-proclaimed experts on Temple doctrine made comments that the current Temple was too watered down, incomplete, and unexciting. Their maligned language was, from what I could tell, an apparent put down to the Church. It went so far as blame the manual for people's lack of preparedness. One reader, who named him/herself "Concerned with questions" (an apt name in my opinion) was skeptical about what Mr. Haymond and others were saying. Mr. Haymond responded with an argument that Hugh Nibley and others were much more willing to publish more "substantial" information about the Temple and that the Church should to.
Mr. or Ms. "Concerned with Questions" made the comment that he/she was "concern there is what appears to be open agreement the correlated materials for the temple preparation course are inadequate. Our manuals may not be, and are not, perfect. But it is very concerning for me to read comments that not only highlight the supposed inadequacy of the text, but to see comments go so far as to state it needs sprucing up. In and of themselves, these comments may be relatively – thought not completely – harmless. What concerns me greatly is the possibility of what could be a natural extension, namely, offering up what that sprucing up should entail – and then beginning to teach it to (1) an unprepared, perhaps even at times hostile, audience online, and (2) a select number of people who have gathered together and created a formal or informal select group" and that the internet was a bad venue for such discussions.
Mr. Haymond's counter argument was that Hugh Nibley (who faithfully studies and dedicates his site to) had the same issue and could not control who read his books. (I like Bryce Haymond's website quite a bit and before you draw conclusions as my opinion please see *note 1)
I read through the whole discussion and found myself increasingly upset about what is going on. I think that the reader/respondent had a very valid argument that was suddenly dismissed.
The internet is nothing like Hugh Nibley's books. To read a Hugh Nibley book one must (1) know who he is, (2) seek out the book, (3) purchase the book, and (4) read through and dig out what they want. The internet on the other hand requires little to no work. Just a Google search. And what are they going to turn up in a Google search? Our blogs. Mr. Haymond's TempleStudy.com blog which poses the argument that the Church is not preparing and publishing good enough books. Or TheTrumpetStone.blogspot.com where I am constantly reading how the Church has failed to make Temples as nice as they once did and that if they don't put enough fancy decor in a building, then that building is inferior (again, see **note 2 below).
Mr. Haymond also used the "milk before meat" argument which I would turn around in this instance. This should make us more cautious. The Savior, when he had a captive audience the same as Mr. Haymond and others, switched his teaching style to parables. In Matthew 13 many passer-by types stop and listen to his dialogue. He switches from bold, forthright doctrine, to more symbolic, cryptic doctrine. It was complex, and even deep doctrine, but it was under the guise of simple, easy to digest stories. He knew, as should we who are using the blogs as venues for teaching, that some were simply not prepared, but would continue to listen on regardless of their preparation.
Both of the aforementioned websites have attracted hundreds more visitors than mine could ever hope to attract; however, that places them in a high responsibility--one that exceeds even Hugh Nibley.
Mr./Ms. "Concerned with Questions" mentioned that Mr. Haymond was giving fuel to the anti-Mormon fire which I do not agree with. The anti-Mormons would be anti with our without Mr. Haymond or TheTrumpetStone. But the curious and sincere investigator is who may be victim. That investigator does not need to hear about where the Church went wrong in the past: they need to hear what the Church is doing right by us now.
A Google search will turn up our publications without reservations! So, that puts us on an entire new level. Mr. Haymond explains to "Concerned with Questions" that if people were not prepared, then they should not read. But that is not the attitude to have. We should invite the reader, if they do not understand, to learn and to understand. Not just to turn away, because in all reality, they won't. They will read on. Ours is the place not to allow confusion to set in.
We do have a responsibility--a much bigger one. We have to be more delicate and sensitive. But we also have this time to shine. Mr. Haymond, myself, Brian from the Trumpet Stone, and many others have people approaching these websites based on a though-provoking question they may have and we can do one of two things: answer questions, or create more. Not to say that creating more is bad, but we then need to help them with the answers.
Let me conclude with an insight from a legal perspective. As an attorney, one needs to prove intent in a criminal conviction. If you watch the show Law and Order: Criminal Intent, you will see that they never merely look for the suspect. Often they find the suspect, have the evidence, but seek after a little think in the law called "intent". If there is no intent, then the sentence is alleviated. Take a murder case, for example: if you per-medidate murder, there is intent; if you commit involuntary manslaughter, there is no intent. That is the really really really easy way to explain it. It can get very convoluted in cases such as vehicular manslaughter, DUII, etc... I mention that because anti-Mormons are the ones with intent. They deliberately draw people away. But there is, in my mind, a spiritual involuntary manslaughter. Alma compared his former iniquities to murder and I think it is an apt illustration. What made Alma and Sons of Mosiah "the very vilest of sinners" (Mosiah 28:4) was that they were seeking to destroy the Kingdom of God albeit they were brought up knowing truth (Mosiah 27:10-11). They had intent. Bloggers who are blundering, Home Teachers who don't think before speaking, brash Bishops, etc... do not have intent to do harm, but the problem is, the outcome could possibly be the same. We must be cautious about what we say and do to those who are sensitive and who do not fully understand.
Let me also conclude with an addendum regarding the argument at hand: Temple Prep--inspired or in disrepair. I believe, overall, Mr. Haymond's initial springboard to the conversation is a good one. The truth of the matter is, the majority of people are unprepared for the Temple. I do not blame the Church. In fact, I think the Church is wise not to publish a bunch of stuff and leave it out for public scrutiny. As time advances, the Church becomes increasingly aware of the surveillance they are under. Secondly, if Bishops and Stake Leaders who mandate the classes look for people such as Bryce Haymond, they will have more success. My brother went through the Temple about 8 months ago and was completely broadsided! He came out confused and unsure about what just occurred.
I pulled my brother aside and asked what he was so unsure about. He mentioned some of the methods of sealing the ordinances. I proceeded to explain that this is common in every day practice. In fact, the Temple is not as odd as people think it is. What do we do in graduation ceremonies? We move from one side of the stage to the other, grabbing our diploma and symbolically switching our tassel on our head from one side to the other as we receive it. Or when police receive their authority, what do they do? They raise their right hand up in the air and recite a promise. Same with the President, same with attorneys, Governors, etc...
Someone asked me why the Temple felt "natural" to me and I did not know how to answer until I was called as a Young Men's President. I went up to take some of our boys through the Order of the Arrow. The Order of the Arrow, or OA, is Scouting's Honor Society and requires the recipients to take certain oaths and obligations after a weekend of service. I sat and watched as the boys went through the ceremonies. As I watched, it clicked--my training in the OA, the Boy Scouts, my School National Honor Society, etc... I was receiving my Temple prep.
As I explained this to my brother, it finally made sense. But does the Church fall short? No. I think the teachers need to have the insight and the green lights from the Bishop, Stake President, and/or Sunday School President to teach it with the Spirit, and to teach it so as people understand the nature of what occurs inside.
So, I agree with the overall message Mr. Haymond conveys, but I again back up what I say when I say we have a responsibility to be more sensitive and understanding of the fact that we appeal to an audience so vast and different.
*NOTE 1: Let me take note here: Mr. Haymond runs a very thought provoking website and he has been ridiculed by others in the Mormon blogernacle. I do not think he is guilty of a wrong-doing, I simply think he and others, including myself, need to be cautious when using the internet as a venue. I do, however, think that other websites, such as FaithPromotingRumor, do in fact attempt to steer people in confusion for whatever reason. They have made deliberate and malicious attacks on Mr. Haymond's work. I am not trying to make an attack; just point out a danger.
**NOTE 2: TheTrumpetStone.blogspot.com is one that I once enjoyed very much. The author at times, however, can destroy people's comments saying that their insights are meaningless and inferior to his. I was happy that one anon author called him out for his comments on one of the Temples. But there are several posts that I are very unkind towards former Church decisions.
One such matter that I followed rather closely was on the TempleStudy.com blog/website hosted, owned, and published by Mr. Bryce Haymond. Mr. Haymond, a layman blogger who has attracted a number of readers, had a reader comment that he/she was displeased with some of the comments made concerning the current Temple prep manual (you can read the arguments back and forth at here).
it was in this room (coincidently a Temple) that many members of the Church conflagrated one of the largest apostasies in Church history. Some have quoted Marlin K. Jensen saying something to the effect that the falling away today is rivaling the scale of the Kirtland apostasy.
The background of the situation was that Mr. Haymond and other self-proclaimed experts on Temple doctrine made comments that the current Temple was too watered down, incomplete, and unexciting. Their maligned language was, from what I could tell, an apparent put down to the Church. It went so far as blame the manual for people's lack of preparedness. One reader, who named him/herself "Concerned with questions" (an apt name in my opinion) was skeptical about what Mr. Haymond and others were saying. Mr. Haymond responded with an argument that Hugh Nibley and others were much more willing to publish more "substantial" information about the Temple and that the Church should to.
Mr. or Ms. "Concerned with Questions" made the comment that he/she was "concern there is what appears to be open agreement the correlated materials for the temple preparation course are inadequate. Our manuals may not be, and are not, perfect. But it is very concerning for me to read comments that not only highlight the supposed inadequacy of the text, but to see comments go so far as to state it needs sprucing up. In and of themselves, these comments may be relatively – thought not completely – harmless. What concerns me greatly is the possibility of what could be a natural extension, namely, offering up what that sprucing up should entail – and then beginning to teach it to (1) an unprepared, perhaps even at times hostile, audience online, and (2) a select number of people who have gathered together and created a formal or informal select group" and that the internet was a bad venue for such discussions.
Mr. Haymond's counter argument was that Hugh Nibley (who faithfully studies and dedicates his site to) had the same issue and could not control who read his books. (I like Bryce Haymond's website quite a bit and before you draw conclusions as my opinion please see *note 1)
I read through the whole discussion and found myself increasingly upset about what is going on. I think that the reader/respondent had a very valid argument that was suddenly dismissed.
The internet is nothing like Hugh Nibley's books. To read a Hugh Nibley book one must (1) know who he is, (2) seek out the book, (3) purchase the book, and (4) read through and dig out what they want. The internet on the other hand requires little to no work. Just a Google search. And what are they going to turn up in a Google search? Our blogs. Mr. Haymond's TempleStudy.com blog which poses the argument that the Church is not preparing and publishing good enough books. Or TheTrumpetStone.blogspot.com where I am constantly reading how the Church has failed to make Temples as nice as they once did and that if they don't put enough fancy decor in a building, then that building is inferior (again, see **note 2 below).
Mr. Haymond also used the "milk before meat" argument which I would turn around in this instance. This should make us more cautious. The Savior, when he had a captive audience the same as Mr. Haymond and others, switched his teaching style to parables. In Matthew 13 many passer-by types stop and listen to his dialogue. He switches from bold, forthright doctrine, to more symbolic, cryptic doctrine. It was complex, and even deep doctrine, but it was under the guise of simple, easy to digest stories. He knew, as should we who are using the blogs as venues for teaching, that some were simply not prepared, but would continue to listen on regardless of their preparation.
Both of the aforementioned websites have attracted hundreds more visitors than mine could ever hope to attract; however, that places them in a high responsibility--one that exceeds even Hugh Nibley.
Mr./Ms. "Concerned with Questions" mentioned that Mr. Haymond was giving fuel to the anti-Mormon fire which I do not agree with. The anti-Mormons would be anti with our without Mr. Haymond or TheTrumpetStone. But the curious and sincere investigator is who may be victim. That investigator does not need to hear about where the Church went wrong in the past: they need to hear what the Church is doing right by us now.
A Google search will turn up our publications without reservations! So, that puts us on an entire new level. Mr. Haymond explains to "Concerned with Questions" that if people were not prepared, then they should not read. But that is not the attitude to have. We should invite the reader, if they do not understand, to learn and to understand. Not just to turn away, because in all reality, they won't. They will read on. Ours is the place not to allow confusion to set in.
We do have a responsibility--a much bigger one. We have to be more delicate and sensitive. But we also have this time to shine. Mr. Haymond, myself, Brian from the Trumpet Stone, and many others have people approaching these websites based on a though-provoking question they may have and we can do one of two things: answer questions, or create more. Not to say that creating more is bad, but we then need to help them with the answers.
Let me conclude with an insight from a legal perspective. As an attorney, one needs to prove intent in a criminal conviction. If you watch the show Law and Order: Criminal Intent, you will see that they never merely look for the suspect. Often they find the suspect, have the evidence, but seek after a little think in the law called "intent". If there is no intent, then the sentence is alleviated. Take a murder case, for example: if you per-medidate murder, there is intent; if you commit involuntary manslaughter, there is no intent. That is the really really really easy way to explain it. It can get very convoluted in cases such as vehicular manslaughter, DUII, etc... I mention that because anti-Mormons are the ones with intent. They deliberately draw people away. But there is, in my mind, a spiritual involuntary manslaughter. Alma compared his former iniquities to murder and I think it is an apt illustration. What made Alma and Sons of Mosiah "the very vilest of sinners" (Mosiah 28:4) was that they were seeking to destroy the Kingdom of God albeit they were brought up knowing truth (Mosiah 27:10-11). They had intent. Bloggers who are blundering, Home Teachers who don't think before speaking, brash Bishops, etc... do not have intent to do harm, but the problem is, the outcome could possibly be the same. We must be cautious about what we say and do to those who are sensitive and who do not fully understand.
Let me also conclude with an addendum regarding the argument at hand: Temple Prep--inspired or in disrepair. I believe, overall, Mr. Haymond's initial springboard to the conversation is a good one. The truth of the matter is, the majority of people are unprepared for the Temple. I do not blame the Church. In fact, I think the Church is wise not to publish a bunch of stuff and leave it out for public scrutiny. As time advances, the Church becomes increasingly aware of the surveillance they are under. Secondly, if Bishops and Stake Leaders who mandate the classes look for people such as Bryce Haymond, they will have more success. My brother went through the Temple about 8 months ago and was completely broadsided! He came out confused and unsure about what just occurred.
I pulled my brother aside and asked what he was so unsure about. He mentioned some of the methods of sealing the ordinances. I proceeded to explain that this is common in every day practice. In fact, the Temple is not as odd as people think it is. What do we do in graduation ceremonies? We move from one side of the stage to the other, grabbing our diploma and symbolically switching our tassel on our head from one side to the other as we receive it. Or when police receive their authority, what do they do? They raise their right hand up in the air and recite a promise. Same with the President, same with attorneys, Governors, etc...
Someone asked me why the Temple felt "natural" to me and I did not know how to answer until I was called as a Young Men's President. I went up to take some of our boys through the Order of the Arrow. The Order of the Arrow, or OA, is Scouting's Honor Society and requires the recipients to take certain oaths and obligations after a weekend of service. I sat and watched as the boys went through the ceremonies. As I watched, it clicked--my training in the OA, the Boy Scouts, my School National Honor Society, etc... I was receiving my Temple prep.
As I explained this to my brother, it finally made sense. But does the Church fall short? No. I think the teachers need to have the insight and the green lights from the Bishop, Stake President, and/or Sunday School President to teach it with the Spirit, and to teach it so as people understand the nature of what occurs inside.
So, I agree with the overall message Mr. Haymond conveys, but I again back up what I say when I say we have a responsibility to be more sensitive and understanding of the fact that we appeal to an audience so vast and different.
*NOTE 1: Let me take note here: Mr. Haymond runs a very thought provoking website and he has been ridiculed by others in the Mormon blogernacle. I do not think he is guilty of a wrong-doing, I simply think he and others, including myself, need to be cautious when using the internet as a venue. I do, however, think that other websites, such as FaithPromotingRumor, do in fact attempt to steer people in confusion for whatever reason. They have made deliberate and malicious attacks on Mr. Haymond's work. I am not trying to make an attack; just point out a danger.
**NOTE 2: TheTrumpetStone.blogspot.com is one that I once enjoyed very much. The author at times, however, can destroy people's comments saying that their insights are meaningless and inferior to his. I was happy that one anon author called him out for his comments on one of the Temples. But there are several posts that I are very unkind towards former Church decisions.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Brigham City, Endowments, and Answers
If you have not seen, the Church has announced the completion and dates for dedication for the Brigham City Utah Temple. I have posted some of the pictures to help illustrate some principles important to understanding Temple Covenants.
 | |
| The most important room in the Temple: the Sealing Room. |
The marriage covenant is the quintessential ordinance for Israel to enter into. The
sealing is a vital part of the great Gathering of Israel. There are
several working components here: the alter, the place of kneeling, and
the chandelier. We come prepared to enter into the Marriage Covenant,
which is also called the Abrahamic Covenant. We enter over an alter just
as Abraham sealed his covenants with God over an alter. Although the
commitments are made with individual people in mind, it is also overseen
and entered into with Deity
 |
| The Telestial, or World Room. |
 |
| The Terrestial, or Millennial Room. |
The Church at one point used one-room endowment rooms as an alternative
to room progression; however, in all the modern temples they are using a
3-stage room progression: a telestial, terrestial, and celestial room.
These are the stages that we enter into and that we will see all of
creation enter into. It could also be called the World Room, the
Millennial Room, and the Throne Room (seen on the left and down below).
As members of the Church we should understand that the 3-stage progression is not just a reference to the Kingdoms God has designated. Rather, it includes our progress, earth's progress, the delegated times of resurrection and then, of course, the eventual Kingdoms we will enter into based on what stages we were worthy to enter into.
The peak of the Endowment session occurs in the Celestial Room. It is where we can find rest, as it is described in the scriptures.
The brides room (below), is also a place important in the Temple. I recall cleaning the Rexburg, Idaho temples and being asked to assist in this room. I have to admit I was a bit jealous because I didn't get a room like this in preparation for my wedding! My wife of course, with her wonderful insights, said, "it makes a girl feel like a princess". It is an important thing to feel for the women: a princess, a daughter of royalty, an heir to the Kingdom of the Father. As a priesthood holder in the Church it has been emphasized and illustrated a lot through D&C 84:33-37.
 |
| The Bride's Room |
 |
| The recommend desk. |
 |
| Stairwell Detail |
 |
| The front glass window |
 |
| The grand hallway. A corridor filled with symbolic significance in the Church. Although some of these symbols cannot be specifically discussed, needless to say, the principles teach how to access the Mysteries to the Kingdom of God and His Christ. |
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Of Intellects and Apologetics. A bit on church politics and contention
Many know of the recent shift and turn-around the Maxwell Institute just took. There are many in the Mormon intellectual and apologetic community who are outraged. If you are unsure of what happened, here is a brief rundown: Daniel C. Peterson, BYU Professor and highly regarded expert in Islamic studies, was recently let go from his position in the Mormon Studies Review (formerly FARMS Review). The decision was rumored out before it was made and Brother Peterson unfortunately stumbled across some leaked emails before he was properly informed. The emails had made it to an anti-Mormon website. So the decision was no surprise to Brother Peterson who, understandably, was quite insulted and hurt by the whole thing.
I am not in the business of saying who is right and who is wrong and what decision the Maxwell Institute should go. I certainly think that Mormon Scholarship is evolving into something really important and the Maxwell Institute needs to keep up with it.
Here are a few of my concerns with it:
CONCERN NO. 1: How did an anti-Mormon website get it so quick? It is one thing that the emails leaked, but the fact that the antagonists have gotten so quickly makes me wonder who leaked it and to whom did they leak the information? I do not mind having "skeptics" or non-believers working on LDS Academia; however, it is a bit concerning if they are out-and-out antagonists to the religion.
CONCERN NO. 2: Why are some people using this to discredit the work of Brother Peterson and others who have gone before him? There are websites out there attempting to discredit Hugh Nibley's work and paint Daniel C. Peterson as a bad person. What makes it more alarming is that these websites are from people who are members of the Church! I do not agree with it.
What I fear is that many who have the capacity and capability to think critically and help bolster the image of the Church are attempting to come into "intellectual" league with our anti-Mormon counter-community. Many in the anti-Mormon community seem to be more "enlightened" and intellectual than the Daniel Petersons and Hugh Nibleys so people try to follow suit with them.
I mention that is a fear because one cannot fight fire with fire in the sphere of gospel topics. I will give one prime example: There was an A.P. on my mission who was amazing at countering anti-Mormon doctrine. We were in the heart of the anti-Mormon community. More literature opposing the Church came from our mission than any other one area in the world. He was good. No one could defeat him. Except himself. As good as he was, it was not good enough to encounter it all the time without being negatively affected. He now is one of those who works tirelessly to oppose the Church. No amount of Bible-bash defeats was worth losing him.
CONCERN NO. 3: On the flip side of concern no. 2, why are members so concerned and caught up with how the scholarship is approached? This may be why the Maxwell Institute is taking a new approach. Too often members have sought this information and shifted their testimony based on prayer, fasting,etc... and relied on this.
If a testimony is not nourished, it will fail. And in the world of testimony-nourishment, scientific proof is akin to empty calories: it tastes good, but yields no real growth. We have to stop trying to bear our testimonies with the concluding words: "There is no way Joseph Smith could have known that!" As odd as it seems, spiritual witness is much more concrete than physical. Many religions can boast about tangible witnesses, miracles, and archeological evidence; however, it is a rare thing to have a church confidently tell it's investigators, "You can pray and know for yourself..."
CONCERN NO. 4: My final and most alarming concern is the overwhelming divisiveness this is yielding. Furthermore, with as many pseudonyms as are floating around (and remember, Elder Quentin L. Cook warned us of these hidden identities) there is a chance that these bickering siblings in the gospel worship side-by-side in the Temple. There is an overwhelming feeling of contention. There should be a consensus and unity amongst those who are professing and discussing their faith. It seems that the antagonists to our faith are more unified at times than we are. Furthermore, many scholars seem to disagree about many things within the Church but can still act civilly to one another.
So why does this concern me?
Because as a Church we need to be unified ourselves. We cannot stand together on speculative ground. We cannot stand together on Church ground and have such diatribe towards one another. It is the Devil's doctrine. We can, however, continue to offer insights and promote gospel study civilly. Truth will not come about as result of endless fighting and finger-pointing.
I mention these concerns so that we can simply be unified in the faith. Do not retard the growth of Zion because you cannot be of one heart and one mind.
Sunday, July 1, 2012
What is the purpose of life? My thoughts as a new father. A Funeral Sermon-part III
I remember as a missionary talking about how we had the answer to the most important and sacred questions. Among them, "what is the purpose of life?" would be a common one for missionaries to prepare to answer. I was always geared up to give a discourse from 2 Nephi chapter 2 on this important topic. I thought for sure I had the complete and full answer. I have realized more and more that my understanding was pretty limited. 2 Nephi chapter 2 was not limited by any means. In fact, it is replete with details to this soul-searching question. I would always tell people that the purpose of life is to learn good from evil as Adam and Eve had through their own personal fall. I would then explain that we likewise, though not through the same avenue, chose to have a personal fall from the presence of God in order that we could return with glory and honor. We chose to come to earth and be tested. I would extract this from 2 Nephi 2:25-27. I basically had it memorized; however, what I failed to do was look at the entirety of the context:
First of all, Lehi is speaking to his child. This is an important detail. I think I should have allowed the sermon to speak for itself in its entirety. I think of particular importance is verse 23. Lehi states, "And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence having no joy, for they knew no misery..." The first part of that is key because the fact that children bring joy almost seems like a common-doctrine to them: one that did not need a lot of emphasis. He simply states "And they would have had no children" as if that phrase alone signaled to his children the importance of the fall.
Furthermore, they would have had the Adam and Eve story in its fullest. They would have known that God commanded Adam and Eve to have children. I knew that having children was important but I never realized that this was a central purpose to life. I would always say "the purpose of life is to choose good over evil in the midst of temptation so that we may be more righteous and qualify to become like God the Father."
I realize now that children are an integral part of the plan. I remember hearing our sealer make the same bold command to my wife and I that was given to Adam and Eve. Then later, while studying on my roles as a patriarch in my home I stumbled across President Kimball's first General Conference address as the Prophet of the Church. He read an excerpt from a First Presidency message given in 1942 (think about the time-period they were giving this in!). That message was simply titled "Parenthood" and reads, in part:
"Motherhood thus becomes a holy calling, a sacred dedication for carrying out the Lord's plans, a consecration of devotion to this uprearing and fostering, the nurturing in body, mind, and spirit, of those who kept their first estate and who come to this earth for their second estate ' to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them' (Abr 3:23.) To lead them to 'keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads forever and ever.'
"This divine service of motherhood can be rendered only mothers. It may not be passed to others. Nurses cannot do it; public nurseries cannot do it; hired help cannot do it--only mother, aided as much as may be by the loving hands of father, brothers, and sisters, can give the full needed measure of watchful care.
"The mother who entrusts her child to the care of others, that she may do non-motherly work, whether for gold, for fame, or for civic service should remember that 'a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame (Prov. 29:15.) In our day the Lord has said that unless parents teach their children the doctrines of the Church 'the sin be upon the heads of the parents.' (D&C 68:25.)
Motherhood is near to Divinity. It is the highest, holiest service to be assumed by mankind. It places her who honors its holy calling and service next to the angels. To you mothers in Israel we say, God bless and protect you, and give you the strength and courage, the faith and knowledge, the holy love and consecration to duty, that shall enable you to fill to the fullest measure the sacred calling which is yours. To you mothers and mothers-to-be we say: Be chaste, keep pure, live righteously, that your posterity to the last generation may call you blessed." ("Message of the First Presidency" Deseret News Weekly Church Edition, October 1942, p. 5.)
Recently I became a father to my first. We thought we were having a little girl (hence why my blog intro said "soon-to-be father to a baby girl"). When the baby was born I had an overwhelming sense of love and devotion to him. It seemed like only minutes had passed and I already knew about him. It was odd to even ever think that we were expecting a girl. Even today when I mention it, I feel awkward saying it because it is literally impossible to imagine it any other way.
So, how come I relate this to the "funeral sermon" or the "King Follet Discourse"? Because when Joseph Smith states "Here, then, is eternal life--to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn to become gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you...they shall be joint-heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory, and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before. What did Jesus do? Why; I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds come rolling into existence. My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory."
In other words, our exaltation and inheritance come as a result of the success of our children. If no children brought their own kingdom to Christ's gospel, then it would not allow the Father to advance in his own glory. We will never be co-equal with God as some faiths allege; however, we can inherit that same glory that he has.
As a Father this makes much more sense. I cannot envision a Father who would not want his children to have absolute joy and success equal or more than he has. I want for Brigham (my new little boy) to have more opportunity and greater happiness than I have ever experienced. Note that I want him to have more! The Father, realizing that he has reached the maximum potential, wants for us to enjoy all that he now enjoys: maximum blessings. As a parent I have learned to a greater degree the nature of my Heavenly Father."
And this is how we "learn to become gods". It is through parenthood that we can have eternal increase (see D&C 131) and everlasting joy.
This is the end of "The Funeral Sermon" blogging; however, I would suggest that one would read it and become familiar with the doctrines contained therein.
First of all, Lehi is speaking to his child. This is an important detail. I think I should have allowed the sermon to speak for itself in its entirety. I think of particular importance is verse 23. Lehi states, "And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence having no joy, for they knew no misery..." The first part of that is key because the fact that children bring joy almost seems like a common-doctrine to them: one that did not need a lot of emphasis. He simply states "And they would have had no children" as if that phrase alone signaled to his children the importance of the fall.
Furthermore, they would have had the Adam and Eve story in its fullest. They would have known that God commanded Adam and Eve to have children. I knew that having children was important but I never realized that this was a central purpose to life. I would always say "the purpose of life is to choose good over evil in the midst of temptation so that we may be more righteous and qualify to become like God the Father."
I realize now that children are an integral part of the plan. I remember hearing our sealer make the same bold command to my wife and I that was given to Adam and Eve. Then later, while studying on my roles as a patriarch in my home I stumbled across President Kimball's first General Conference address as the Prophet of the Church. He read an excerpt from a First Presidency message given in 1942 (think about the time-period they were giving this in!). That message was simply titled "Parenthood" and reads, in part:
"Motherhood thus becomes a holy calling, a sacred dedication for carrying out the Lord's plans, a consecration of devotion to this uprearing and fostering, the nurturing in body, mind, and spirit, of those who kept their first estate and who come to this earth for their second estate ' to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them' (Abr 3:23.) To lead them to 'keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads forever and ever.'
"This divine service of motherhood can be rendered only mothers. It may not be passed to others. Nurses cannot do it; public nurseries cannot do it; hired help cannot do it--only mother, aided as much as may be by the loving hands of father, brothers, and sisters, can give the full needed measure of watchful care.
"The mother who entrusts her child to the care of others, that she may do non-motherly work, whether for gold, for fame, or for civic service should remember that 'a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame (Prov. 29:15.) In our day the Lord has said that unless parents teach their children the doctrines of the Church 'the sin be upon the heads of the parents.' (D&C 68:25.)
Motherhood is near to Divinity. It is the highest, holiest service to be assumed by mankind. It places her who honors its holy calling and service next to the angels. To you mothers in Israel we say, God bless and protect you, and give you the strength and courage, the faith and knowledge, the holy love and consecration to duty, that shall enable you to fill to the fullest measure the sacred calling which is yours. To you mothers and mothers-to-be we say: Be chaste, keep pure, live righteously, that your posterity to the last generation may call you blessed." ("Message of the First Presidency" Deseret News Weekly Church Edition, October 1942, p. 5.)
 |
| Brigham Lloyd Brown--May 31st, 2012 |
So, how come I relate this to the "funeral sermon" or the "King Follet Discourse"? Because when Joseph Smith states "Here, then, is eternal life--to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn to become gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you...they shall be joint-heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory, and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before. What did Jesus do? Why; I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds come rolling into existence. My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory."
In other words, our exaltation and inheritance come as a result of the success of our children. If no children brought their own kingdom to Christ's gospel, then it would not allow the Father to advance in his own glory. We will never be co-equal with God as some faiths allege; however, we can inherit that same glory that he has.
As a Father this makes much more sense. I cannot envision a Father who would not want his children to have absolute joy and success equal or more than he has. I want for Brigham (my new little boy) to have more opportunity and greater happiness than I have ever experienced. Note that I want him to have more! The Father, realizing that he has reached the maximum potential, wants for us to enjoy all that he now enjoys: maximum blessings. As a parent I have learned to a greater degree the nature of my Heavenly Father."
And this is how we "learn to become gods". It is through parenthood that we can have eternal increase (see D&C 131) and everlasting joy.
This is the end of "The Funeral Sermon" blogging; however, I would suggest that one would read it and become familiar with the doctrines contained therein.
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Freedom, Agency, and Eternal Progress. A Funeral Sermon-part II
Right after writing part I of the "Funeral Sermon" post, I had a question come up to me about how to encourage someone to continue on the pathway to discipleship. He asked if I knew of any good talks that he could reference. I had just written the first part of this blog, and so I directed him towards this very talk. Then, if you look at Part 1 commentary another question came up relating to the nature of Deity. Both of these questions are related.
Looking at the historical context of this talk is really important to see the significance of it. Joseph Smith was taking part in a massive theological shift.
Joseph Smith's mother, Lucy Mack Smith, was a true child of the Revolution. 4 days previous to her 1st birthday the Declaration of Independence was signed. She was in New Hampshire at the time of the signing. Her husband was only 8 days away from his 5th birthday when it was signed. So what does that have to do with the King Follet sermon? Well, a lot!
The declaration for freedom was spurred in large part by a theological shift. I can remember first reading Jonathan Edwards' most notable sermon Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. It was sermons like these that compelled people to demand their personal liberties. It was a time we know as The Great Awakening.
Less than 30 years prior to the First Vision Louis XVI was beheaded. This is significant because he was to be the embodiment of God's Kingdom on Earth. But the people were rejecting this notion. This thought out and intended act of rebellion was a symbol that the people were rejecting the idea that God had charge over their civic society,
If a religious revolution was not the end result, then it was outright atheism. Freedom became the optimism that drove people. Religion had become dogmatic and oppressive in the minds of the people. Civic freedom was the only real way to progress.
To many it seemed that the gap between freedom and religion was growing ever more wide. Everyone in the middle found themselves torn because religion demanded one way whilst the fight for freedom demanded another.
Enter Joseph Smith. When Joseph comes on stage he teaches a theology that finds harmony in both organized religion and the drive for freedom. So what became the difference? Several things mark Mormonism as "different" but in this particular case, it was the freedom and the uncapped potential. The quintessential doctrine of Mormonism thus involved man's ability to choose, or act as agents, and man's ability to progress to eventual godhood.
No longer were people torn between attempting to attach a personality to God: did he want us to be free? Or did he want us to be saved? The answer: both. And not only saved, but exalted as he is exalted! That was is his "work and glory" (Moses 1:39).
So in answer to my friend's question concerning eternal progression, I would say that this talk is the pinnacle of Mormon thought. It was such a new course in the American Theosophical landscape (and yes, theosophical is a word). It went against all of the common orthopraxy of the day because it called men to a much higher sphere. There was no longer a cap to righteousness. It implies that God is progressing (not in knowledge but in glory) and that we should be progressing. It gives a purpose to our agency and a meaning to freedom. It compels us to be more dutiful disciples.
The talk was not given in so that young missionaries could sit and speculate on who God was prior. It was meant to comfort and soothe; it was also meant to excite the mind and push the faint soul who feels that he or she just cannot make it. If they endure and do the works of Abraham (and think of all he went through) they can have the blessings of Abraham: namely godhood.
Looking at the historical context of this talk is really important to see the significance of it. Joseph Smith was taking part in a massive theological shift.
Joseph Smith's mother, Lucy Mack Smith, was a true child of the Revolution. 4 days previous to her 1st birthday the Declaration of Independence was signed. She was in New Hampshire at the time of the signing. Her husband was only 8 days away from his 5th birthday when it was signed. So what does that have to do with the King Follet sermon? Well, a lot!
The declaration for freedom was spurred in large part by a theological shift. I can remember first reading Jonathan Edwards' most notable sermon Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. It was sermons like these that compelled people to demand their personal liberties. It was a time we know as The Great Awakening.Less than 30 years prior to the First Vision Louis XVI was beheaded. This is significant because he was to be the embodiment of God's Kingdom on Earth. But the people were rejecting this notion. This thought out and intended act of rebellion was a symbol that the people were rejecting the idea that God had charge over their civic society,
If a religious revolution was not the end result, then it was outright atheism. Freedom became the optimism that drove people. Religion had become dogmatic and oppressive in the minds of the people. Civic freedom was the only real way to progress.
To many it seemed that the gap between freedom and religion was growing ever more wide. Everyone in the middle found themselves torn because religion demanded one way whilst the fight for freedom demanded another.
Enter Joseph Smith. When Joseph comes on stage he teaches a theology that finds harmony in both organized religion and the drive for freedom. So what became the difference? Several things mark Mormonism as "different" but in this particular case, it was the freedom and the uncapped potential. The quintessential doctrine of Mormonism thus involved man's ability to choose, or act as agents, and man's ability to progress to eventual godhood.
No longer were people torn between attempting to attach a personality to God: did he want us to be free? Or did he want us to be saved? The answer: both. And not only saved, but exalted as he is exalted! That was is his "work and glory" (Moses 1:39).
So in answer to my friend's question concerning eternal progression, I would say that this talk is the pinnacle of Mormon thought. It was such a new course in the American Theosophical landscape (and yes, theosophical is a word). It went against all of the common orthopraxy of the day because it called men to a much higher sphere. There was no longer a cap to righteousness. It implies that God is progressing (not in knowledge but in glory) and that we should be progressing. It gives a purpose to our agency and a meaning to freedom. It compels us to be more dutiful disciples.
The talk was not given in so that young missionaries could sit and speculate on who God was prior. It was meant to comfort and soothe; it was also meant to excite the mind and push the faint soul who feels that he or she just cannot make it. If they endure and do the works of Abraham (and think of all he went through) they can have the blessings of Abraham: namely godhood.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
A Funeral Sermon-part I
I remember the
first time I was introduced to the King Follet Sermon. I was called to a
mission and getting ready to leave. It was a time of personal doctrinal
exploration. I was endowed around the same time so naturally I started asking
questions about topics of the Temple. Naturally this sermon came up. It seems
that most people are first brought to this discourse while on their mission or
immediately prior. I say that because I have spoken to many girls who have
never heard of it. I have spoken to many returned missionaries that were
exposed to it on their mission while staying up late with other missionaries
getting into the "deep" doctrine discussions.
 |
| An example of a grove where the Prophet Joseph Smith instructed the saints. The King Follet Sermon would have been given in a grove such as this. |
When I first
heard the name of the sermon, I thought it was either given to a king or
about a king or something to that nature. That is not the case. Well, at least
not on the surface as I was thinking. In fact, quite the opposite. The title of
the remarks were not the “official” title: it was simply a funeral talk. The
talk was given at a General Conference of the Church but the aim of the talk
served, at least in part, to comfort the family and friends of King Follet.*
King Follet was a simpleton (not a King) who had died that week. I mention this
as the history because there is something remarkable about the circumstances.
We have similar talks in the Church today. The Bishops and Branch Presidents
get up and talk about the Plan of Salvation at a church member’s memorial
service. This is to offer comfort, hope, understanding, and perspective during
a tough time. By happenstance King Follet's death occurred the week of a
conference of the Church; however, the talk, by nature, should be very similar
to talks we would give at a funeral.
King Follet was not a king at all. But Joseph
Smith was giving a discourse on how he could one day be a king. It is a
landmark talk concerning the doctrine of the Church and I think the setting
could not be any better. Joseph Smith was offering comfort to a family who had
lost a loved one. And here Joseph Smith uses the opportunity to teach doctrine
and comfort the family. I cannot think of a better place or circumstance to
reveal such a doctrine.
The sermon taught numerous things about Deity
that had previously been lost. These facts and principles are vital to our
faith today. Most notable was the fact that Deity was more like us than we
could originally conceive:
“God himself was once as we are now, and is an
exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If
the veil were rent today, and you were to see him today, you would see him like
a man in form--like yourselves in all the person, image, and the very form as a
man.”
He further taught that "You have got to
learn to become Gods yourselves, the same as all Gods before you have
done."
What makes this more fascinating is the fact
that the discourse came out just months before his death. It seemed that Hell’s
foundation shook at the thought that this would be revealed to the World. When
we realize our divine potential we immediately recognize that God loves us more
than we imagine. We have purpose in life. We have meaning attached to our
existence. We feel both happy and hopeful.
What most people do not realize is that there
was a talk given after this known as The Sermon in the Grove. This
sermon was given less than 2 weeks before his death. It points out similar
doctrines. It can be found in the History of the Church volume 6, pages
473-479, or in Joseph Fielding Smith’s compilation, Teachings of the Prophet
Joseph Smith pages 369-376.
This discourse is great because it is after
Joseph Smith gains a bit more confidence in his understanding of the Hebrew
language. Among other things he points out that things are not created out of
nothing and he used Hebrew to do so. Around the same time a similar scientific
discovery was made to validate Joseph Smith’s teaching: we call it the Law
of Conservation of Energy.
If this is truly the case then it reveals much
about the character and being of God the Father and His role in creation.
Albeit the mainstream Christian community scoffs at the sermons, one cannot
help but notice that similar discoveries have been made.
More than a scientific approach what I call
the paternal approach. For so long in history Deity was seen as unknown and
unknowable and incomprehensible. Joseph Smith however invites us to learn how
close the Heavens really are. In fact, Joseph Smith spent his life attempting
to show others the nature of God.
Although Joseph had seen the Father and the
Son 24 years earlier, it seems to only dawn on him later that in fact, Deity
was made of a body as we have. It was a body like our body, but without the
carnal blood running through the veins making them subject to the Fall. It is
almost exactly 1 year before the King Follet sermon that we first hear Joseph
Smith make a bold declaration as to the nature of the Godhead (see D&C
130:22-23). It seems that around that same time, Joseph Smith also learns of many
deep and important things pertaining to the Plan of Salvation.
To actually put down all of my thoughts on
this would take dozens upon dozens of pages (maybe even hundreds); and I know
that I have only skimmed the surface. I think that those who want to learn more
about what we may call “the essence” of our religion would do well to study
D&C 76 (note the placement of the verses within the vision and the
particular details of our natures in the resurrection), The King Follet sermon,
The Sermon in the Grove, Romans 8, and D&C 130 (again, emphasizing the idea
of resurrection, sociality, and the nature of the Godhead and why it is placed
where it is in the Doctrine and Covenants).
I will relate this to the Temple if it is not
making quite a lot of sense yet.
*I
read a blog that argued "that
this is a significant misinterpretation of Joseph Smith, but I also fail to see
how that teaching would have been any comfort for a funeral sermon." I
would however argue that the interpretation that God was once as we are is the
most quintessential and comforting doctrine that Joseph Smith had to
offer.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Reconciling Mosiah and Moroni
Someone lately
brought up a fantastic point in Sunday School recently. It was brought up the
fact that we are all born with what we as Latter-day Saints call, The Light
of Christ and therefore we are naturally good people that become corrupted.
This seems to be constantly misrepresented. Although this saintly sister had a
fantastic testimony of what Moroni taught, "the Spirit of Christ is given
to every man, that he may know good from evil" (Moroni 7:16), she missed
some other important principles. She, in essence, is correct, but only halfway
there in completing her understanding of the doctrine.
I remember having a similar discussion because I thought completely
opposite. I had read Mosiah 3:19 enough times to know that we are not inherently
good. So, we may ask, how do we reconcile these two scriptures?
Easy. We look
at the principles they are teaching.
First, Moroni
never claims that man is inherently good. He claims that Father in Heaven has
offered us a gift so that we may make the appropriate choices even when we have
not been taught directly right from wrong. Never does he claim that we are
compelled to make that choice by instinct: he simply states that we have an
endowment of light, even from a young age, of the most basic differences
between good and evil insofar as to keep us from spiritual death.
When Mosiah
teaches the doctrine of the natural man, he is teaching us about that voice
that invites us to do contrary of what the Light of Christ is inviting us to
do. That voice is what he calls "the natural man"or the carnal nature
of our fallen bodies.
 |
One of the best illustrations of this is the classic cinematic effect where an angel, who is in the image of the character, is on one side while a little devil, also in the image of the character, sits on the other side attempting to pursued the person to do it there way.
|
One of the best illustrations of this comes from the October 2009 General Conference. Elder Renlund gave a talk titled, Preserving the Heart's Mighty Change. In it he said:
"In 1980 we moved as a family across the street from the hospital where I trained and worked. I worked every day, including Sundays. If I finished my Sunday work by 2:00 p.m., I could join my wife and daughter and drive to church for meetings that began at 2:30.
"One Sunday late in my first year of training, I know that I would likely finish by 2:00. I realized, however, that if I stayed in the hospital just a little longer, my wife and daughter would depart without me. I could then walk home and take a needed nap. I regret to say that I did just that. I waited until 2:15, walked home slowly, and lay down on the couch, hoping to nap. But I could not fall asleep. I was disturbed and concerned. I had always loved going to church. I wondered why on this day the fire of testimony and the zeal that I had previously felt were missing.
"I did not have to think long. Because of my schedule, I had become casual with my prayers and scripture study. I would get one morning, say my prayers, and go to work. Often day blended into night and into day again before I would fall asleep before saying a prayer or reading the scriptures. The next morning the process began again. The problem was that I was not doing the basic things I needed to do to keep my mightily changed heart from turning to stone.
"I got off the couch, got on my knees, and pleaded with God for forgiveness."
The illustration is perfect because we have all felt that: my body tells me to sleep while my Spirit is telling me to go to Church. So what do I do? Well, that will depend on what bod is better nourished for the war.
"In 1980 we moved as a family across the street from the hospital where I trained and worked. I worked every day, including Sundays. If I finished my Sunday work by 2:00 p.m., I could join my wife and daughter and drive to church for meetings that began at 2:30.
"One Sunday late in my first year of training, I know that I would likely finish by 2:00. I realized, however, that if I stayed in the hospital just a little longer, my wife and daughter would depart without me. I could then walk home and take a needed nap. I regret to say that I did just that. I waited until 2:15, walked home slowly, and lay down on the couch, hoping to nap. But I could not fall asleep. I was disturbed and concerned. I had always loved going to church. I wondered why on this day the fire of testimony and the zeal that I had previously felt were missing.
"I did not have to think long. Because of my schedule, I had become casual with my prayers and scripture study. I would get one morning, say my prayers, and go to work. Often day blended into night and into day again before I would fall asleep before saying a prayer or reading the scriptures. The next morning the process began again. The problem was that I was not doing the basic things I needed to do to keep my mightily changed heart from turning to stone.
"I got off the couch, got on my knees, and pleaded with God for forgiveness."
The illustration is perfect because we have all felt that: my body tells me to sleep while my Spirit is telling me to go to Church. So what do I do? Well, that will depend on what bod is better nourished for the war.
That brings me
to the second point of doctrine: Mosiah and Moroni are trying to teach a
similar doctrine: that we must nourish one while suffocating the other. In
fact, it is impossible to fully satiate both appetites at the same time. Your
spiritual nourishment is what is going to arm you for battle.
Brigham Young
taught plainly concerning this, "As I have told you, your spirit is continually
warring with the flesh; your spirit dictates one way, your flesh suggests
another, and this brings on the combat." (Journal of Discourses, 3:212).
Brigham Young
further taught, "When we receive the Gospel, a warfare commences immediately;
Paul says, 'for I delight in the law of God, after the inward man, but I see
another law in my members warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me
into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.' We have to fight
continually, as it were, sword in hand to make the spirit master of the
tabernacle, or the flesh subject to the law of the spirit. If this warfare is
not diligently prosecuted, then the law of sin prevails, and in consequence of
this some apostatize from the truth when crossing the plains, learn to swear
instead of to pray, become high-minded and high tempered instead of learning to
be patient and humble, and when they arrive in these vallies (sic) they
feel so self-sufficient that they consider themselves the only ones that are
really right; they are filled with darkness, the authority of the Spirit is not
listened to, and the law of sin and death is the ruling power in their
tabernacles. (Journal of Discourses, 9:287-288).
At one point I was asked "why can't my dirty thoughts stay outside
of the Temple?" but I had to remind that person that it is not Satan that
keeps it in our mind--he does not have that kind of power: only we do.
I think that this doctrine is a reminder that we are never above sin. We
are never going to be non-susceptible to those. But what a blessing that is: it
causes us to be forever reliant on the Savior. There is not a person on this
world that will ever be able to feel as if they have "overcome"
completely. We may gain the faith to have the constant companionship of the 2nd
Comforter, which is Jesus Christ, however, we will always need divine
help.
Please comment. I think that this is a topic that many people
misunderstand or do not recognize the complementary doctrine that both of those
scriptures serve as
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Name Change... and with it... doctrine of names!
So I have changed the name of this blog. There is another, more controversial blog, that has the same name as I had chosen. I did not realize this until I had someone ask me if I was affiliated. After going to their site, I opted that I would allow them to keep their name while I retained a new one.
Name as Work or Plan
"'And under this head ye are made free, and there is no other head whereby ye can be made free. There is no other name given whereby salvation cometh; therefore, I would that ye should take upon you the name of Christ, all you that have entered into the covenant with God that ye should be obedient unto the end of your lives.
"'And it shall come to pass that whosoever doeth this shall be found at the right hand of God, for he shall know the name by which he is called; for he shall be called by the name of Christ. (Mosiah 5:7-9) ...
I did not change the name just so I could say that this website was undergoing some sort of rebirth; although, that brings up a fascinating question that I want to comment on: the doctrine of Name Change.
To me it was asked: Why did the people in the Book of Mosiah receive a name change (Mosiah 1:11-12) and why does it seem so different than the one we as Church members commonly hear about (see also Mosiah 5)?
All over the Old and New Testament we see name changes take place. The first which we hear about in the written history of the world is Abraham--who before was called Abram. It then happened to his grandson Jacob who would be called Israel. (as a side note, the new name for the website comes from a word-play on Jacob's vision of a ladder leading to Heaven).
Latter-day Saints who have been through the Temple are well-aquainted with this doctrine. What most people do not consider, however, is how often we hear the word "name" in LDS Theology. Some examples include
To me it was asked: Why did the people in the Book of Mosiah receive a name change (Mosiah 1:11-12) and why does it seem so different than the one we as Church members commonly hear about (see also Mosiah 5)?
All over the Old and New Testament we see name changes take place. The first which we hear about in the written history of the world is Abraham--who before was called Abram. It then happened to his grandson Jacob who would be called Israel. (as a side note, the new name for the website comes from a word-play on Jacob's vision of a ladder leading to Heaven).
Latter-day Saints who have been through the Temple are well-aquainted with this doctrine. What most people do not consider, however, is how often we hear the word "name" in LDS Theology. Some examples include
1. At the end of our prayers "in the name of Jesus Christ"
2. When giving/receiving Priesthood blessings it is often said "by the Authority of [whatever Priesthood that person has] and in the name of..."
3. At baptism: " in the name of the..."
4. The sacrament prayers
5. The baptismal and sacramental covenants
6. Sacred temple covenants
7. it used over 1500 times in the scriptures
8. Dedicatory prayers (ldschurchtemples.com has the dedicatory prayers to all of the Temples built in the latter-days: these are great to read and glean doctrine from)
this list goes on...
Maybe some more interesting times we hear it is when their are more direct references to the Temple. One example is in 2 Chronicles 7:16, concerning the Temple the Lord said "I have chosen and sanctified this house, that my name may be there for ever". Surely the Lord does't intend to say that his literal name will be there.
Elder Dallin H. Oaks helps identify something more meaningful behind the word we so commonly use in the Church: "name". He explained,
“When I was called as an Apostle I went to the scriptures for illumination on my responsibilities. I found that I was called to be one of the “special witnesses of the name of Christ in all the world” (D&C 107:23). A witness of Christ I could understand, but why a witness of the name of Christ?
"Sensitized by this unanswered question, I have been amazed at how often scriptural teachings on very important subjects refer to the name of Jesus Christ rather than to the Savior Himself. There is something important here–something heretofore rarely discussed in our literature.
Uses of Name
"The word name occurs in the scriptures about 1500 times, mostly as references to Deity or to the name of Deity.
"Instead of directly referring to God the Father or to His Son, Jesus Christ, many passages of scripture refer to “the name of the Lord,” to “his name” or to “my name.” Thus, the scriptures describe praying as calling upon the name of the Lord (e.g., Gen. 4:26; D&C 65:4). They teach that miracles are done by the power of His name (see Acts 4:10; 3 Ne. 8:1). They state that temples are built to His name (e.g., 1 Chr. 22:19; D&C 109:78). They declare that salvation and the remission of sins come through His name or to those who believe on His name (e.g., Acts 10:43; Alma 5:48). And they declare that there is no other name given whereby man can be saved (e.g., Acts 4:12; Mosiah 3:17). ...
"What is the meaning and significance of the word name when it refers to Deity?
Name as Identification
"The first dictionary meaning of the word name is a word or words by which a person is identified, designated, or known. Consequently, a scriptural reference to “name” of the Father or the Son can be simply a reference to God Himself...It is probably not an overstatement to say that this meaning, identification, is the meaning most readers assume for most scriptural references to the name of Deity.
Name as Authority or Priesthood or Power
"Many scriptural references to the "name" of Jesus Christ seem to be referenes to the authority or priesthood or power of Jesus Christ. Some verses of scripture specifically define "name" in this manner. The clearest of these is the Lord word to Abraham: "Behold, I will lead thee by my hand, and I will take thee, to put upon thee my name, even the Priesthood of thy father, and my power shall be over thee. (Abr. 1:18)
Name as Work or Plan
"Although there are various other vitally important meanings, the most frequent single meaning of the scriptures that refer to the name of the Lord seems to be work of the Lord (or His work or My work). For this purpose “work of the Lord” includes the entirety of God’s gospel plan for the salvation and exaltation of His children, most notably the Resurrection and Atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ. ...
"To those blessed with the illumination of the restored gospel, the priesthood or authority meaning discussed in chapter 3 and the work or plan meaning discussed in this chapter are basically the same reality viewed from two different perspectives. To act in the authority of God is to do the work of God: to do the work of God we should have the authority of God.
Name as Essence or Exaltation
"In the ancient world, a name represented the essence of the person named. Thus, a prominent Bible dictionary declares: "In biblical thought a name is not a mere label of identification; it is an expression of the essential nature of its bearer. A man's name reveals his character...Hence to know the name of God is to know God as he has revealed himself (Interpreter's Dictionary, 3:500-501). ...
"For this reason, in biblical thought a change of name signifies a change of nature or essence. The dictionary observes: "It could also be said soberly of anyone that his name is his very self. Thus, when a radical change in a person's character took place so the he became a new man, he was given a new name" (Interpreter's Dictionary, 2:408). Thus, a king receives a new name on his ascending the throne.
"This understanding helps to explain the new names given to many key figures in the Bible at the time of an important change in their lives. Examples include Abraham (see Gen. 17:5), Sarah (see Gen. 17:15), Israel (see Gen. 32:28; 35:10) and Peter (see John 1:42). The idea that a name changes when a person's essence changes also helps to explain the scriptural teaching that a new name is given to all persons who come into the celestial kingdom (see D&C 130:11; see also Isa. 56:5, 62:2; Rev. 2:17, 3:12).
"The most comprehensive biblical illustration of the significance of the word name as signifying the essence of the one named occures in a conversation between the Lord and the prophet Moses. When the Lord spoke to Moses from the burning bush, He introduced Himself with these words: "I [am] the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob"(Ex. 3:6). The scripture next reports the Lord's instructions to Moses about his assignment to deliver the children of Israel out of Pharaoh's captivity, and then records this significant exchange:
"'And Moses said unto God, Behold, [when] I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What [is] his name? what shall I say unto them?
"'And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you'. (Ex. 3:13-14)
"In English the words I am signify the state of being (the first person present thense of the verb to be). (In Latin, the verb of being is esse, which is the root source of essence.) Thus, when Moses asked to know the name of God, he was asking to know the essence or nature of God, and God answered in those same terms. The Bible dictionary quoted above concludes:
"The uses of the word 'name' in the OT [Old Testament] are all related to the central conception of name as denoting essential being. This applies with regard to both man and God....The name in the OT is the essence of personality, the expression of innermost being" (Interpreter's Dictionary, 3:501). ...
"Jesus Christ, the Redeemer and Savior of the world, is the essential life-giving source in the plan of salvation. His saving mission under this plan opens the door and points the way for the children of God to achieve their ultimate destination as sons and daughters of God--to become like Him. The plan of salvation is not only an expression of the authority and work of our Savior. It is also the manifestation of His essence (emphasis added). ...
"The word name is threaded through the entire fabric of scriptural descriptions of the glorious plan of salvation, including its process and its intended result. The name of Jesus Christ was specified from the heavens (see Luke 1:31; Matt. 1:21). The word name sometimes means the work of salvation, which is the mission of the true Chruch of Jesus Christ. And the word name sometimes means the essence of Christ or the intended exaltation that is our destination and the result of the plan of salvation
"'And Moses said unto God, Behold, [when] I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What [is] his name? what shall I say unto them?
"'And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you'. (Ex. 3:13-14)
"In English the words I am signify the state of being (the first person present thense of the verb to be). (In Latin, the verb of being is esse, which is the root source of essence.) Thus, when Moses asked to know the name of God, he was asking to know the essence or nature of God, and God answered in those same terms. The Bible dictionary quoted above concludes:
"The uses of the word 'name' in the OT [Old Testament] are all related to the central conception of name as denoting essential being. This applies with regard to both man and God....The name in the OT is the essence of personality, the expression of innermost being" (Interpreter's Dictionary, 3:501). ...
"Jesus Christ, the Redeemer and Savior of the world, is the essential life-giving source in the plan of salvation. His saving mission under this plan opens the door and points the way for the children of God to achieve their ultimate destination as sons and daughters of God--to become like Him. The plan of salvation is not only an expression of the authority and work of our Savior. It is also the manifestation of His essence (emphasis added). ...
"The word name is threaded through the entire fabric of scriptural descriptions of the glorious plan of salvation, including its process and its intended result. The name of Jesus Christ was specified from the heavens (see Luke 1:31; Matt. 1:21). The word name sometimes means the work of salvation, which is the mission of the true Chruch of Jesus Christ. And the word name sometimes means the essence of Christ or the intended exaltation that is our destination and the result of the plan of salvation
"What could be more beautiful or more natural for God the Father than to desire and provide a means for His spirit children, who were created in His image, to become like He is? And what more natural means (more understandable to mortals) to enter upon that path than for His children to born again--spiritually begotten--and to aspire to take upon them the name of their Creator? Taking that name upon us has obvious family implications, and it also serves to identify our destination as His children.
"Many scriptures invoke the word name in connection with explaining our relationship to God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ and our eternal goal under their plan. Following are some that explain the plan by means of vivid analogy to birth and to attaining the name (essence) of the Creator.
"In his great valedictory teachings to his people, King Benjamin concluded with these words:
"'And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.
"'And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.
"'And under this head ye are made free, and there is no other head whereby ye can be made free. There is no other name given whereby salvation cometh; therefore, I would that ye should take upon you the name of Christ, all you that have entered into the covenant with God that ye should be obedient unto the end of your lives.
"'And it shall come to pass that whosoever doeth this shall be found at the right hand of God, for he shall know the name by which he is called; for he shall be called by the name of Christ. (Mosiah 5:7-9) ...
This reference to taking upon us the name of Christ and being "saved at the last day" is a clear reference to exaltation, which means attaining the essence of Christ."
(from His Holy Name by Dallin H. Oaks, 1998)
So in answer to that question, the people, after hearing King Benjamin give his address on becoming (another topic for discussion) Saints of Christ, wanted to have a spiritual rebirth. They wanted for their "essence" to change. King Benajamin explained to them that "the natural man is an enemy to God". The people no longer wanted to be the natural man: they wanted to experience a change in essence--they do this by taking upon themselves Christ's name or in other words, Christ's essence.
So their experience was not much different than what we as Latter-day Saints are taught in the Temple. We just tend to hear it more prominently when discussing temple doctrine (D&C 130:11).
So in answer to that question, the people, after hearing King Benjamin give his address on becoming (another topic for discussion) Saints of Christ, wanted to have a spiritual rebirth. They wanted for their "essence" to change. King Benajamin explained to them that "the natural man is an enemy to God". The people no longer wanted to be the natural man: they wanted to experience a change in essence--they do this by taking upon themselves Christ's name or in other words, Christ's essence.
So their experience was not much different than what we as Latter-day Saints are taught in the Temple. We just tend to hear it more prominently when discussing temple doctrine (D&C 130:11).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)