Some in the LDS community rise to stardom with callings or books they've authored. But John Dehlin, the brains behind the OpenStoriesFoundation and Mormon Stories podcasts (you can find on iTunes), has come about it in a different way. Dehlin is an active Mormon that wears a unique set of lenses from his experiences. His experiences include trouble on his mission, disaffection (short-lived, and mild) with the Church, some dissent regarding standard teachings, and questions regarding past practices. He is active and remains such because during those times of disinterest and dissent, he could "feel something leave".
Dehlin poses a really unique and important role in modern Mormonism because he is frank, honest, and I think he is a superb interviewer. He asks the right questions on both sides.
Recently, controversy erupted at the Maxwell Institute when an article accused Dehlin of subtly engaging in mere exit stories. It ended in a lot of hurt feelings and the termination of an individual I respect a lot: Dan Peterson. I don't assume to know the story, but from the bits I gather, there are some disappointing things one can easily infer.
First, the most important part of our theology is the Plan of Salvation
One thing I wish Dehlin would at least bring up a little more is the beauty behind the theology we teach as well as highlight the good as it relates to the bad. (The balance is overwhelmingly in favor of the good.) So here is my issue with everything involved: steel in the Book of Mormon, the LGBT controversies, etc... are secondary to our doctrine. They are things that are important to potentially discuss, but it should be done with the fact that we have much more in common than not! We believe in a God who is a literal Father, Who is attempting to do everything He can to ensure our safe return home. That is the fundamental piece! So where to LGBT members fit in, for example? We want them to return too! Dehlin, Peterson, President Monson, and even Brigham Young could all agree on that. So why not make that the starting point of discussion if that is the controversy that is going to be discussed?
Trivial matters become so central when we let them become such, but our weekly cleansing covenant does not mention anything about how we think about blacks in the early Church, or LGBT fairness. It asks us to think of Christ and His Atonement: a sacrifice made for all people!
Second, think about your words
The other day I bought a cup of hot chocolate from the law school cafeteria where I attend school. When I was parting, the young man working said, "Have a good day." But did it in a commanding tone. I thought about it and realized he just gave me a commandment: have a good day. I thought about words and was encountered with another greeting just moments later: a classmate said, "Morning." That was it, and what was odd, I replied with the same exact word. But why? Why do we say "Morning." Is it because we fear the other person did not know the time of day? Or have just gotten lazy and wanted to drop the "Good" from the sentence to save a syllable? Maybe he was saying "Mourning" because he was mourning the loss of someone? To expound on the experience, someone said, "What's up?" for a greeting and I replied, "Good." I realized just seconds after that I predetermined the response.
I bring this up only because much of our language is the same: (1) we say things arbitrarily, and (2) we don't actually listen to what is said, just prepare our response for what we thing that person would say or is going to say.
Finally, we need all walks in the Church
When the Maxwell v. Dehlin scuttle came about, I was very much on the apologists side, and still probably tend to side with Peterson when it comes to what happened. I feel he has contributed a lot to the community of LDS scholarship and his dismissal was a showing of under appreciation, particularly with how some blogs covered it.
I even made some very strong remarks about the faithlessness of individuals on the internet and how we need fierce defenders in the Church. I thought this was a wheat harvest for sure! But, I had a change of heart. I listened to Dehlin's podcast and found some wonderfully insightful and comforting things. One, Dehlin has become, over the years, and excellent interviewer. He has also showcased strong LDS members whom I love and look up to in a very positive, but real light. Philip Barlow, for example, spoke candidly of his divorce. My in-laws have made me feel awful about being from a home where my folks divorced. I thought for sure the decision of my parents tainted me for life, but to hear this interview where a faithful member talks about it was so comforting. And the empathy I felt for Bro. Barlow was overwhelming. I had a true spiritual experience listening to his discussion.
I realized I needed to hear that.
To go a long with this point, there are too many members finding things on Google and not knowing where to turn. Sometimes the apologist approach is not satisfactory, and what they need to hear are people who (a) know more about the subject, (b) remain active despite the controversy, and (c) validate their confusion without making them feel bad about it. I think Dehlin's podcast does that.
On the flip-side, there are apologetic articles that really clear the air and help us dismiss some of the bogus claims out there. I think Peterson and others have done a great job of this. I think Nibley was a great example of an objective apologist and I have read a lot of his work and felt my testimony strengthened as result.
I, and I think others, have benefited from both approached. Both are important and both serve to help those struggling.
The bottom line is that people struggle for whatever reason in the Church, and we should be working together to help them, not point out the flaws in each other.
If you read and have insight, please comment, but in the spirit of the article, at the very least be kind.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
The Restoration--Why?
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)