D&C 20:1 "one thousand eight hundred and thirty years since the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the flesh...on the sixth day of the month which is called April."
On my mission I ran into many evangelicals who spoke badly of the Church because we celebrated Christmas. They believed it was a Catholic holiday and thus a grievous sin to celebrate because nobody actually knows when Christ was born. I usually countered with something like, "is it not a good thing to celebrate Christ's birth? I wish that all days were Christmas, but sadly mankind only agrees to remember his birth once a year." (To me it was always a great sign of the hypocrisy of Satan, to one people he will tell them one thing and to the other he will tell them something else. In other words, in the US Mormons are often accused as being too strict and with too many rules, while in Latin America we are accused of being too liberal and worldly.)
Returning to the subject at hand, I recently realized how great it is that even though the Church has reason to believe Christ was born on the 6th of April and yet we still celebrate Christmas on December 25th. This completely nullifies those evangelicals' entire argument, since their main disclaimer was that nobody could know what day Christ was born and thus we shouldn't celebrate Christmas. The fact that we still celebrate Christmas on the 25th shows that the date really doesn't matter but that what matters is that the whole world is unified in remembering Christ's birth. If we wanted to join those evangelicals' harsh mentality we could start celebrating Christmas on April 6th and call all those that celebrate it on the 25th sinners like they do. But that would completely ruin the spirit and purpose of Christmas. Needless to say, good thing I only spent one Christmas in Guatemala because it was hard to hear all of these Christians ridiculing those that celebrate Christmas for the right reasons.
*For further LDS perspective on why we celebrate the 25th of December and not April 6th see:
http://lds.org/liahona/1998/12/i-have-a-question/i-have-a-question?lang=eng&query=april+6th+birth+christ
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Free Agency
2 Nephi 2:26- "because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon"
2 Nephi 2:27- "men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life,"
2 Nephi 2:4- "salvation is free"
Too often in the Church we get too nit-picky and lose sight of why we are taught certain things. One such example is the obsession some people have with the difference between "free agency" and "moral agency." This alleged difference is not scripturally based (as can be seen in the previous verses Nephi had no problem saying we are free to act). Today in Elder's Quorum someone sitting behind me felt it necessary to mutter under his breath a correction when the teacher mentioned the importance of "free agency" by stating that its not "free". This is a problem, especially since David O McKay (amongst others) was fine with calling it "free agency". I realize that some have spoken against that term but this should be intended only to help people avoid misunderstanding "free agency." In other words, for some people the term "free" is a problem because we know that "there is no such thing as a free lunch". For these people, it is a cardinal sin to say "free agency" because it can't be free, somebody had to pay for it (as evidenced by the war in heaven). I admit that it is a true principle that agency wasn't "gratis", it was paid for and so we cannot call it "agency without price" but free has multiple meanings other than just costless. A simple study of latin languages would show that the word used in "free agency" is not the same word used in "salvation is free." In free agency it is "libre albedrio" where libre has the same root as liberty, while salvation is free uses "gratis" which comes from the same root as grace (so in a sense we could even say agency is free because its due to grace [but grace came with a price as well], but then some people would really have issues with this).
So it is not necessary for us to correct everyone that its not "free" agency as long as we remember that it's not that type of "free" agency. It is free because we are liberated and allowed to act for ourselves. Agency comes from "agir" which means to act. So one way to look at it is that rocks and such don't have agency because they are "acted upon" but animals have agency because they can act. However, only humans have "moral free agency" (as Daniel Ludlow calls it) because they can choose to act morally or immorally. So the next time somebody calls it "free agency" think to yourself "liberated to act" instead of assuming the speaker doesn't understand the meaning of the word "free".
Monday, December 12, 2011
Judge Not
Lately I've been struggling with not being judgmental of others. The world we live in is very cutthroat and sometimes I feel like I have to compare myself to others in order to make myself look better. I tend to see others faults so as to justify my own. This is not what the Lord wants. Christ taught us not to judge others because we will be judged with the same measure. Now usually when I read that verse I think only of the final judgment and I say to myself "well that's ok cause I'm not doing the things that this guy is doing so I'm fine if they judge me against that." But a few days ago I had an epiphany. I realized there was a more immediate application. Another big problem I have is that I'm too hard on myself, demanding perfection and getting depressed when I continue to see the same faults. The realization I came to was that because I judge others, I've created a habit of judging that has no sanctuary, not even for myself. I judge myself too harshly because that's the way I judge others. I need to be more merciful towards others and remember that they are all children of God just struggling like myself in a very wicked world. When I see them like God does, namely, as spiritual beings having a physical experience, I can see myself as God does as well. This will allow me to not be so hard on myself by realizing that God is merciful and only asks that I let his Son cleanse and purify me. By having a compassionate judgment towards others I will be more compassionate towards myself.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Testimony Meeting
1 Corinthians 14:31 "For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted."
Revelation 19:10 "for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."
On one occasion someone asked Joseph Smith if he truly was a prophet. To which Joseph replied that he had the testimony of Jesus and thus possessed the spirit of prophecy. Therefore, all of us can in that sense be a prophet (not to be confused with THE presiding Prophet of the Church). So viewing these two verses together we see that Testimony Meeting is when we share our testimony of Jesus one by one. This means that the purpose of Testimony Meeting is that all may learn and be comforted. I believe we could all get a lot more out of Testimony Meeting if we looked for what lessons we could be taught and ways that the testimonies could comfort us through our trials. For instance, when I hear someone bare testimony of how they know that Jesus is the Christ through study of the Book of Mormon, I learn that I should follow that pattern. Likewise, if I hear how someone pictures the Savior, I can be comforted whenever I find myself needing His presence.
Revelation 19:10 "for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."
On one occasion someone asked Joseph Smith if he truly was a prophet. To which Joseph replied that he had the testimony of Jesus and thus possessed the spirit of prophecy. Therefore, all of us can in that sense be a prophet (not to be confused with THE presiding Prophet of the Church). So viewing these two verses together we see that Testimony Meeting is when we share our testimony of Jesus one by one. This means that the purpose of Testimony Meeting is that all may learn and be comforted. I believe we could all get a lot more out of Testimony Meeting if we looked for what lessons we could be taught and ways that the testimonies could comfort us through our trials. For instance, when I hear someone bare testimony of how they know that Jesus is the Christ through study of the Book of Mormon, I learn that I should follow that pattern. Likewise, if I hear how someone pictures the Savior, I can be comforted whenever I find myself needing His presence.
Sheaves
D&C 75:5 "If ye are faithful ye shall be laden with many sheaves"
Institute Manual-"If the Elders have been faithful, the harvest is sure. The seed they have sown may sprout and come to maturity years after they have been released."
A few weeks ago Erica and I returned to my mission for the Xela Temple Open House. It was a great opportunity to be able to see so many people that I had touched and that had impacted my life. One such person is Edgar. Edgar is an example of how prayers are answered.
I first met Edgar on the first day of my last transfer in the mission. My companion Elder Willmore and I knelt and prayed and expressed to the Lord our concern that we didn't have anyone to teach. We promised Him that we would talk with the first person that we saw as we left the house. Sure enough, right as we opened the door we saw Edgar walking up the road. We spoke with him for a minute and could tell that he was interested so he described where he lived. Little did we know that he was blind and NEVER leaves the house. He later told us this was one of the few days he had left his house that year and that the reason he was walking passed our house was because his son was sick. When we visited his home we discovered that he leaved with a lot of his wife's family at a location we had contacted many times but never had success. They lived behind the rest of the family and we would never have been able to talk with them had we not found each other on the street. I can't do this story justice as the Spirit restrains me from going into more detail, but suffice it to say that Edgar was a miraculous answer to our prayers.
Upon returning to the ward I found out that Edgar is now the Ward Mission Leader. Not only that but he has introduced the Church to a region where it had never been before. He was originally from this small village and so once he found the gospel he wanted to share it with his cousins and other family members back where he came from.
I am so grateful that the Lord used me as an instrument to bring about so much good. Even though I was only there to plant the seed, Edgar has produced many sheaves.
Institute Manual-"If the Elders have been faithful, the harvest is sure. The seed they have sown may sprout and come to maturity years after they have been released."
A few weeks ago Erica and I returned to my mission for the Xela Temple Open House. It was a great opportunity to be able to see so many people that I had touched and that had impacted my life. One such person is Edgar. Edgar is an example of how prayers are answered.
I first met Edgar on the first day of my last transfer in the mission. My companion Elder Willmore and I knelt and prayed and expressed to the Lord our concern that we didn't have anyone to teach. We promised Him that we would talk with the first person that we saw as we left the house. Sure enough, right as we opened the door we saw Edgar walking up the road. We spoke with him for a minute and could tell that he was interested so he described where he lived. Little did we know that he was blind and NEVER leaves the house. He later told us this was one of the few days he had left his house that year and that the reason he was walking passed our house was because his son was sick. When we visited his home we discovered that he leaved with a lot of his wife's family at a location we had contacted many times but never had success. They lived behind the rest of the family and we would never have been able to talk with them had we not found each other on the street. I can't do this story justice as the Spirit restrains me from going into more detail, but suffice it to say that Edgar was a miraculous answer to our prayers.
Upon returning to the ward I found out that Edgar is now the Ward Mission Leader. Not only that but he has introduced the Church to a region where it had never been before. He was originally from this small village and so once he found the gospel he wanted to share it with his cousins and other family members back where he came from.
I am so grateful that the Lord used me as an instrument to bring about so much good. Even though I was only there to plant the seed, Edgar has produced many sheaves.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Student Married Wards
D&C 51:17- "let them act upon this land as for years, and this shall turn unto them for their good."
In the Institute manual, I found a very insightful explanation of this verse:
"People who locate in a home or apartment knowing that they will move to another in a short time may have a tendency to neglect Church attendance and other responsibilities. They rationalize, "well, we won't be here long." The Lord wanted the Saints to live the gospel and share it in Ohio as though they were to be there for a long time."
This application is very appropriate to our lives and our ward. We have a lot of members that don't seem to come as much because they don't see this as a "real" ward. They feel like they could just as well go to whatever ward is most convenient for them or go with their family or simply not go at all "because I'll be graduating soon and then life gets easy." This verse shows that the Lord wants us to live every day with an eternal perspective.
In the Institute manual, I found a very insightful explanation of this verse:
"People who locate in a home or apartment knowing that they will move to another in a short time may have a tendency to neglect Church attendance and other responsibilities. They rationalize, "well, we won't be here long." The Lord wanted the Saints to live the gospel and share it in Ohio as though they were to be there for a long time."
This application is very appropriate to our lives and our ward. We have a lot of members that don't seem to come as much because they don't see this as a "real" ward. They feel like they could just as well go to whatever ward is most convenient for them or go with their family or simply not go at all "because I'll be graduating soon and then life gets easy." This verse shows that the Lord wants us to live every day with an eternal perspective.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
All that the Father hath
Romans 8:17-"if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ"
Hebrews 1:2-"his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things"
Sorry, I've been kind of busy on Sundays so I haven't been able to write the last two weeks. This blog is coming from something I discovered in the scriptures while waiting for Erica in the Provo Temple lobby.
In these verses we see that it is part of God's plan for us to inherit the same estate he now possesses. We see that Christ became an heir of all things and that we are joint-heirs with Christ. Now that it is clearly established that we have the ability to inherit Godhood, the more important question is, how do we inherit all that the Father hath?
Hebrews 1:2-"his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things"
Sorry, I've been kind of busy on Sundays so I haven't been able to write the last two weeks. This blog is coming from something I discovered in the scriptures while waiting for Erica in the Provo Temple lobby.
In these verses we see that it is part of God's plan for us to inherit the same estate he now possesses. We see that Christ became an heir of all things and that we are joint-heirs with Christ. Now that it is clearly established that we have the ability to inherit Godhood, the more important question is, how do we inherit all that the Father hath?
There may be many answers to this question (for instance the term "child of God" is sometimes used in a more exclusive sense than simply a pre-mortal Child or physical creation of God), but the answer I found given most succinctly is D&C 84:35-39, "And also all they who receive this priesthood receive me...and he that receiveth me receiveth my Father; And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him. And this is according to the oath and covenant which belongeth to the priesthood." So the "oath and covenant of the priesthood" is the key to exaltation. A deeper comprehension of man's divine potential will enhance our understanding of the priesthood and in turn this increased knowledge of the priesthood will expound our relationship with God.
Finally, there is an essential clause included in Romans 8:17 where Paul explained-"if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." Furthermore, the Lord says in D&C 50:28-"But no man is possessor of all things except he be purified and cleansed from all sin." Christ's Atonement obviously is the foundation to our exaltation. One way to "receive me [Christ]" is to "suffer with him" by implementing his Atonement in our lives through repentance so we are "purified and cleansed from all sin".
Monday, October 10, 2011
The Atonement- Part 3- The Greatest "Nevertheless"
D&C 19:19- Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.
This verse immediately follows the Lord's description of his Atoning suffering. He described how it was more agonizing than anyone could ever endure and live. After such an incomprehensible statement the next word the Lord uses is "Nevertheless." What an amazing manifestation of eternal perspective. "Nevertheless" literally means that what follows is never less important, or in other words, that what follows is of greater importance than what preceded. So what followed this "nevertheless"? The Lord pronouncing that "glory be to the Father". Here the Lord once again demonstrates His infinite humility in recognizing that although he accomplished something more difficult than anyone could even imagine, still all the glory was for his Father for it was His plan and His will. In other words, even though Christ had just described himself as "God, the greatest of all" and His infinite suffering, he reiterated his prayer in the Garden, "nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done." Never before was there a nevertheless that was more substantial and eternally necessary.
This verse immediately follows the Lord's description of his Atoning suffering. He described how it was more agonizing than anyone could ever endure and live. After such an incomprehensible statement the next word the Lord uses is "Nevertheless." What an amazing manifestation of eternal perspective. "Nevertheless" literally means that what follows is never less important, or in other words, that what follows is of greater importance than what preceded. So what followed this "nevertheless"? The Lord pronouncing that "glory be to the Father". Here the Lord once again demonstrates His infinite humility in recognizing that although he accomplished something more difficult than anyone could even imagine, still all the glory was for his Father for it was His plan and His will. In other words, even though Christ had just described himself as "God, the greatest of all" and His infinite suffering, he reiterated his prayer in the Garden, "nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done." Never before was there a nevertheless that was more substantial and eternally necessary.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Line upon Line
D&C 76:76- "These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness."
Revelation 12:1-"a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet"
As I listened to General Conference this weekend a thought came to my mind. Often in the Church when explaining why to other Christians why ours is the only true Church and why we need the Book of Mormon and such we say, "your Church has a portion of the light, while ours has the fulness of the gospel which is found in the Book of Mormon." Lots of people I have said this to have responded with, "how can we only have some of the light? We believe in Christ and have the Bible, that is the only truth you need." We try to explain to them that what they have accepted is intended to inspire them to keep learning and eventually embrace the whole truth of the restored gospel. Just yesterday a thought came to my mind to help explain this.
In science (particularly Chemistry) it is not uncommon for a principle to be taught as truth that really isn't true or that doesn't demonstrate the whole picture. As you learn more and more you discover that there is more to be understood (for instance, the atom). It is much the same way with other religions, be they Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. They all have true principles, such as: love, family, faith, charity, etc. Some even teach true doctrines, such as: repentance, baptism, Christ's sacrifice, the final judgment, etc. However, they are all damned (for the real definition of damnation is to hinder your progress, thus even a Terrestrial Glory falls under this category) because they don't accept continuous revelation. We don't teach Christians to abandon their belief in the Bible and Christ or tell Muslims to forget about the Abrahamic Covenant, instead we show them that their religions are stepping stones to the ultimate source of living waters, Christ and his true gospel. All religions are good in the sense that they all help people escape the Telestial realm of stealing, murdering, and other grievous sins, but they are limiting when someone says "we have received, and we need no more!" for behold "wo be unto him" (2 Nephi 28:29). Just as the moon only reflects a portion of the light of the sun, so the Terrestrial churches only reflect a portion of the light of the Celestial Church of the First Born. I don't know about you, but for how dark the world is right now, I'd rather have the noonday sun guiding me than the moonlight.
Revelation 12:1-"a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet"
As I listened to General Conference this weekend a thought came to my mind. Often in the Church when explaining why to other Christians why ours is the only true Church and why we need the Book of Mormon and such we say, "your Church has a portion of the light, while ours has the fulness of the gospel which is found in the Book of Mormon." Lots of people I have said this to have responded with, "how can we only have some of the light? We believe in Christ and have the Bible, that is the only truth you need." We try to explain to them that what they have accepted is intended to inspire them to keep learning and eventually embrace the whole truth of the restored gospel. Just yesterday a thought came to my mind to help explain this.
In science (particularly Chemistry) it is not uncommon for a principle to be taught as truth that really isn't true or that doesn't demonstrate the whole picture. As you learn more and more you discover that there is more to be understood (for instance, the atom). It is much the same way with other religions, be they Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. They all have true principles, such as: love, family, faith, charity, etc. Some even teach true doctrines, such as: repentance, baptism, Christ's sacrifice, the final judgment, etc. However, they are all damned (for the real definition of damnation is to hinder your progress, thus even a Terrestrial Glory falls under this category) because they don't accept continuous revelation. We don't teach Christians to abandon their belief in the Bible and Christ or tell Muslims to forget about the Abrahamic Covenant, instead we show them that their religions are stepping stones to the ultimate source of living waters, Christ and his true gospel. All religions are good in the sense that they all help people escape the Telestial realm of stealing, murdering, and other grievous sins, but they are limiting when someone says "we have received, and we need no more!" for behold "wo be unto him" (2 Nephi 28:29). Just as the moon only reflects a portion of the light of the sun, so the Terrestrial churches only reflect a portion of the light of the Celestial Church of the First Born. I don't know about you, but for how dark the world is right now, I'd rather have the noonday sun guiding me than the moonlight.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
General Conference Prep
Pres. Uchtdorf- "they will serve as a Liahona, guiding us through the unknown"
Elder Widtsoe- "The principal business of a prophet has MISTAKENLY been thought to foretell coming events"
Quite often I have found myself undermining General Conference because the Prophets, Seers and Revelators don't seem to teach us any new futuristic prophesies. It wasn't until today that I received a profound answer upon this subject: It is much more important for us to receive knowledge on how we can prepare for the future (via prayer, scripture study, fasting, temple attendance, family home evening, avoiding debt, food storage, etc) than it is to know what the future will bring. As President Uchtdorf said, their words will guide us through the unknown. In other words, it is of little use to known in detail what the future has in store if we don't know how to handle it when it comes. Like Joseph Smith said, "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves." If we have received the teachings of the Prophets and applied them, we will be prepared for whatever the future can throw at us, which is all that really matters.
(Previous to today, I would tend to tell myself that the reason we don't receive many futuristic prophesies in our General Conferences today is because we are so close to the end of the world, and all the needed prophesies of the future have already been given. This may hold some water, but I believe my other explanation better applies the concept of "if ye are prepared ye shall not fear.")
Elder Widtsoe- "The principal business of a prophet has MISTAKENLY been thought to foretell coming events"
Quite often I have found myself undermining General Conference because the Prophets, Seers and Revelators don't seem to teach us any new futuristic prophesies. It wasn't until today that I received a profound answer upon this subject: It is much more important for us to receive knowledge on how we can prepare for the future (via prayer, scripture study, fasting, temple attendance, family home evening, avoiding debt, food storage, etc) than it is to know what the future will bring. As President Uchtdorf said, their words will guide us through the unknown. In other words, it is of little use to known in detail what the future has in store if we don't know how to handle it when it comes. Like Joseph Smith said, "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves." If we have received the teachings of the Prophets and applied them, we will be prepared for whatever the future can throw at us, which is all that really matters.
(Previous to today, I would tend to tell myself that the reason we don't receive many futuristic prophesies in our General Conferences today is because we are so close to the end of the world, and all the needed prophesies of the future have already been given. This may hold some water, but I believe my other explanation better applies the concept of "if ye are prepared ye shall not fear.")
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Muhammad and Joseph Smith
Alma 29:8-"the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have"
Since I didn't have time this Sunday for a post, I decided to post a paper that I wrote for my Islam and the Gospel class. This paper is in response to a prompt and has a word limit and thus is much more narrow than all the things I would love to say about Muhammad and Joseph Smith. Anyone that knows me knows that I love and respect Islam, so this paper needs to be taken in that context. In other words, this paper assumes someone already sees the similarities between Muslims and Mormons but this paper's intent is to help us know why we can't be over the top in this comparison and why we shouldn't allow others to label Joseph Smith as an "American Muhammad".
Since I didn't have time this Sunday for a post, I decided to post a paper that I wrote for my Islam and the Gospel class. This paper is in response to a prompt and has a word limit and thus is much more narrow than all the things I would love to say about Muhammad and Joseph Smith. Anyone that knows me knows that I love and respect Islam, so this paper needs to be taken in that context. In other words, this paper assumes someone already sees the similarities between Muslims and Mormons but this paper's intent is to help us know why we can't be over the top in this comparison and why we shouldn't allow others to label Joseph Smith as an "American Muhammad".
The question at hand is “why should one observe some caution in comparing Muhammad and Joseph Smith?” Initially as I began to ponder on this question I could only see reasons in support of comparing Muhammad and Joseph Smith. For instance, both were from humble beginnings but then received divine revelation that allowed them to restore the truth about God to help the religiously corrupt society in which they lived. For Muhammad it was helping his countrymen abandon their idols, for Joseph Smith it was helping his countrymen abandon their abominable creeds. I saw that both were prophets of God and have caused much good in the world, however, I wasn’t able to see the danger in comparing these two men until after reading an article by Arnold H. Green entitled The Muhammad-Joseph Smith Comparison: Subjective Metaphor or a Sociology of Prophethood.
Essentially, by comparing Joseph Smith to Muhammad we run the risk of people thinking that everything that Muhammad believed, preached, and did applies to Joseph Smith as well. This obviously is not the case. By saying that Joseph Smith is the "American Muhammad" causes people to make the immediate jump to think that Joseph Smith doesn’t see Jesus Christ as our Savior and other such conclusions. A more appropriate way of comparing them would be to show some attributes or teachings that they have in common, such as: charitable, humble, faithful, prayer, fasting, revelation, etc. By doing so we compare positive traits between the two without saying that one is a copy of the other or that they both had the same religious mindset. Likewise, it is crucial to point out the glaring differences. Arnold Green mentions a few, namely: lack of priesthood, lack of continuous revelation, concept of Deity, etc.
In addition to these concerns, we should note that there is no reason to alienate these two prophets from the rest of the more “mainstream” Old Testament Hebrew Prophets. Why can’t we compare Muhammad to Moses or Joseph Smith to John the Baptist? Both of those comparisons have equal validity, however, Western Christianity sees Muhammad as a heretic and thus wants to clump Joseph Smith with him as being from the same tree. As Arnold Green put it, “this intriguing comparison, which has existed in the literature for nearly 150 years, has thus been pursued for questionable reasons and with questionable methods: to discredit Mormonism by equating its founder with Muhammad, who was presumed to be a fraud and a heretic.”
In conclusion, although many of the similarities between Joseph Smith and Muhammad are faith inspiring and help us see God’s hand extended towards all his children, it is necessary to be cautious in comparing Muhammad and Joseph Smith for several important reasons. First off, you never know what stigmas your audience already has when they think of who Muhammad was. Secondly, there are some significant difference between Joseph Smith and Muhammad that must be pointed out. Lastly, by so doing you diminish their roles and leave them as “lesser prophets” whereas they should be just as legitimately compared to all the prophets that have ever lived.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Salvatory Repentance versus Nonsalvatory Doctrinal Concerns
Alma 42:29-"And now, my son, I desire that ye should let these things trouble you no more, and only let your sins trouble you, with that trouble which shall bring you down unto repentance."
"These things" that troubled Alma's son Corianton were a few doctrinal concerns that his father had just explained. They were: the resurrection of the dead, the final restoration to all men, and the justice of God in the punishment of sinners. For the first point he wanted to know how it was that all men would be resurrected, where those that had died now reside, when it was that they should come forth, whether it was all at once, etc. We have Alma 40 thanks to this inquiry. The second concern was how it was that men were restored all things in the final judgment, which is why we have Alma 41. His final concern was basically, if all men are sinners and fall short, how is it that God can justify punishing sinners? This is a logical concern for anyone that believes that since we are all fallen there is nothing we can do to avoid judgment and thus should just live however we want to (this obviously being false and the root of the "eat, drink, and be merry" philosophy that many non-LDS Christians have today). Alma 42 was written in response to this question.
However, I find it very intriguing that after all of this scriptural and doctrinal elaboration Alma points out that none of this really matters in the long run. What really matters is that we repent so that Christ's Atonement can redeem us. I refer to this scripture whenever I can tell that I am getting too caught up in scriptural debates and logical analysis of the doctrine. For example, my last two blogs have been due to much analysis and research on two subjects that bothered me for a while. In the end I must remind myself that "these things trouble me no more" but only "let my sins trouble me". In other words, although it is good to want to know mysteries of the kingdom (for Alma told Corianton that this was one of the mysteries), it is better to want to apply the simply principles of the kingdom that even a child can understand. Repentance of our sins should always come before deep doctrinal endeavors. That being said, Alma was able to embark on a search of greater light on these mysteries and thanks to Corianton's concerns we have some of the most eye-opening chapters of scripture. So there is some good in wanting to find explanations to things that trouble us, but we can never confuse that "spiritual candy" with the "spiritual feast" that is the simple Gospel of Jesus Christ. Candy is not a necessity but can be a bonus to those that have already had their vitamins.
(It should be noted that Corianton was in a very poor spiritual state and thus had greater sins than most of us, but I believe this counsel is still applicable to me.)
Sunday, September 4, 2011
The Atonement- Part 2- Saved by Grace
2 Nephi 25:23- "it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do."
This is another post that was sparked by my encounter with the 3 UC-Riverside guys. Ever since then it seems like this verse (among others) has been finding me wherever I go. Not only that but any where I find it I find the word "misunderstanding" preceding it. Like in July's Ensign, "a second false assumption (that we can trust in our own efforts) might come from misunderstanding 2 Nephi 25:23. We mistakenly deduce that we must first prove our worth through our obedience and righteousness before the Lord's sacrifice will cover us or His grace enable us." Although I probably still misunderstand it to some degree, I feel like I have recently gained some treasured insights into a more complete understanding of this passage. Namely, there are two (at least) acceptable interpretations of this verse, one applying to achieved immediate salvation and one to conditional future salvation.
For starters, the initial surface interpretation is basic and incorrect: we do everything that we possible can do and then Christ stands in and leaves a nice tip. For me this interpretation was completely dispelled once and for all at Education week when I attended Brad Wilcox's seminar. In short, the first interpretation is "we are saved by grace no matter how much we do" . Although I had read the exact same talk in his book The Continuous Atonement, I must have misplaced those highly valuable teachings in my gospel memory. As he started to expound on this verse I quickly recalled his profound explanation of this verse. Basically, Brad shows how emphasizing each individual word in "after all we can do" can completely change the meaning of the verse. In fact, he dedicates an entire chapter to this single phrase. For a more thorough analysis of this interpretation I suggest reading, if not in it's entirety, that chapter of his book. Some crucial statements from his book are the following:
Another example is from Robert Millet's Christ-Centered Living, "too many of us misread 2 Nephi 25:23 and conclude that the Lord can assist us only after, meaning following the time that, we have done "all we can do." That is incorrect; he can and does help us all along the way. No matter how much we do, it simply will not be enough to guarantee salvation without Christ's intervention."
One source that Brad references is Stephen E Robinson's book Believing Christ. I also recommend this book (although I must add that this book must be read from an LDS perspective, for reading this from a protestant perspective it can sound as if he is teaching that we don't need to do anything after accepting Christ. He clarifies this in the sequel Following Christ.) as it caused a vital change in my life. Here are some crucial quotes form his book:
One final citation (though there are numerous more) is Robert Millet's Grace Works which reemphasizes the essential concept of the gospel covenant through the Atonement (which literally means at-one-ment, or becoming one with Christ). "As I come unto Christ by covenant, we (Christ and I) are complete. Together we are perfect. Through relying alone upon his merits, those who come unto Christ become perfect in him." Notice the tense of the verb "are" and "become". This isn't speaking of a future perfection or salvation. It is teaching that as soon as we entire the gospel covenant through baptism we are saved in Christ solely because of his merits. Now that is a fundamental aspect of salvation by grace, I repeat, "solely because of his merits". It is clear that we are not saving ourselves, but what must we do to entire into the gospel covenant? Faith-to motivate us, Repentance-to demonstrate that faith, Baptism-to demonstrate that repentance and to entire the gate, Gift of the Holy Ghost-to confirm that we have entered the covenant. At that very moment, as soon as we hear the words "amen" we have been saved. Yes, as Stephen E Robinson explains, we do believe that "we have been saved". Unfortunately, because of the negative connotations attached with the protestant version of "being saved" we tend to only speak of salvation in the future tense, when there are really two meanings for salvation. Namely, the immediate state of being saved in Christ because of the covenant of the Atonement and the future state of being saved in the Celestial Kingdom. As Robinson explains "Latter-day Saints have hesitated to use the term being saved, as many Protestants do, as an equivalent for "being converted" or "coming to Christ," since we understand that as long as we live, this salvation is conditional upon our enduring to the end."
Let me intervene real quickly, so these quotes from LDS authors are all fine and dandy but we need some actual scriptural backing. So here we go:
Alma 34:21- "now is the time and the day of your salvation...if ye will repent, immediately shall the great plan of redemption be brought about unto you."
Ether 12:26,27-"my grace is sufficient for the meek, my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me"
Moroni 10:32,33-"that by his grace ye might be perfect in Christ".
These verses demonstrate that we are saved in the present tense and that Christ's grace is sufficient for us to be perfected in Him because we are in a covenant with Him through His Atonement.
The second interpretation is a future conditional salvation. The idea is captured in the phrase "enduring to the end". This phrase in and of itself implies the chronological idea of "after". We are saved in heaven after we have endured to the end. However, we obviously have already entered into the kingdom and thus have already been saved and simply need to endure in order to stay in the kingdom forever and thus be saved again. Stephen E Robinson explains very majestically that once we have been saved by entering the kingdom of God the only way we won't be finally saved is if we decide to leave. In other words, we are saved conditionally because we have the agency to decide whether or not we want to endure to the end. As of right now we are saved, but it is possible for a man to fall from grace. So for us to be saved forever we must endure to the end. This is evident through numerous passages:
Matthew 24:13-"he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved."
D&C 20:25-"endure in faith to the end, should be saved"
3 Nephi 15:9-"unto him that endureth to the end will I give eternal life."
2 Nephi 31:20-"endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life."
2 Nephi 33:4-"endure to the end, which is life eternal."
2 Nephi 31:13-"unless a man shall endure to the end, in following the example of the Son of the living God, he cannot be saved."
The last three quotes are the most important because all three were written by the very same Nephi that wrote 2 Nephi 25:23. Not only that, but they were all written after that passage and thus any understanding he possessed would have been even deeper by the time he wrote those three verses. Even after enduring to the end we are saved by grace because enduring to the end is just continuing in the grace we have already received. Thus we advance "from grace to grace" and "from salvation to salvation."
Originally when I tried to explain this passage to Rob (the one from UC-R that I stay in the most contact with), I only understood the possible interpretation that I found in my new testament manual, namely, that "all we can do" refers to repenting of all our sins. The discouraging part of this explanation was that I couldn't find any sources to validate it. First off, the manual was one that my professor had made himself and this was one of the few cases where there was no reference cited. In fact, it was a mere one sentence explanation, almost as if it was left up to the reader to find out where it came from. Well, just recently in my search for why, Erica and I read a verse in the Book of Mormon that was perfect.
Alma 24:11-"all that we could do was to repent of all our sins...for it was all we could do to repent sufficiently before God that he would take away our stain"
This verse demonstrates that all the Sons of Mosiah could do to be saved was to repent of all their sins. This makes sense. Since we are all imperfect, "all we can do" is repent when we sin because this applies the Saviors Blood and allows the Atonement to clean us. (Remember, one thing Christ hasn't eliminated is our agency, he won't and can't force us to apply his Atonement, that's what repentance is for.) But does this verse/concept actually apply to 2 Nephi 25:23? Let's look at the context. The total verse says, "to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do."
So first it says to "believe" and thus implies faith. Second, "reconciled" means to repent so that the Atonement can redeem you. Cross reference this with a previous teaching of Jacob, Nephi's brother:
2 Nephi 10:24-"after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved."
Again we see the words "after","reconciled","grace", and "saved". So it appears that there is some truth to the idea that we are saved by grace after (sequentially) repenting. I think this concept applies to both interpretations that I have presented. The first interpretation is that we are saved immediately through grace despite our greatest efforts. This is true only after we have entered into the gospel covenant with Christ which is only possible after repenting and then being baptized. Secondly, it applies to the idea of future conditional salvation because an essential part of enduring to the end is continued repentance.
So why do we misinterpret this verse? Why did Joseph Smith translate this verse using the word "after"? Hopefully upon reviewing these two interpretations the answer is obvious. Because "after" has two different meanings and thus is the perfect word to cover both meanings of "saved by grace". Unfortunately, we only read the chronological interpretation of "after" and we even misunderstand it in that sense. (For instance, notice that we always read it as "after all that we can do". The word "that" is not found in the verse and if it were that could imply that our actions as a noun are what matters.)
In review, we must repent of all our sins to be baptized and thus entire the gospel covenant. Once we have been confirmed with the Holy Ghost we are saved in Christ immediately. This is through grace no matter how much we do. However, to realize our eternal salvation we must continue repenting of all our sins and thus endure to the end. Even in this case, we are still saved by grace after having endured to the end.
(A thorough study of Moroni 10:32-33 might be the most complete explanation of this duality of salvation and perfection through grace. However, I do not feel ready to embark on such an endeavor as this verse might be even more misunderstood and it is much longer than the single phrase I've already analyzed).
This is another post that was sparked by my encounter with the 3 UC-Riverside guys. Ever since then it seems like this verse (among others) has been finding me wherever I go. Not only that but any where I find it I find the word "misunderstanding" preceding it. Like in July's Ensign, "a second false assumption (that we can trust in our own efforts) might come from misunderstanding 2 Nephi 25:23. We mistakenly deduce that we must first prove our worth through our obedience and righteousness before the Lord's sacrifice will cover us or His grace enable us." Although I probably still misunderstand it to some degree, I feel like I have recently gained some treasured insights into a more complete understanding of this passage. Namely, there are two (at least) acceptable interpretations of this verse, one applying to achieved immediate salvation and one to conditional future salvation.
For starters, the initial surface interpretation is basic and incorrect: we do everything that we possible can do and then Christ stands in and leaves a nice tip. For me this interpretation was completely dispelled once and for all at Education week when I attended Brad Wilcox's seminar. In short, the first interpretation is "we are saved by grace no matter how much we do" . Although I had read the exact same talk in his book The Continuous Atonement, I must have misplaced those highly valuable teachings in my gospel memory. As he started to expound on this verse I quickly recalled his profound explanation of this verse. Basically, Brad shows how emphasizing each individual word in "after all we can do" can completely change the meaning of the verse. In fact, he dedicates an entire chapter to this single phrase. For a more thorough analysis of this interpretation I suggest reading, if not in it's entirety, that chapter of his book. Some crucial statements from his book are the following:
- This is one of the most widely quoted scriptures in the Church, yet it may also be one of the least understood
- For a long time I believed the word after in this verse was time related. I believed I had to do all I possibly could and then grace would kick in- as if it were a finishing touch to all I had to first accomplish alone.
- The light isn't just at the end of the tunnel, it is all around us
- Christ is not waiting at the finish line; He is finishing our faith (Hebrews 12:1-2)
- Grace is not the prize at the end of the climb. It is the enabling power throughout (Bible Dictionary)
- We as in each of us with Jesus. It is by grace that we (you and I) are saved, after all we (Christ and each of us) can do together.
Another example is from Robert Millet's Christ-Centered Living, "too many of us misread 2 Nephi 25:23 and conclude that the Lord can assist us only after, meaning following the time that, we have done "all we can do." That is incorrect; he can and does help us all along the way. No matter how much we do, it simply will not be enough to guarantee salvation without Christ's intervention."
One source that Brad references is Stephen E Robinson's book Believing Christ. I also recommend this book (although I must add that this book must be read from an LDS perspective, for reading this from a protestant perspective it can sound as if he is teaching that we don't need to do anything after accepting Christ. He clarifies this in the sequel Following Christ.) as it caused a vital change in my life. Here are some crucial quotes form his book:
- In my opinion some of the blame comes from a misunderstanding of 2 Nephi 25:23
- I understand the preposition "after" in 2 Nephi 25:23 to be a preposition of separation rather than a preposition of time. It denotes logical separateness rather than temporal sequence.
- We are saved by grace "apart from all we can do" or "all we can do notwithstanding" or even "regardless of all we can do" or "we are still saved by grace, after all is said and done."
- The gospel covenant is therefore a covenant of grace, an expression of God's goodwill. We humans did not earn or merit the offer of a new covenant. We didn't earn it-we needed it-we are saved by grace.
One final citation (though there are numerous more) is Robert Millet's Grace Works which reemphasizes the essential concept of the gospel covenant through the Atonement (which literally means at-one-ment, or becoming one with Christ). "As I come unto Christ by covenant, we (Christ and I) are complete. Together we are perfect. Through relying alone upon his merits, those who come unto Christ become perfect in him." Notice the tense of the verb "are" and "become". This isn't speaking of a future perfection or salvation. It is teaching that as soon as we entire the gospel covenant through baptism we are saved in Christ solely because of his merits. Now that is a fundamental aspect of salvation by grace, I repeat, "solely because of his merits". It is clear that we are not saving ourselves, but what must we do to entire into the gospel covenant? Faith-to motivate us, Repentance-to demonstrate that faith, Baptism-to demonstrate that repentance and to entire the gate, Gift of the Holy Ghost-to confirm that we have entered the covenant. At that very moment, as soon as we hear the words "amen" we have been saved. Yes, as Stephen E Robinson explains, we do believe that "we have been saved". Unfortunately, because of the negative connotations attached with the protestant version of "being saved" we tend to only speak of salvation in the future tense, when there are really two meanings for salvation. Namely, the immediate state of being saved in Christ because of the covenant of the Atonement and the future state of being saved in the Celestial Kingdom. As Robinson explains "Latter-day Saints have hesitated to use the term being saved, as many Protestants do, as an equivalent for "being converted" or "coming to Christ," since we understand that as long as we live, this salvation is conditional upon our enduring to the end."
Let me intervene real quickly, so these quotes from LDS authors are all fine and dandy but we need some actual scriptural backing. So here we go:
Alma 34:21- "now is the time and the day of your salvation...if ye will repent, immediately shall the great plan of redemption be brought about unto you."
Ether 12:26,27-"my grace is sufficient for the meek, my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me"
Moroni 10:32,33-"that by his grace ye might be perfect in Christ".
These verses demonstrate that we are saved in the present tense and that Christ's grace is sufficient for us to be perfected in Him because we are in a covenant with Him through His Atonement.
The second interpretation is a future conditional salvation. The idea is captured in the phrase "enduring to the end". This phrase in and of itself implies the chronological idea of "after". We are saved in heaven after we have endured to the end. However, we obviously have already entered into the kingdom and thus have already been saved and simply need to endure in order to stay in the kingdom forever and thus be saved again. Stephen E Robinson explains very majestically that once we have been saved by entering the kingdom of God the only way we won't be finally saved is if we decide to leave. In other words, we are saved conditionally because we have the agency to decide whether or not we want to endure to the end. As of right now we are saved, but it is possible for a man to fall from grace. So for us to be saved forever we must endure to the end. This is evident through numerous passages:
Matthew 24:13-"he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved."
D&C 20:25-"endure in faith to the end, should be saved"
3 Nephi 15:9-"unto him that endureth to the end will I give eternal life."
2 Nephi 31:20-"endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life."
2 Nephi 33:4-"endure to the end, which is life eternal."
2 Nephi 31:13-"unless a man shall endure to the end, in following the example of the Son of the living God, he cannot be saved."
The last three quotes are the most important because all three were written by the very same Nephi that wrote 2 Nephi 25:23. Not only that, but they were all written after that passage and thus any understanding he possessed would have been even deeper by the time he wrote those three verses. Even after enduring to the end we are saved by grace because enduring to the end is just continuing in the grace we have already received. Thus we advance "from grace to grace" and "from salvation to salvation."
Originally when I tried to explain this passage to Rob (the one from UC-R that I stay in the most contact with), I only understood the possible interpretation that I found in my new testament manual, namely, that "all we can do" refers to repenting of all our sins. The discouraging part of this explanation was that I couldn't find any sources to validate it. First off, the manual was one that my professor had made himself and this was one of the few cases where there was no reference cited. In fact, it was a mere one sentence explanation, almost as if it was left up to the reader to find out where it came from. Well, just recently in my search for why, Erica and I read a verse in the Book of Mormon that was perfect.
Alma 24:11-"all that we could do was to repent of all our sins...for it was all we could do to repent sufficiently before God that he would take away our stain"
This verse demonstrates that all the Sons of Mosiah could do to be saved was to repent of all their sins. This makes sense. Since we are all imperfect, "all we can do" is repent when we sin because this applies the Saviors Blood and allows the Atonement to clean us. (Remember, one thing Christ hasn't eliminated is our agency, he won't and can't force us to apply his Atonement, that's what repentance is for.) But does this verse/concept actually apply to 2 Nephi 25:23? Let's look at the context. The total verse says, "to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do."
So first it says to "believe" and thus implies faith. Second, "reconciled" means to repent so that the Atonement can redeem you. Cross reference this with a previous teaching of Jacob, Nephi's brother:
2 Nephi 10:24-"after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved."
Again we see the words "after","reconciled","grace", and "saved". So it appears that there is some truth to the idea that we are saved by grace after (sequentially) repenting. I think this concept applies to both interpretations that I have presented. The first interpretation is that we are saved immediately through grace despite our greatest efforts. This is true only after we have entered into the gospel covenant with Christ which is only possible after repenting and then being baptized. Secondly, it applies to the idea of future conditional salvation because an essential part of enduring to the end is continued repentance.
So why do we misinterpret this verse? Why did Joseph Smith translate this verse using the word "after"? Hopefully upon reviewing these two interpretations the answer is obvious. Because "after" has two different meanings and thus is the perfect word to cover both meanings of "saved by grace". Unfortunately, we only read the chronological interpretation of "after" and we even misunderstand it in that sense. (For instance, notice that we always read it as "after all that we can do". The word "that" is not found in the verse and if it were that could imply that our actions as a noun are what matters.)
In review, we must repent of all our sins to be baptized and thus entire the gospel covenant. Once we have been confirmed with the Holy Ghost we are saved in Christ immediately. This is through grace no matter how much we do. However, to realize our eternal salvation we must continue repenting of all our sins and thus endure to the end. Even in this case, we are still saved by grace after having endured to the end.
(A thorough study of Moroni 10:32-33 might be the most complete explanation of this duality of salvation and perfection through grace. However, I do not feel ready to embark on such an endeavor as this verse might be even more misunderstood and it is much longer than the single phrase I've already analyzed).
Sunday, August 28, 2011
The Atonement- Part 1- The Garden Revealed
Luke 22:44 "sweat was as it were great drops of blood"
Mosiah 3:7 "even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore"
D&C 19:18 "which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup"
Brace yourselves, this one has been two months in the making. Ever since my discussion with the three Christian UC-Riverside students (Sam & I refer to them as the 3 Nephites just for fun), I have been thinking a lot about Gethsemane and the Cross. I searched every valid source I could find (the scriptures, books & professors) and although I was able to find a ton explaining how both are crucial to the Atonement, I wasn't able to find the origin of our belief that Gethsemane was where Christ suffered the most (a belief not shared by other Christians). In all my searching the earliest documentation I could find was in Doctrine of Salvation by Joseph Fielding Smith. It wasn't until Education Week that I was able to certify my discoveries. In one of those "you're meant to be there" experiences, I was inspired and guided to go to Clyde Williams seminar. He explained how in the Church we have the misconception that the doctrine of Gethsemane has been taught ever since the Restoration. Originally I was disturbed by the fact that we could teach certain truths that the great prophet Joseph Smith didn’t teach. However, I now see that this is a necessity and also a glorious evidence of the restoration.
Although Joseph Smith did not openly teach that Christ’s suffering in Gethsemane was a part of the Atonement, the Book of Mormon (see Mosiah 3:7 above) and Doctrine & Covenants (see D&C 19:18 above) both teach that blood came from every pore of Christ's body during the moment of his greatest suffering. In other words, if Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon instead of translating it and wrote Doctrine & Covenants instead of receiving revelation from God, he would never write things that he himself didn't understand or teach. So instead of asking myself, how can we teach something Joseph Smith didn’t teach? The better question is, how could Joseph Smith have “written” from his own intellect things that he didn’t already know or at least not teach openly? (Personally, I think Joseph probably did know the meaning of Gethsemane eventually. I imagine he asked God what these two scriptures were referring to and received an answer, but that the Lord told him that such truths needed to be revealed slowly in the future. Imagine if the Church would have preached this from the very beginning, it would have received even more backlash and it would have been even harder to get the Kingdom established.) Nevertheless, these verses were not understood as being applicable to the Garden of Gethsemane until the mid-1900s. Prior to that time it was assumed that those scriptures were referring to the cross. This is demonstrated by a quote from Brigham Young, "At the time he was to be crucified...the Father withdrew Himself, withdrew His Spirit, and cast a veil over him. That is what made him sweat blood." However, the first glimpses of it that I could find was in Talmage's 1915 Jesus the Christ where we read, "Christ's agony in the garden is unfathomable by the finite mind, both as to intensity and cause. The thought that he suffered through fear of death is untenable (in other words, doesn't make any sense, he can't grasp that reasoning). Death to him was preliminary to resurrection...it was not physical pain, nor mental anguish alone, that caused him to suffer such torture as to produce an extrusion of blood from every pore...no other man, could have suffered so...the cross could not exceed the bitter anguish through which he had successfully passed." Nevertheless, the first public authorized pronunciation I could find of this came in a 1947 Conference Report where Joseph Fielding Smith had received further light on these scriptures. "Now, when he (Jesus Christ) said that if we do not repent we will have to suffer even as he did, he had no reference to being nailed to a cross, but it was the torment of mind, of spirit, that he had reference to, before he ever got to the cross, and if men will not repent, they will have to suffer even as he suffered...We get into the habit of thinking, I suppose, that his great suffering was when he was nailed to the cross by his hands and his feet and was left there to suffer until he died. As excruciating as that pain was, that was not the greatest suffering that he had to undergo, for in some way which I cannot understand, but which I accept on faith, and which you must accept on faith, he carried on his back the burden of the sins of the whole world...so great was his suffering before he ever went to the cross, we are informed, that blood oozed from the pores of his body." Likewise, we now interpret Luke 22:44 (see above) differently than when Joseph Smith made his JST translation of the Bible. For instance, now our manuals state,"Luke's is the only Gospel that mentions the blood during the agony of Gethsemane. For this reason many commentators have said Luke only used a metaphor, that it was not actually blood but only like blood. In this revelation [D&C 19] Jesus dispelled that idea."
Non-LDS Christians don't err in not acknowledging Gethsemane (according to the knowledge they have of just the Bible) neither do they err for believing the Cross is the only part of the Atonement (again, according to their knowledge). They only err in fighting modern revelation which shows that their understanding of the Atonement is only half complete at best. So when someone opposes our stance of how Gethsemane is just as important as the Cross, we should help them understand that it isn't based solely off the Bible, or the Book of Mormon, or Doctrine and Covenants (for each of these speak mainly of blood and of the Cross). But that it is based off a modern prophet, whose words are just as valid as those of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. For had Joseph Fielding Smith lived in Christ's time, I'm positive people would have accepted his words as true today. (Nevertheless, anyone that wants a strictly Biblical proof of Gethsemane need look no further than Revelations 19:15 and Isaiah 63:3 which say "I have trodden the winepress alone". Gethsemane means olive/wine-press, and is a perfect symbol of the pressing down of all our sins on Christ's back to the point that his blood oozed out like the wine of the new covenant. Likewise this phrase is found in D&C 76:107, 88:106, 133:50.)
In conclusion, the reason why our belief in the importance of Gethsemane is so different from other religions is because we have the benefit of modern day revelation. Obviously, to someone solely relying on the Bible it would be impossible for them to accept such a truth. Another great example of the need for Latter-day Prophets. Finally, Gethsemane was where his greatest suffering was, and thus where he descended below all things so he could comprehend all of our experiences (a necessary aspect of the Atonement) but remember that the Cross was where he gave his life for us, finished his work and is just as essential (see 3 Nephi 27:14). Let us not be guilty of ignoring the Cross like others ignore the Garden, since then the Atonement would be just as incomplete. (I have left out the last crucial aspect of the Atonement, the Resurrection, since that was not the focus of this particular discussion, namely the location of Christ's greatest suffering and bleeding).
(The concept that current truths may not have been taught by Joseph Smith is not unique to just this principle, as Clyde Williams told me, “many people have the impression that Joseph Smith walked out of the sacred grove with an instructions manual for the Church.” In other words, we must remember that certain truths of the gospel have been restored slowly several years after Joseph’s assassination. Another example is that of Divine Investiture of Authority. Although it is demonstrated in Mosiah 15, it is not truly preached and understood as Doctrine until the early 1900s.)
Sunday, August 21, 2011
The Fall- Child Bearing
2 Nephi 2:25- "Adam fell that men might be"
Although we know that the fall was an essential part of God's plan, it is also obvious that life is much more difficult now than it was in the Garden of Eden. Nevertheless, the courageousness of Eve allowed her to look the "lone and dreary world" straight in the face and decide to walk into it so that God's will could be accomplished. The great justification in her partaking of the forbidden fruit was that in the garden they would not be allowed to fulfill the first commandment they were given, "to multiply and replenish the earth." In other words, in order to complete this great mandate, she was brave enough to accept all of the earthly difficulties, pains, and trials. If Adam and Eve were willing to be banished from the paradisaical garden just so that they could have children and that we could come to earth, why wouldn't we want to have children? Child bearing is essentially a trial of faith and a reminder that "God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love". Just as when Peter was walking on the water and it wasn't until "he was afraid" that he began to sink, likewise we can succeed in anything as long as we have faith and don't doubt. Adam & Eve gave us a great example of being fearless, as they willingly accepted the calling to have children in place of a life of luxury. In essence, we are all leaving our own Garden's of Marriage when we choose to have children. Life will most likely have more challenges, but our progression will be impeded if we do not take that step. This being said, I have always been one known to doubt and be afraid of big changes. I struggled with believing Erica and I were ready to start a family. However, last General Conference was a direct answer to my prayers. It seemed like every talk was about children and how they are a blessing to us. Whether it was the story of the children setting an example by paying tithing, or faithful children in the hospital, I knew God was telling me that I needed to see that "men are that they might have joy." I realized that if children are holy and sinless, and if of such is the kingdom of God, and if Christ called the little children to him, it would be a sign of complete spiritual immaturity to not desire children of my own. This was how I came to feel confident about trying to start a family. Another great example of why a correct understanding of the fall is necessary for exaltation, for how could someone that blames Adam for everything tough in life desire to follow his example of raising children?
Although we know that the fall was an essential part of God's plan, it is also obvious that life is much more difficult now than it was in the Garden of Eden. Nevertheless, the courageousness of Eve allowed her to look the "lone and dreary world" straight in the face and decide to walk into it so that God's will could be accomplished. The great justification in her partaking of the forbidden fruit was that in the garden they would not be allowed to fulfill the first commandment they were given, "to multiply and replenish the earth." In other words, in order to complete this great mandate, she was brave enough to accept all of the earthly difficulties, pains, and trials. If Adam and Eve were willing to be banished from the paradisaical garden just so that they could have children and that we could come to earth, why wouldn't we want to have children? Child bearing is essentially a trial of faith and a reminder that "God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love". Just as when Peter was walking on the water and it wasn't until "he was afraid" that he began to sink, likewise we can succeed in anything as long as we have faith and don't doubt. Adam & Eve gave us a great example of being fearless, as they willingly accepted the calling to have children in place of a life of luxury. In essence, we are all leaving our own Garden's of Marriage when we choose to have children. Life will most likely have more challenges, but our progression will be impeded if we do not take that step. This being said, I have always been one known to doubt and be afraid of big changes. I struggled with believing Erica and I were ready to start a family. However, last General Conference was a direct answer to my prayers. It seemed like every talk was about children and how they are a blessing to us. Whether it was the story of the children setting an example by paying tithing, or faithful children in the hospital, I knew God was telling me that I needed to see that "men are that they might have joy." I realized that if children are holy and sinless, and if of such is the kingdom of God, and if Christ called the little children to him, it would be a sign of complete spiritual immaturity to not desire children of my own. This was how I came to feel confident about trying to start a family. Another great example of why a correct understanding of the fall is necessary for exaltation, for how could someone that blames Adam for everything tough in life desire to follow his example of raising children?
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Three Pillars of Eternity
Mormon 9:12-"he created Adam, and by Adam came the fall of man. And because of the fall of man came Jesus Christ; and because of Jesus Christ came the redemption of man."
As Elder Bruce R McConkie so elegantly taught, the three pillars of eternity are: the Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement. I believe this verse very eloquently connects these pillars. The Creation of man was essential to his Fall which not only allowed Christ to come to this earth but also caused the need for an Atonement. I would like to discuss each a little more in depth in my next few posts. This post will give a brief summary of each and a deeper look at the Creation.
In brief, the Creation is the first pillar because it is evidence that God exists. The Fall is the second pillar of eternity because it is evidence that our existence here on earth is part of God's plan. Lastly, the Atonement is the third pillar of eternity because it is evidence that God has devised a way for us to be saved and to become like Him.
Alma 18:36-"he began at the creation of the world, and also the creation of Adam"
One might ask, why is the Creation one of the three pillars? In doctrinal depth it seems to lack the profoundness of the Fall and the Atonement. Books and books have been written about each of those. The LDS viewpoint of each is very transcending and has sparked great conversations. It almost seems like the Creation can be taught most extensively with a simple picture book. Why then is the Creation story repeated on several different accounts, namely: Genesis, Moses, Abraham, & the Temple Endowment. My first counselor shed new light on this question that I had never seen before. We were talking about all the Big Bang Theory and Evolutionist people and how some of them try to disprove the existence of God. It was then that it hit me that if you can discredit the whole concept of a divine creator, LDS Christianity (and just about every religion for that matter) ceases to matter. It is so crucial that our members actually believe in the creation and are reminded of its actuality often enough that they aren't deceived. In other words, just like many other fundamentals of Mormonism (such as the Book of Mormon, the First Vision, the Restoration of the Priesthood, etc) if the Creation (or organization as we know it to be) never occurred, we have no religion. This is one possible reason for why it is the first pillar of eternity (Bruce R McConkie gives many additional reasons).
As Elder Bruce R McConkie so elegantly taught, the three pillars of eternity are: the Creation, the Fall, and the Atonement. I believe this verse very eloquently connects these pillars. The Creation of man was essential to his Fall which not only allowed Christ to come to this earth but also caused the need for an Atonement. I would like to discuss each a little more in depth in my next few posts. This post will give a brief summary of each and a deeper look at the Creation.
In brief, the Creation is the first pillar because it is evidence that God exists. The Fall is the second pillar of eternity because it is evidence that our existence here on earth is part of God's plan. Lastly, the Atonement is the third pillar of eternity because it is evidence that God has devised a way for us to be saved and to become like Him.
Alma 18:36-"he began at the creation of the world, and also the creation of Adam"
One might ask, why is the Creation one of the three pillars? In doctrinal depth it seems to lack the profoundness of the Fall and the Atonement. Books and books have been written about each of those. The LDS viewpoint of each is very transcending and has sparked great conversations. It almost seems like the Creation can be taught most extensively with a simple picture book. Why then is the Creation story repeated on several different accounts, namely: Genesis, Moses, Abraham, & the Temple Endowment. My first counselor shed new light on this question that I had never seen before. We were talking about all the Big Bang Theory and Evolutionist people and how some of them try to disprove the existence of God. It was then that it hit me that if you can discredit the whole concept of a divine creator, LDS Christianity (and just about every religion for that matter) ceases to matter. It is so crucial that our members actually believe in the creation and are reminded of its actuality often enough that they aren't deceived. In other words, just like many other fundamentals of Mormonism (such as the Book of Mormon, the First Vision, the Restoration of the Priesthood, etc) if the Creation (or organization as we know it to be) never occurred, we have no religion. This is one possible reason for why it is the first pillar of eternity (Bruce R McConkie gives many additional reasons).
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Friendship-Elder Dana
Joseph Smith page 459- "Friendship is one of the grand fundamental principles of 'Mormonism'."
First off I would like to excuse myself for not posting this on Sunday, we were busy with my mission reunion, which actually served for the inspiration for this post. Last week I wrote about the love between husband and wife. Today I wish to speak of the love between friends. Although I still have many very close friends that I could write about, I decided to write about the only real friend I've ever had that has passed away. My mission companion Elder Dana, though he was much more than a companion. He was a light in my life and a continual inspiration for me. During the mission reunion we had a moment of silence for Elder (Pablo) Dana. I reflected upon the happy moments we had, the trying moments, the revelatory moments, and the moments of pure joy. It was with him that I gained a testimony of the Kingdoms of Glory & of the Law of Tithing. It was with him that I began to greater tap into my eternal potential. He brought out the best in me and he was there for me when I became discouraged months later when we were no longer companions. I simply want to testify to the influence we can have on others lives. Even though Pablito and I knew eachother for a very brief time, he always demonstrated genuine happiness. Its true that a smile can go a long way to helping those around you. Let us all try to pick up those around us.
First off I would like to excuse myself for not posting this on Sunday, we were busy with my mission reunion, which actually served for the inspiration for this post. Last week I wrote about the love between husband and wife. Today I wish to speak of the love between friends. Although I still have many very close friends that I could write about, I decided to write about the only real friend I've ever had that has passed away. My mission companion Elder Dana, though he was much more than a companion. He was a light in my life and a continual inspiration for me. During the mission reunion we had a moment of silence for Elder (Pablo) Dana. I reflected upon the happy moments we had, the trying moments, the revelatory moments, and the moments of pure joy. It was with him that I gained a testimony of the Kingdoms of Glory & of the Law of Tithing. It was with him that I began to greater tap into my eternal potential. He brought out the best in me and he was there for me when I became discouraged months later when we were no longer companions. I simply want to testify to the influence we can have on others lives. Even though Pablito and I knew eachother for a very brief time, he always demonstrated genuine happiness. Its true that a smile can go a long way to helping those around you. Let us all try to pick up those around us.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
I Love Erica Lynne
Ephesians 5:25- "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it."
We are commanded to love our wives as Christ loved the church. How much love is that? More than we can comprehend. Christ loves every human that has ever lived, no matter how wicked. However, I feel he must have an even "more perfect" love (if such is possible) for the church, which consists of those saints striving to obey the Lord. This verse says that his love is demonstrated because Christ gave his life for us. This sounds like an unimaginable love, but Joseph Smith taught that many saints are willing to lay down their lives for the gospel but are not willing to live for it. The beauty with the Savior's love is that that is not the case, he not only died out of love but lived out of love. This is demonstrated in 2 Nephi 26:24, "He doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world; for he loveth the world, even that he layeth down his own life". I love this verse, the first part really hits home as a husband. "He doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world", or in my case this should read, "I doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of Erica". I often ask myself if something I am doing will make Erica happy, unfortunately I know that there are many things that I do where that is not necessarily the case. I need to strive to be more like the Savior who always had that as a prerequisite for any action. The question is, how do I better follow his example?
One lesson I learned on my mission, was the applicability and truthfulness of Ezekiel 36:26. "A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh." How many husbands naturally have a stony heart? We all need that new heart spoken of, and with that new heart we will be more capable to fully love our wife. To gain that new heart, we must first love the Lord our God with all our heart, might, mind & spirit. Then he can give us a new heart & a new spirit. This is not enough though, you must continue to increase in love. You should evaluate yourself with Alma's poignant question in Alma 5:26- "if ye have experienced a change of heart, and if ye have felt to sing the song of redeeming love, I would ask, can ye feel so now?"
In summary, the key to loving your spouse as the Savior loves us is by turning your heart over to him, by living the gospel & continuously converting yourself. Without that spiritual health your heart will be weakened and no longer be able to love to its full capacity. This is why the first & great commandment is to love the Lord God & the second is to "love thy neighbor as thyself." What greater neighbor is there than the one that will be at our side throughout all eternity? Erica is my eternal neighbor.
We are commanded to love our wives as Christ loved the church. How much love is that? More than we can comprehend. Christ loves every human that has ever lived, no matter how wicked. However, I feel he must have an even "more perfect" love (if such is possible) for the church, which consists of those saints striving to obey the Lord. This verse says that his love is demonstrated because Christ gave his life for us. This sounds like an unimaginable love, but Joseph Smith taught that many saints are willing to lay down their lives for the gospel but are not willing to live for it. The beauty with the Savior's love is that that is not the case, he not only died out of love but lived out of love. This is demonstrated in 2 Nephi 26:24, "He doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world; for he loveth the world, even that he layeth down his own life". I love this verse, the first part really hits home as a husband. "He doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world", or in my case this should read, "I doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of Erica". I often ask myself if something I am doing will make Erica happy, unfortunately I know that there are many things that I do where that is not necessarily the case. I need to strive to be more like the Savior who always had that as a prerequisite for any action. The question is, how do I better follow his example?
One lesson I learned on my mission, was the applicability and truthfulness of Ezekiel 36:26. "A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh." How many husbands naturally have a stony heart? We all need that new heart spoken of, and with that new heart we will be more capable to fully love our wife. To gain that new heart, we must first love the Lord our God with all our heart, might, mind & spirit. Then he can give us a new heart & a new spirit. This is not enough though, you must continue to increase in love. You should evaluate yourself with Alma's poignant question in Alma 5:26- "if ye have experienced a change of heart, and if ye have felt to sing the song of redeeming love, I would ask, can ye feel so now?"
In summary, the key to loving your spouse as the Savior loves us is by turning your heart over to him, by living the gospel & continuously converting yourself. Without that spiritual health your heart will be weakened and no longer be able to love to its full capacity. This is why the first & great commandment is to love the Lord God & the second is to "love thy neighbor as thyself." What greater neighbor is there than the one that will be at our side throughout all eternity? Erica is my eternal neighbor.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Divine Help
D&C 112:10- " Be thou humble; and the Lord thy God shall lead thee by the hand, and give thee answer to thy prayers."
I was recently called to be the Elder's Quorum President. My inadequacies make me feel much like I did when I was a new missionary in the CCM. I remember my mom slipping a few notes into my scriptures and one of them was this one. It was one of her favorites as well as one of her grand mother's favorites. It gave me great solace in knowing that humility was all that was required. I didn't need to be some great conqueror, someone that could shake the heavens when I spoke, I just needed to be humble. With that humility the Lord would lead me so that I could accomplish whatever I needed. At a time like this, I have too much on my mind to write more for I don't know exactly what I wish to express. I could really use some answers to my prayers, so for this week I hope more than anything to be able to apply this scripture.
I was recently called to be the Elder's Quorum President. My inadequacies make me feel much like I did when I was a new missionary in the CCM. I remember my mom slipping a few notes into my scriptures and one of them was this one. It was one of her favorites as well as one of her grand mother's favorites. It gave me great solace in knowing that humility was all that was required. I didn't need to be some great conqueror, someone that could shake the heavens when I spoke, I just needed to be humble. With that humility the Lord would lead me so that I could accomplish whatever I needed. At a time like this, I have too much on my mind to write more for I don't know exactly what I wish to express. I could really use some answers to my prayers, so for this week I hope more than anything to be able to apply this scripture.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Reason of Hope
1 Peter 3:15- "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear"
Second long distance post of the season. This time from the Denver Public Library. Pretty city, too many one-ways and no parking for a Sunday. Also, there were literally like 100 people waiting for the Library doors to open...strange.
Anyways, this post was sparked by something that happened to Sam and I this Monday. Anyone that's talked to me in the past week (including Colorado Rockies Ushers) has heard this story. Basically, Sam and I were approached by three Christian students from UC-Riverside that were doing a theological study of Mormonism. They were very respectful and, despite our difference of beliefs, we were both able to express our beliefs without the other getting offended. Although it was maybe a little too philosophical and not enough "Preach My Gospel" it was a very uplifting and rewarding experience for myself. For instance, while explaining certain principles of our beliefs I attained a deeper understanding of them. I discovered explanations that I had never thought of before for things that seemed simple and clear for me but upon trying to explain it to someone not of my faith they became more profound.
One principle that I had not thought of for a long time was the concept of whether we are saved by grace/faith/works. Obviously at some point I confronted this topic, but I would say ever since the mission I hadn't really studied it with much detail. I knew that the Church's explanation had made sense to me once and that kind of satisified me. Although I studied this subject in my New Testament class, like I said, I thought my understanding was good enough and I knew it was true so I figured I didn't need to elaborate much more on it. However, upon discussing this topic with these 3 fellow seekers of truth, I realized that my understanding was rusty. Yes thats right, I was spiritually rusty, I had let off the gas on this topic and because of that I couldn't express this belief in a simple manner that they could understand. I wasn't "ready always to give an answer". I felt like I knew it well enough for myself but not well enough for them. See, they have a different set of beliefs and so in order for them to understand our stance on salvation by grace/faith/works, I had to know what other fundamental principles were necessary to help them view this topic in a more complete LDS context of the gospel. (This might sound demeaning to them, I failed to point out that they did have an amazing knowledge of LDS beliefs, really remarkable, but that still doesn't mean they necessarily see all our beliefs from a complete LDS perspective).
All this being said, I was not spiritually ready to accomplish this in our brief 2 hour meeting. This is why I went home that night and all the rest of this week and searched good explanations. I found great insights in the New Testament manual and my absolute favorite was a talk given by Gerald N Lund. In an attempt to be brief, to make sense of 2 Nephi 25:23, I would say that we believe that "we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, which faith is made manifest in our works". Although I feel I can better explain this now, I would rather let the Spirit speak individually to anyone that would like to read Brother Lund's talk, as the Holy Ghost truly is the master teacher.
http://lds.org/ensign/1981/04/salvation-by-grace-or-by-works?lang=eng&query=salvation+works
Since that occasion, I have become facebook friends with two of them and I have shared this article as well as these further insights on the topic. I feel much more at ease with this topic and the discussion we had. I can rest easier at night knowing that I have given them as good "an answer" as I could. One lesson that can be learned from this is simply, if you aren't "ready always to give an answer to everyman", at least express yourself with enough humility and sincerity ("meekness and fear") so that you can become facebook friends (kind of joking about the facebook part). In all seriousness though, if I had been arrogant or disrespectful I'm sure they would have not looked for any further contact (which would have made it impossible for me to follow through with Peters admonition).
As part of a small disclaimer, I would like to also remind us that for true effective missionary work, we must base our actions in "Preach My Gospel". I admit that, as President Benson said in "Preach My Gospel" while speaking about the need for a testimony of the Book of Mormon, "Our main task is to declare the gospel and do it effectively. We are not obligated to answer every objection." (page 109). Therefore, although we need to "be ready always to give an answer", we do not need to be able to answer every question or objection. Eventually the individual needs to decide whether or not they believe in the Book of
Mormon, and thus the Prophet Joseph Smith, and thus The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and thus all of its teachings. In summary, what I did was more a humanitarian effort of religious tolerancy to plant a seed for missionary work, but in order for the missionary spirit to truly plant in someones heart they must start at the beginning, the ABC's, whether or not they believe the Book of Mormon is the word of God.
I hope that disclaimer didn't take anything away from this experience or confuse anyone. I just felt it was necessary so we avoid falling into unprofitable religious debates when the objective is not mutual understanding or enlightenment but simply proving the other wrong. I felt that was not the case at all for our discussion.
Second long distance post of the season. This time from the Denver Public Library. Pretty city, too many one-ways and no parking for a Sunday. Also, there were literally like 100 people waiting for the Library doors to open...strange.
Anyways, this post was sparked by something that happened to Sam and I this Monday. Anyone that's talked to me in the past week (including Colorado Rockies Ushers) has heard this story. Basically, Sam and I were approached by three Christian students from UC-Riverside that were doing a theological study of Mormonism. They were very respectful and, despite our difference of beliefs, we were both able to express our beliefs without the other getting offended. Although it was maybe a little too philosophical and not enough "Preach My Gospel" it was a very uplifting and rewarding experience for myself. For instance, while explaining certain principles of our beliefs I attained a deeper understanding of them. I discovered explanations that I had never thought of before for things that seemed simple and clear for me but upon trying to explain it to someone not of my faith they became more profound.
One principle that I had not thought of for a long time was the concept of whether we are saved by grace/faith/works. Obviously at some point I confronted this topic, but I would say ever since the mission I hadn't really studied it with much detail. I knew that the Church's explanation had made sense to me once and that kind of satisified me. Although I studied this subject in my New Testament class, like I said, I thought my understanding was good enough and I knew it was true so I figured I didn't need to elaborate much more on it. However, upon discussing this topic with these 3 fellow seekers of truth, I realized that my understanding was rusty. Yes thats right, I was spiritually rusty, I had let off the gas on this topic and because of that I couldn't express this belief in a simple manner that they could understand. I wasn't "ready always to give an answer". I felt like I knew it well enough for myself but not well enough for them. See, they have a different set of beliefs and so in order for them to understand our stance on salvation by grace/faith/works, I had to know what other fundamental principles were necessary to help them view this topic in a more complete LDS context of the gospel. (This might sound demeaning to them, I failed to point out that they did have an amazing knowledge of LDS beliefs, really remarkable, but that still doesn't mean they necessarily see all our beliefs from a complete LDS perspective).
All this being said, I was not spiritually ready to accomplish this in our brief 2 hour meeting. This is why I went home that night and all the rest of this week and searched good explanations. I found great insights in the New Testament manual and my absolute favorite was a talk given by Gerald N Lund. In an attempt to be brief, to make sense of 2 Nephi 25:23, I would say that we believe that "we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, which faith is made manifest in our works". Although I feel I can better explain this now, I would rather let the Spirit speak individually to anyone that would like to read Brother Lund's talk, as the Holy Ghost truly is the master teacher.
http://lds.org/ensign/1981/04/salvation-by-grace-or-by-works?lang=eng&query=salvation+works
Since that occasion, I have become facebook friends with two of them and I have shared this article as well as these further insights on the topic. I feel much more at ease with this topic and the discussion we had. I can rest easier at night knowing that I have given them as good "an answer" as I could. One lesson that can be learned from this is simply, if you aren't "ready always to give an answer to everyman", at least express yourself with enough humility and sincerity ("meekness and fear") so that you can become facebook friends (kind of joking about the facebook part). In all seriousness though, if I had been arrogant or disrespectful I'm sure they would have not looked for any further contact (which would have made it impossible for me to follow through with Peters admonition).
As part of a small disclaimer, I would like to also remind us that for true effective missionary work, we must base our actions in "Preach My Gospel". I admit that, as President Benson said in "Preach My Gospel" while speaking about the need for a testimony of the Book of Mormon, "Our main task is to declare the gospel and do it effectively. We are not obligated to answer every objection." (page 109). Therefore, although we need to "be ready always to give an answer", we do not need to be able to answer every question or objection. Eventually the individual needs to decide whether or not they believe in the Book of
Mormon, and thus the Prophet Joseph Smith, and thus The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and thus all of its teachings. In summary, what I did was more a humanitarian effort of religious tolerancy to plant a seed for missionary work, but in order for the missionary spirit to truly plant in someones heart they must start at the beginning, the ABC's, whether or not they believe the Book of Mormon is the word of God.
I hope that disclaimer didn't take anything away from this experience or confuse anyone. I just felt it was necessary so we avoid falling into unprofitable religious debates when the objective is not mutual understanding or enlightenment but simply proving the other wrong. I felt that was not the case at all for our discussion.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Names of Christ
Mosiah 3:17-"There shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ"
Acts 4:12-"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."
Both of these scriptures make it clear that Christ is the only name whereby men can be saved. This seems like a simple enough principle but it became even more meaningful for me as I applied it to a question I had.
This last spring term I took a spanish american history class which I really liked. For my final paper we each got to choose our own book to read and write a book review of. Since this is BYU and we studied the Olmec and Mayan civilizations, I thought it would be really interesting to read some scholarly works about Central America and the Book of Mormon. I chose a book about how Quetzalcoatl might have been Jesus Christ. This belief was based on the fact that early settlers of America claimed that the Native Americans told them that Quetzalcoatl was a "bearded white God from the east", that had visited them and promised to return (much like the Book of Mormon describes Christ visit among the ancient Americans after his resurrection). There were lots of other obvious connections, such as the fact that he was crucified for our sins. Scholars believed for centuries that the reason Cortes conquered the Aztecs was because the Aztec emperor thought Cortes was the bearded white God Quetzalcoatl returned to rule. All of these evidences led President John Taylor to say, "we can come to no other conclusion than that Quetzalcoatl and Christ are the same being”.
However, in recent years scholars have concluded that the Spaniards made up the whole Bearded White God Legend in order to make the natives sound naive and in order to impose Christianity on them. Although no one can prove either belief, if this later belief is correct, what can we make of President John Taylor's quote? (Finally to the question that I referred to at the beginning of this post). Part of me originally felt like these recent scholars were less credable because they are further removed from the age in which these events actually happened and thus could be ignored. However, as I began to ponder more about this subject I realized that it didn't really matter.
First off, lets analyze President Taylor's quote more thoroughly. The key phrase is "we can come to no other conclusion". This does not sound like a direct revelation from God, it doesn't even sound like his own personal opinion, this sounds like him trying to make sense of the evidences at hand. It could be read as "due to the evidence given, the only reasonable conclusion using logic is...". It would have made no sense for him to question the scholars of his day to disprove them because our salvation does not hinge on this issue. This is where the two verses at the top came into play. After struggling a few nights over this topic, running it through my mind constantly, I really started to feel discouraged. The culminating point was one night where I came across something someone that had left the Church had written and used the Quetzalcoatl thing as part of his reasoning. As I felt even more confused I got on my knees that night feeling completely empty spiritually and emotionally. As I prayed the answer came to me. "No other name." Whether Quetzalcoatl was Christ or not, really doesn't matter. I won't be saved or condemned based on that single point. The only name that can save me is Christ. If I am living Christ's gospel in Christ's Church with Christ's Priesthood that is all that matters. I would almost propose that out of the over 100 names and titles given to Christ, the only two that we really need to know are Jehovah and Jesus Christ, since those are his premortal name and mortal name/title. We know Christ visited the Americas but we do not know if the Native American people maintained that belief through the name of Quetzalcoatl throughout history.
This is another example of why we shouldn't get too worried about non-salvatory debates and remember that the gospel is simple. Faith in Jesus Christ, Repentance, Baptism, Gift of the Holy Ghost, and Enduring to the End. Anything beyond that should never put those in question but only strengthen them.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Abba, Father
Galatians 4:26 "And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father."
One of the great truths restored by the prophet Joseph Smith (as early as the first vision) is the relationship between man and God. Before the vision Joseph Smith was leaning towards the Methodist faith and therefore believed that the Father and the Son were simply one being of immaterial space, obviously he learned this wasn't true. If our increased understanding of the Godhead ceased with simply understanding that they were two separate personages, you might say that our beliefs aren't that different than other religions. However, the entire relationship between man and God was redefined. God is not indifferent to our existence but is actively engaged in each of our lives. God is literally our Father. Prayer is a real two way link of communication between us and God. We can speak with him as simply and intimately as a child speaks to their father.
So we know that Abba translated literally means "Father". But what sentimental meanings does it rhetorically bring with it? The Church New Testament Manual states, "Abba is Aramaic (a cognate of Hebrew) and carries more than just the connotation of father. It is the intimate and personal diminutive of the word father used by children in the family circle. The closest equivalent we have is papa or daddy, although neither can really convey fully the
As members of the only Church with this complete understanding of the true Godhead (an understanding of which I have only touched one aspect), I hope that we try to be more appreciative for this knowledge and live more accordingly. May we talk to Heavenly Father in prayer with at least as much faith that He will respond as we do when we send our earthly father an email. Whenever I'm in need of a reminder of His existence and presence I love to sing the primary song "A Child's Prayer." I ask myself the question posed in that song, "Heavenly Father, are you really there and do you hear and answer every child's prayer?" and wait to see how my heart responds. Without fail it answers silently, yes.
One of the great truths restored by the prophet Joseph Smith (as early as the first vision) is the relationship between man and God. Before the vision Joseph Smith was leaning towards the Methodist faith and therefore believed that the Father and the Son were simply one being of immaterial space, obviously he learned this wasn't true. If our increased understanding of the Godhead ceased with simply understanding that they were two separate personages, you might say that our beliefs aren't that different than other religions. However, the entire relationship between man and God was redefined. God is not indifferent to our existence but is actively engaged in each of our lives. God is literally our Father. Prayer is a real two way link of communication between us and God. We can speak with him as simply and intimately as a child speaks to their father.
So we know that Abba translated literally means "Father". But what sentimental meanings does it rhetorically bring with it? The Church New Testament Manual states, "Abba is Aramaic (a cognate of Hebrew) and carries more than just the connotation of father. It is the intimate and personal diminutive of the word father used by children in the family circle. The closest equivalent we have is papa or daddy, although neither can really convey fully the
impact of the word. The point is that God is not only Father (the formal title and name), but he is also Abba, the parent of love and guidance that knows us intimately and whom we can approach without fear." I believe this teaches beautifully that our relationship with Heavenly Father is different than it is with Adam (the father of the whole earth), Noah (the second father of the whole earth) and Abraham (the father of the covenant). They are fathers in the sense of title, responsibility, lineage, etc. While Heavenly Father is our Father for all those reasons & also in the sense of love, guidance, shelter, comfort, understanding, (anyone may feel free to add to this list).
Notice that the phrase Paul uses hear "Abba, Father" is the same that Christ used in the Garden of Gethsemane as He was in the uttermost anguish of the Atonement. Have we ever stopped and realized that we have the exact same relationship with Heavenly Father as the Savior Jesus Christ has? Everything He did in His life shows us how a son should treat their father and how we should treat our Father. The example of the words He spoke before raising Lazarus comes to mind, a sign of respect and gratitude. Going about doing His Father's business in the temple also comes to mind. We can talk with the Father in the same open and personal manner in which the Lord did! Paul reemphasizes this point when he likewise stated in Romans 8:17 "And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ". And finally, Christ himself teaches this as his FIRST principle taught after the resurrection "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."As members of the only Church with this complete understanding of the true Godhead (an understanding of which I have only touched one aspect), I hope that we try to be more appreciative for this knowledge and live more accordingly. May we talk to Heavenly Father in prayer with at least as much faith that He will respond as we do when we send our earthly father an email. Whenever I'm in need of a reminder of His existence and presence I love to sing the primary song "A Child's Prayer." I ask myself the question posed in that song, "Heavenly Father, are you really there and do you hear and answer every child's prayer?" and wait to see how my heart responds. Without fail it answers silently, yes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)