I'm moving this blog. You may now read it HERE.
Enjoy
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Jacob, Elder Maxwell, and The Problem of Being Sidelined
The time passed away with us, and also our lives passed away like as it were unto us a dream, we being a lonesome and a solemn people, wanderers, cast out from Jerusalem, born in tribulation, in a wilderness, and hated of our brethren.
Jacob 7:26
Jacob has always fascinated me. Well, I should qualify that, ever since I began to really seriously read and consider the texts of the Book of Mormon, Jacob has fascinated me. His personality is strikingly different from that of his older brother, Nephi. Both are unfaltering in their dedication to the doctrine of Christ and the building of a righteous nation, their attitudes about their situation in the land of promise differ a lot. Contrast the above with Nephi's claim that after settling into the land of promise and separating themselves from the Lamanites who were to be a scourge unto them that:
we lived after the manner of happiness.
2 Nephi 5:27
What to do with the paradox of mournful happiness painted by these brothers?
Maybe I've been coming close to the answer for a while now, but haven't really seen it. Without any particular research into the subject I have sensed that Elder Neal A. Maxwell had an affinity for the writings of Jacob. That sense expanded to the idea that Elder Maxwell and Jacob shared some traits in their teachings.
A favorite passage of Elder Maxwell's comes from Jacob 4:13:
the Spirit speaketh the truth and lieth not. Wherefore, it speaketh of things as they really are, and of things as they really will be.
More on the relationship between Jacob's attitudes and Elder Maxwell's after a few more words about Jacob as an individual.
Jacob was an intense person. He took his responsibilities to teach the people very seriously (see Jacob 1:19). His understanding of judgment was starkly black and white (see Jacob 6:5-10). Could I say that he was prone to hyperbole, or was it really just intensity (see 2 Nephi 9:44-49)? The picture I get of Jacob is that he struggled in mortality. His view was very much centered on the future state of happiness (or misery if you are wicked) that follows mortality. Even his son emphasized this aspect of his teachings (see Enos 1:3).
Jacob suffered from a strong case of what Elder Maxwell called "divine discontent" (I felt a sense of vindication in the claim that Elder Maxwell used this phrase when I did a search of Ensign past issues for the phrase and on the first page every talk/article was either written by Elder Maxwell, or the author was quoting him.). It seems that Jacob couldn't wait to get "on the other side" and to associate with those who had similar dedication to the word of the Lord. He just didn't fit in the temporal sphere very well. Having had very distinct experiences with the Divine (see 2 Nephi 2:3; 10:3) he had little patience for the hard-heartedness and stiff-neckedness of his generation. I wonder if he mourned out his days simply because he was tired of the superficial nature of mortality. He was anxious to do more for the Lord than call his people to repentance for things that caused him "to shrink with shame before the presence of [his] Maker" (Jacob 2:6).
I don't know how long Jacob lived after his older brother, Nephi, died, but it is almost as if he feels like he is sidelined with the futile responsibility of trying to lead a group of prideful people to repentance while Nephi gets to really be in the game.
I pull this analogy again from Elder Maxwell. In the biography written by Bruce C. Hafen about Elder Maxwell, he describes Elder Maxwell's attitude while suffering from cancer and unable to get out of a hospital bed as feeling like he was sidelined in the game of the work of the Lord. He wanted terribly to get in the game, whether on the one side of the veil or the other, it didn't matter, so long as he could contribute somehow.
Elder Maxwell was certainly one to be anxiously engaged in the good cause of moving the work of the Lord forth. So was Jacob. Though they may have been separated by time and space in many ways, yet they shared this anxiety, and both recognized the fleetingness of mortality and things that are considered of value in mortality. They both sought to understand things as they really are, and struggled through this life haunted by divine discontent.
Nephi maybe just felt happier than Jacob because he finally was free of the torments of his older brothers...
Or maybe that specific question about their attitudes is a topic for another day.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Monday, March 24, 2008
The Book Thief 8
The power of words, for good or for evil, that message came from the pages of The Book Thief loud and clear. Leisel loved and hated words. They brought her so much joy, the ability to read and thus bring gifts to others... and yet it was with words that Hitler rallied so many in the destruction of so much life.
Words.
Words.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
The Book Thief 7
"Silence was not quiet or calm, and it was not peace."
When there's nothing to say; no words to convey any type of comfort, consolation, or calm...
When there's nothing to say; no words to convey any type of comfort, consolation, or calm...
Friday, March 21, 2008
The Book Thief 6
"For a few minutes, they all forgot. There was no more yelling or calling out, but they could not contain the small snatches of laughter. They were only humans, playing in the snow, in a house."
Forgetting, if just for a moment or two, sorrows is one of the greatest gifts we possess. There are means provided for us to do this. Mostly they have to do with those we love.
Even though our sorrows may well be because of those we love.
Forgetting, if just for a moment or two, sorrows is one of the greatest gifts we possess. There are means provided for us to do this. Mostly they have to do with those we love.
Even though our sorrows may well be because of those we love.
The Book Thief 5
"I could go on, but I've decided for now that three examples will suffice. Three examples, if nothing else, will give you the ashen taste in your mouth that defined my existence during that year.
"So many humans.
"So many colors."
The work of death commenced, to paraphrase the Book of Mormon. I personally have never seen Death. I've been to funerals. I've seen some photos and films, but I've never been there at Death's hour. I'm wondering, reading this book, if I will notice the colors if I am ever there...
"So many humans.
"So many colors."
The work of death commenced, to paraphrase the Book of Mormon. I personally have never seen Death. I've been to funerals. I've seen some photos and films, but I've never been there at Death's hour. I'm wondering, reading this book, if I will notice the colors if I am ever there...
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
The Book Thief 4
"Like most misery, it started with apparent happiness."
Think about the most miserable times in your life; how was a period of happiness connected? Are the feelings related? products of each other?
Okay, now stop thinking about the most miserable times in your life...
Think about the most miserable times in your life; how was a period of happiness connected? Are the feelings related? products of each other?
Okay, now stop thinking about the most miserable times in your life...
The Book Thief 3
"It was a frosty morning but bright with sun. Children scrunched their eyes. A halo surrounded the grim reaper nun, Sister Maria. (By the way--I like this human idea of the grim reaper. I like the scythe. It amuses me.)"
The idea of a true character of Death and his perception of our perception of the personification of him... it begs the question: why have we, and do we still in so many ways, perceive death as a dark, hooded, Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come-type figure?
Abinadi says, "Yea, even so he [Jesus] shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father."
With this parallelism, he seems to be equating death with the will of the Father. Death is a release...
Do we still personify Death? Should we see him as anything other than our God? our Father? Death in this book cradles souls of the departed and they warm against him; he then sends them on their way.
Why do I assume Death is male?
The idea of a true character of Death and his perception of our perception of the personification of him... it begs the question: why have we, and do we still in so many ways, perceive death as a dark, hooded, Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come-type figure?
Abinadi says, "Yea, even so he [Jesus] shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father."
With this parallelism, he seems to be equating death with the will of the Father. Death is a release...
Do we still personify Death? Should we see him as anything other than our God? our Father? Death in this book cradles souls of the departed and they warm against him; he then sends them on their way.
Why do I assume Death is male?
The Book Thief 2
"Insane or not, Rudy was always destined to be Liesel's best friend. A snowball in the face is surely the perfect beginning to a lasting friendship."
Most writing courses warn you against use of the passive verb ("to be" in all its forms). But Zusak uses it masterfully. It fits the whole feel of the book and the story. The narrator, Death, observes the life of humans in general, and Liesel in particular, in a very passive way.
Most writing courses warn you against use of the passive verb ("to be" in all its forms). But Zusak uses it masterfully. It fits the whole feel of the book and the story. The narrator, Death, observes the life of humans in general, and Liesel in particular, in a very passive way.
Monday, March 17, 2008
The Book Thief 1
This particular book will serve as inspiration for many musings, I'm sure. Each line, the way that it is type set, could readily be stopped on and considered. But I'll begin with this one:
"A pair of train guards.
A pair of grave diggers.
When it came down to it, one of them called the shots.
The other did what he was told.
The question is, what if the other is a lot more than one?"
For a book about Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, it seems that this question is addressing one of the central concerns of that period in history. That question has to do with how it is possible that hundreds of thousands of Germans, arguably the most educated and advanced people of their time, could fall into step behind one man who called the shots. Wouldn't they be independently minded? free thinkers? Couldn't they see that the shots thus called were wicked? Didn't they have a sense of the abomination of genocide? Could they really be convinced that they were superior and somehow this justified acts of evil?
Or was it even that? Did it maybe have to do with fear of what would happen to them if they didn't comply? Did they intentionally ignore conscience?
What if the other includes you and me?
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Home Teaching Feb 08
I wouldn't be a true home teacher if I didn't slack off once in a while, would I?
So here it is March 1st, and I'm doing my February home teaching, and not even in video format... you can imagine my penitent state.
Nevertheless, I hope that all is well with you and yours, and without any further ado, let us proceed to the lesson.
President Eyring wrote of ministering to those who need ministering to. He included things I would expect (and hope) President Eyring would include, such as encouraging us to go the Lord in prayer and ponder the scriptures, and then He will guide us in what we should say. He said something to the effect of, "I will tell you something you can do that is so easy, a child could do it." That's a wonderful theme of his: Childlikeness.
I certainly know that we can all be instruments in the Lord's hands if we will put our trust in Him and seek His will in prayer.
So here it is March 1st, and I'm doing my February home teaching, and not even in video format... you can imagine my penitent state.
Nevertheless, I hope that all is well with you and yours, and without any further ado, let us proceed to the lesson.
President Eyring wrote of ministering to those who need ministering to. He included things I would expect (and hope) President Eyring would include, such as encouraging us to go the Lord in prayer and ponder the scriptures, and then He will guide us in what we should say. He said something to the effect of, "I will tell you something you can do that is so easy, a child could do it." That's a wonderful theme of his: Childlikeness.
I certainly know that we can all be instruments in the Lord's hands if we will put our trust in Him and seek His will in prayer.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
The Pilgrim's Regress 2
I failed to mention this in my last post: Christ unites the two parts of the man by having them each defeat the evil representation of the opposing side. When John defeated the evil of intellectual stoicism, he received the strength of will and determination to make him "hard." When Vertue defeated the evil of sensuality, he caught fire and finally understood what it meant to desire, to want, to have a passion and feeling for something.
I think that's rather profound.
I think that's rather profound.
The Pilgrim's Regress (another CS Lewis)
I've never read Bunyan, though I think I probably should. Yet I understood much of this story because of experiences (mostly intellectual I admit) from school. Many of the philosophies that John is exposed to I have studied to some extent and was therefore had a grounding intellectually for the story.
I didn't write periodic impressions because, honestly, I didn't feel like it. Unlike The Screwtape Letters, the chapters flowed into each other with the moving of the story, and though I could have stopped and mused, I chose instead to get the whole thing down and then comment once and for all.
With this partially autobiographic tale, Lewis paints a very vivid picture of the dualism of man. On the one hand there was John, the "natural man," given to impulse and desire, seeking for fulfillment, but discovering that every time he thinks he has found the object of his desire, it is in fact a diabolical counterfeit. The submitting of his will to the demands of these objects would only deaden the actual desire. On the other hand there was Vertue, or John's conscience personified as another character. Lewis characterized Vertue as "traditional morality," that sense within each of us to live by rigidity and obedience for the sake of obedience. The mere thought that any reward or punishment may be in the end of the journey was abominable to Vertue--that took away the purity of choice for choice's sake.
In the end Christ united the two halves, as He does in each of our lives. I like Lewis's idea of the Desire being the end in itself, that there is a "divine discontent" in each of us (as Elder Maxwell would say). A celestial homesickness as it were. If this drives us, and not to any worldly object (read idol) in particular, but instead to the Source of the Desire, we will find ourselves within the outstretched arms of the Savior.
I didn't write periodic impressions because, honestly, I didn't feel like it. Unlike The Screwtape Letters, the chapters flowed into each other with the moving of the story, and though I could have stopped and mused, I chose instead to get the whole thing down and then comment once and for all.
With this partially autobiographic tale, Lewis paints a very vivid picture of the dualism of man. On the one hand there was John, the "natural man," given to impulse and desire, seeking for fulfillment, but discovering that every time he thinks he has found the object of his desire, it is in fact a diabolical counterfeit. The submitting of his will to the demands of these objects would only deaden the actual desire. On the other hand there was Vertue, or John's conscience personified as another character. Lewis characterized Vertue as "traditional morality," that sense within each of us to live by rigidity and obedience for the sake of obedience. The mere thought that any reward or punishment may be in the end of the journey was abominable to Vertue--that took away the purity of choice for choice's sake.
In the end Christ united the two halves, as He does in each of our lives. I like Lewis's idea of the Desire being the end in itself, that there is a "divine discontent" in each of us (as Elder Maxwell would say). A celestial homesickness as it were. If this drives us, and not to any worldly object (read idol) in particular, but instead to the Source of the Desire, we will find ourselves within the outstretched arms of the Savior.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Musings on Screwtape 5
You have let a soul slip through your fingers. The howl of sharpened famine for that loss re-echoes at this moment through all the levels of the Kingdom of Noise down to the very Throne itself.
In an earlier letter, Screwtape calls hell the Kingdom of Noise and revels in the wonder of noise. It is this that sparks a memory of a talk I once heard at the MTC. Henry B. Eyring spoke of the "gift of quiet," and his sentiments struck a chord with me. He said something to the effect of, "You will know, someday, why it is that your parents asked you to turn your stereo down." I know that now! There is something about quiet that enables us to see more clearly; we are faced with reality which often, for me, brings a sense of what I need to repent of. It may be uncomfortable at first, but when acted upon brings that other antonym of noise: Peace.
In an earlier letter, Screwtape calls hell the Kingdom of Noise and revels in the wonder of noise. It is this that sparks a memory of a talk I once heard at the MTC. Henry B. Eyring spoke of the "gift of quiet," and his sentiments struck a chord with me. He said something to the effect of, "You will know, someday, why it is that your parents asked you to turn your stereo down." I know that now! There is something about quiet that enables us to see more clearly; we are faced with reality which often, for me, brings a sense of what I need to repent of. It may be uncomfortable at first, but when acted upon brings that other antonym of noise: Peace.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Musings on Screwtape 4
It is the business of these great masters to produce in every age a general misdirection of what may be called sexual 'taste'. This they do by working through the small circle of popular artists, dressmakers, actresses and advertisers who determine the fashionable type. The aim is to guide each sex away from those members of the other with whom spiritually helpful, happy, and fertile marriages are most likely.
"In every age" is so absolutely true. What was fashionable in 1941 when this was written is certainly different from now, but those principles remain. And how many young people do we see who are infatuated with the images of those on television or in fashion or gossip magazines and who ignore their peers who would indeed aid them spiritually in a very happy marriage?
As a result we are more and more directing the desires of men to something which does not exist--making the role of the eye in sexuality more and more important and at the same time making its demands more and more impossible. What follows you can easily forecast!
In our age of photoshop and digital imaging, this has never been more true. These impossible demands can only lead to disappointment in lust. What a terrible place to be.
"In every age" is so absolutely true. What was fashionable in 1941 when this was written is certainly different from now, but those principles remain. And how many young people do we see who are infatuated with the images of those on television or in fashion or gossip magazines and who ignore their peers who would indeed aid them spiritually in a very happy marriage?
As a result we are more and more directing the desires of men to something which does not exist--making the role of the eye in sexuality more and more important and at the same time making its demands more and more impossible. What follows you can easily forecast!
In our age of photoshop and digital imaging, this has never been more true. These impossible demands can only lead to disappointment in lust. What a terrible place to be.
The Continual Evolution of this Blog
I've been out on the blogosphere a lot lately and have found that the availability of blogs having to do with Mormonism is rather large. My contributions there are likely best served in the comment threads. As for this blog, I think I have found my niche, it will benefit me inasmuch as it should keep me reading and thinking. And it may just be the source of thoughtfulness in others. If so, wonderful.
So the format will be simple now. I will offer thoughts on passages from books I am reading and record monthly home teaching videos.
That's it.
I like it. It feels good.
So the format will be simple now. I will offer thoughts on passages from books I am reading and record monthly home teaching videos.
That's it.
I like it. It feels good.
Musings on Screwtape 3
Your patient has become humble; have you drawn his attention to the fact?
Pride in humility, one of Satan's most beloved tactics I'm sure. I'm deeply impressed with the description of real humility in this chapter, though. Humility has everything to do with looking outside of oneself to God and to neighbor. Humility can be glad because of accomplishment, but not any more glad than if another had done what was done. Humility is a recognition of talents and a grateful use of those talents. Humility is never self-absorbed, it does not focus the attention on the imperfections of the individual, whether real or supposed, but instead focuses on the service that can be rendered to others. Humility is in very deed blessedness.
Pride in humility, one of Satan's most beloved tactics I'm sure. I'm deeply impressed with the description of real humility in this chapter, though. Humility has everything to do with looking outside of oneself to God and to neighbor. Humility can be glad because of accomplishment, but not any more glad than if another had done what was done. Humility is a recognition of talents and a grateful use of those talents. Humility is never self-absorbed, it does not focus the attention on the imperfections of the individual, whether real or supposed, but instead focuses on the service that can be rendered to others. Humility is in very deed blessedness.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Musings on Screwtape 2
Two from chapter 9
Never forget that when we are dealing with any pleasure in its healthy and normal and satisfying form, we are, in a sense, on the Enemy's ground. I know we have won many a soul through pleasure. All the same, it is His invention, not ours. He made the pleasures: all our research so far has not enabled us to produce one. All we can do is to encourage the humans to take the pleasures which our Enemy has produced, at times, or in ways, or in degrees, which He has forbidden. Hence we always try to work away from the natural condition of any pleasure to that in which it is least natural, least redolent of its Maker, and least pleasurable. An ever increasing craving for an ever diminishing pleasure is the formula.
This has certainly been the case from the beginning, and yet with media as it is today I wonder if it feels more widespread than in past generations. The accessibility of pornography, just to cite one example, is immediate and varied in its forms. One can experience this "ever increasing craving for an ever diminishing pleasure" in record time these days, going from one website to another and never feeling quite satisfied; in fact feeling less and less satisfied with each encounter, and yet desiring more and more. This is the deadening influence over the spirit that Satan loves--desensitization coupled with insatiable lust. Addiction feeds on dead senses, whereas true enjoyment of pleasures ordained of God actually satisfies without consuming the mind, heart, and life of the individual.
A moderated religion is as good for us as no religion at all--and more amusing.
I don't doubt that hypocrisy thrills the adversary much more than outright rejection of all that is good and holy.
Never forget that when we are dealing with any pleasure in its healthy and normal and satisfying form, we are, in a sense, on the Enemy's ground. I know we have won many a soul through pleasure. All the same, it is His invention, not ours. He made the pleasures: all our research so far has not enabled us to produce one. All we can do is to encourage the humans to take the pleasures which our Enemy has produced, at times, or in ways, or in degrees, which He has forbidden. Hence we always try to work away from the natural condition of any pleasure to that in which it is least natural, least redolent of its Maker, and least pleasurable. An ever increasing craving for an ever diminishing pleasure is the formula.
This has certainly been the case from the beginning, and yet with media as it is today I wonder if it feels more widespread than in past generations. The accessibility of pornography, just to cite one example, is immediate and varied in its forms. One can experience this "ever increasing craving for an ever diminishing pleasure" in record time these days, going from one website to another and never feeling quite satisfied; in fact feeling less and less satisfied with each encounter, and yet desiring more and more. This is the deadening influence over the spirit that Satan loves--desensitization coupled with insatiable lust. Addiction feeds on dead senses, whereas true enjoyment of pleasures ordained of God actually satisfies without consuming the mind, heart, and life of the individual.
A moderated religion is as good for us as no religion at all--and more amusing.
I don't doubt that hypocrisy thrills the adversary much more than outright rejection of all that is good and holy.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Musings on Screwtape 1
I began reading The Screwtape Letters this morning, and the book will serve as a catalyst for many thoughts. This is the first of these.
Do what you will, there is going to be some benevolence, as well as some malice, in your patient's soul. The great thing is to direct the malice to his immediate neighbours whom he meets every day and to thrust his benevolence out to the remote circumference, to people he does not know. The malice thus becomes wholly real and the benevolence largely imaginary. there is no good at all in inflaming his hatred of Germans if, at the same time, a pernicious habit of charity is growing up between him and his mother, his employer, and the man he meets in the train. Think of your man as a series of concentric circles, his will being the innermost, his intellect coming next, and finally his fantasy. You can hardly hope, at once, to exclude from all the circles everything that smells of the Enemy: but you must keep on shoving all the virtues outward till they are finally located in the circle of fantasy, and all the desirable qualities inward to the Will.
This reminds me of a lecture Richard Holzapfel gave (and is available in audio on a CD published by Deseret Book) on "Jesus and the Gospel of Love." He discussed the idea of having charity for all people. His thesis was that this general, good-feeling type of charity is really easy to feel. It's easy to say that you love everyone in the world. It's easy to feel a kind-of-a love for humanity in general. He said, in effect, that this is not the kind of love Jesus is talking about when He says we should love our neighbors as ourselves. And then Holzapfel makes it personal and says that what Jesus means is that we need to have charity for our spouses, siblings, next-door neighbors, those who cut us off on the highway, the slow waiter, the bishop who offends us, etc.
Lewis' "series of concentric circles" works the very same way. It is those who are within the reach of our Will everyday that we need to love. As John wrote that "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar," so we may also infer that If a man say, 'I love everybody in the whole world' and flippeth off another driver, he is a liar.
Do what you will, there is going to be some benevolence, as well as some malice, in your patient's soul. The great thing is to direct the malice to his immediate neighbours whom he meets every day and to thrust his benevolence out to the remote circumference, to people he does not know. The malice thus becomes wholly real and the benevolence largely imaginary. there is no good at all in inflaming his hatred of Germans if, at the same time, a pernicious habit of charity is growing up between him and his mother, his employer, and the man he meets in the train. Think of your man as a series of concentric circles, his will being the innermost, his intellect coming next, and finally his fantasy. You can hardly hope, at once, to exclude from all the circles everything that smells of the Enemy: but you must keep on shoving all the virtues outward till they are finally located in the circle of fantasy, and all the desirable qualities inward to the Will.
This reminds me of a lecture Richard Holzapfel gave (and is available in audio on a CD published by Deseret Book) on "Jesus and the Gospel of Love." He discussed the idea of having charity for all people. His thesis was that this general, good-feeling type of charity is really easy to feel. It's easy to say that you love everyone in the world. It's easy to feel a kind-of-a love for humanity in general. He said, in effect, that this is not the kind of love Jesus is talking about when He says we should love our neighbors as ourselves. And then Holzapfel makes it personal and says that what Jesus means is that we need to have charity for our spouses, siblings, next-door neighbors, those who cut us off on the highway, the slow waiter, the bishop who offends us, etc.
Lewis' "series of concentric circles" works the very same way. It is those who are within the reach of our Will everyday that we need to love. As John wrote that "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar," so we may also infer that If a man say, 'I love everybody in the whole world' and flippeth off another driver, he is a liar.
Thank You, Elder Jensen
And by extension, Presidents Monson, Eyring, and Uchtdorf, for encouraging the Utah State Legislature to approach the issue of immigration with compassion and humanity. Elder Marlin K. Jensen said that this issue extends beyond politics and involves the children of God.
How I wish this message could sink deep into the hearts of Mormons here in the United States, and particularly in Utah. I'm just so glad that the leaders of the Church, as opposed to some members, use reason, common sense, and compassion when considering this very crucial issue.
How I wish this message could sink deep into the hearts of Mormons here in the United States, and particularly in Utah. I'm just so glad that the leaders of the Church, as opposed to some members, use reason, common sense, and compassion when considering this very crucial issue.
Doubt and Reason
In my journey through the blogosphere, I have come across some really fascinating blogs including one in which the author chronicles his spiritual journey "to Byzantium." He and his wife decided to leave the Mormon church and some of the entries deal with that decision. In one he wrote something to this effect (paraphrased here):
The way the church deals with doubt is to not address it directly, but get busy reading your scriptures, praying, etc.
I wonder if this is really true. I can see what he's talking about, because in 90% of the situations in which I have heard someone express doubt or concern about something, the response of teachers or whoever their talking to has been to say something like, "Oh, it may not make sense now, but you'll get your answer if you just keep doing what you're supposed to do."
To the one in doubt, this cannot be satisfactory at all. Doubts not dealt with will not go away, at least in my experience that is the case. If I try to ignore something that is gnawing at my mind or heart it just builds in intensity to be brought out with more force later.
Doubts must be dealt with directly. Questions ought to be asked. Answers may be found. If we take no other lesson from the life of Joseph Smith, we should at least recognize that he faced his questions directly and found answers. I'm thinking he probably went to his grave still wondering about a lot of things, but still looking for the answer. Of all people I think Joseph would be least satisfied by the response to a question, "There's not really an answer, just do what you're supposed to and everything will be fine."
From Joseph's example I see that the way to face doubt is to consider every angle of the question, think about it, pray about it, struggle with it, and (yes!) wait on the Lord, but don't stop seeking.
Doubts can be some of the most fruitful catalysts for spiritual knowledge, but that knowledge doesn't come easily.
The way the church deals with doubt is to not address it directly, but get busy reading your scriptures, praying, etc.
I wonder if this is really true. I can see what he's talking about, because in 90% of the situations in which I have heard someone express doubt or concern about something, the response of teachers or whoever their talking to has been to say something like, "Oh, it may not make sense now, but you'll get your answer if you just keep doing what you're supposed to do."
To the one in doubt, this cannot be satisfactory at all. Doubts not dealt with will not go away, at least in my experience that is the case. If I try to ignore something that is gnawing at my mind or heart it just builds in intensity to be brought out with more force later.
Doubts must be dealt with directly. Questions ought to be asked. Answers may be found. If we take no other lesson from the life of Joseph Smith, we should at least recognize that he faced his questions directly and found answers. I'm thinking he probably went to his grave still wondering about a lot of things, but still looking for the answer. Of all people I think Joseph would be least satisfied by the response to a question, "There's not really an answer, just do what you're supposed to and everything will be fine."
From Joseph's example I see that the way to face doubt is to consider every angle of the question, think about it, pray about it, struggle with it, and (yes!) wait on the Lord, but don't stop seeking.
Doubts can be some of the most fruitful catalysts for spiritual knowledge, but that knowledge doesn't come easily.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Jon Stewart and the Too Much God Question
On Thursday's (2/7/08) edition of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart there was a lot of talk about Governor Mitt Romney's announcement that he was suspending his campaign for the Presidency. Stewart showed bits and pieces of Romney's speech given at that conservative convention thing (the name of the thing escapes me) and commented on the soundbites. In doing so, Stewart addressed an issue that is very relevant for people of faith.
After showing clips in which Romney spoke about the need for more faith in God and a return to Christian-esque principles and morals, Stewart remarked that Romney was saying that "We need more God. We don't have enough God in our lives." He then showed clips in which Romney addressed the issue of terrorism and the religious extremists who perpetuate terror and said, "Oh wait, we've got too much God!"
After showing clips in which Romney spoke about the need for more faith in God and a return to Christian-esque principles and morals, Stewart remarked that Romney was saying that "We need more God. We don't have enough God in our lives." He then showed clips in which Romney addressed the issue of terrorism and the religious extremists who perpetuate terror and said, "Oh wait, we've got too much God!"
In his characteristically irreverent way, Stewart actually noted an important dilemma that we deal with on a global and personal level: How much zeal is too much zeal when it comes to living your religion? When do you know that you have gone too far in perpetuating your beliefs?
This question is very relevant, I think, in every religious sect. There is not a religious organization that I know of that has not had its problems when its adherents have gone too far in their zeal. People claiming all manner of religious identities have done absolutely terrible, abominable things in the name of God, from human sacrifice in a number of traditions to the Crusades, to Mountian Meadows, to the Jihadist terrorism of today.
How do we guard ourselves against this kind of extremism?
Monday, February 4, 2008
Thursday, January 31, 2008
What Think Ye?
Jesus mastered the art of question asking.
He knew, in every situation, the very hearts of His listeners, and He knew what question would get to the heart and mind of those He most dearly wanted to touch.
Take, for example, the account of His conversation with His disciples on the coast of Caesarea Philippi:
"Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?"
This question probably seemed harmless enough to those friends of His. He's curious about what people think about Him. That's a pretty natural thing for us all, isn't it? If we are gaining in popularity in some sphere, we want to know how we are being received among the crowds.
So His disciples answer, "Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets."
Now, honestly here people, these sentiments were not the only ones being offered by the crowds who saw and heard Jesus. Some called Him a lunatic; some said He was a false prophet; still others insisted He was possessed by the devil. But His disciples don't want to tell him these things, they want to be positive here, so they mention all the prophetic people that He is being equated with.
The conversation is over, right? Jesus' curiosity has been satisfied.
No.
"He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?"
The conversation has left the objective realm of observation and has entered that most telling realm of subjectivity.
This question sounds familiar to another that He asked a group of self-righteous people, "What think ye of Christ, whose Son is he?"
Jesus was not concerned with satisfying a mere curiosity here. He wasn't interested in casual theological discussion. He wanted His pupils to know what was in their hearts--He already did, as mentioned above, but they probably did not. They weren't self-aware when it came to this. His disciples had one response, the other crowd had quite a different one.
First the response of those who considered themselves to be well educated on the Messianic prophesies:
"[The Christ (or, the Messiah)] is the son of David."
Because, duh! David was that glorious king of United Israel, and the Christ will be the one do ascend as king again, and reign over Israel once more. He is a descendant of David, and will hearken back to those glory days.
But the simple fisherman, Simon Peter, had quite a different response. This one didn't necessarily come from the canon (at least the popular canon anyway):
"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Jesus is well pleased with this answer. Not because it validated Him at all. Not because it "was the answer He was looking for," like in so many Sunday School and seminary classes in the Church. But because this was what He wanted Peter to learn from the Spirit of revelation. Jesus knew that in asking this question His Father could work on the hearts of His disciples and they could learn something that they didn't know, but they would learn it in a way that would be lasting and powerful, because it would come from within themselves.
Simon Peter had found out who his Master really was. Whose Son is Christ? The Living God's.
Now, what questions is the Lord asking you today?
He knew, in every situation, the very hearts of His listeners, and He knew what question would get to the heart and mind of those He most dearly wanted to touch.
Take, for example, the account of His conversation with His disciples on the coast of Caesarea Philippi:
"Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?"
This question probably seemed harmless enough to those friends of His. He's curious about what people think about Him. That's a pretty natural thing for us all, isn't it? If we are gaining in popularity in some sphere, we want to know how we are being received among the crowds.
So His disciples answer, "Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets."
Now, honestly here people, these sentiments were not the only ones being offered by the crowds who saw and heard Jesus. Some called Him a lunatic; some said He was a false prophet; still others insisted He was possessed by the devil. But His disciples don't want to tell him these things, they want to be positive here, so they mention all the prophetic people that He is being equated with.
The conversation is over, right? Jesus' curiosity has been satisfied.
No.
"He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?"
The conversation has left the objective realm of observation and has entered that most telling realm of subjectivity.
This question sounds familiar to another that He asked a group of self-righteous people, "What think ye of Christ, whose Son is he?"
Jesus was not concerned with satisfying a mere curiosity here. He wasn't interested in casual theological discussion. He wanted His pupils to know what was in their hearts--He already did, as mentioned above, but they probably did not. They weren't self-aware when it came to this. His disciples had one response, the other crowd had quite a different one.
First the response of those who considered themselves to be well educated on the Messianic prophesies:
"[The Christ (or, the Messiah)] is the son of David."
Because, duh! David was that glorious king of United Israel, and the Christ will be the one do ascend as king again, and reign over Israel once more. He is a descendant of David, and will hearken back to those glory days.
But the simple fisherman, Simon Peter, had quite a different response. This one didn't necessarily come from the canon (at least the popular canon anyway):
"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Jesus is well pleased with this answer. Not because it validated Him at all. Not because it "was the answer He was looking for," like in so many Sunday School and seminary classes in the Church. But because this was what He wanted Peter to learn from the Spirit of revelation. Jesus knew that in asking this question His Father could work on the hearts of His disciples and they could learn something that they didn't know, but they would learn it in a way that would be lasting and powerful, because it would come from within themselves.
Simon Peter had found out who his Master really was. Whose Son is Christ? The Living God's.
Now, what questions is the Lord asking you today?
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Seriously! I Mean, Come On!
I know I shouldn't even give them the time of day, but I can't keep quiet. I just have to ask this one question of the Westboro Baptist Church:
"Pure religion and undefiled is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction" (James 1:27). Is this a part of your theology?
What about, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me" (Matthew 25:40)?
Or "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Matthew 22:39)?
How much good are you doing, really, in spending your time, efforts, and resources on spreading the message you do? Can you think of any other way that your time and resources might be used that might, I don't know, bring about GOOD in the world?
"Pure religion and undefiled is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction" (James 1:27). Is this a part of your theology?
What about, "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me" (Matthew 25:40)?
Or "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Matthew 22:39)?
How much good are you doing, really, in spending your time, efforts, and resources on spreading the message you do? Can you think of any other way that your time and resources might be used that might, I don't know, bring about GOOD in the world?
Monday, January 28, 2008
Friday, January 25, 2008
Musings on a Little Paul
Ah, Paul. I love his forthrightness and his passion for the Good News. I also really like it when he puts to rest (or at least attempts to do so) silly disputations among church members.
Like in 1 Corinthians 7. Speaking of the status of individuals when they become Christians, he says that if one is circumcised when he converts, that's just wonderful, good for him; then again, if someone is uncircumcised when he converts, kudos and fantastic stuff, way to be!
Now I quote, "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping the commandments of God" (1 Cor 7:19).
In other words, people, what is important is that you have come unto Christ! Way to be!
To drive the point home he chooses another social distinction, this time having to do with class.
Paul says that it does not matter whether you are a servant (euphemism for slave) or a free person when you convert, because "he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant" (1 Cor 7:22).
This juxtaposition is beautifully drawn. Christ, the Way, the Truth, and the Life, makes us free. He frees us from sin and bondage, from death and pain, from waste and worthlessness. But He does so in order that we may choose to serve Him. Again, note the use of the euphemism here; actually what we each get the opportunity to do is become His slave.
Because, after all, as Paul notes in the next verse, "Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men" (1 Cor 7:23). Slaves are bought by their owners. Jesus bought us. The purchase price was His blood. And yet some will still insist on serving the flesh, rather than being freed in the spirit that we might serve Jesus in love and in truth.
Like in 1 Corinthians 7. Speaking of the status of individuals when they become Christians, he says that if one is circumcised when he converts, that's just wonderful, good for him; then again, if someone is uncircumcised when he converts, kudos and fantastic stuff, way to be!
Now I quote, "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping the commandments of God" (1 Cor 7:19).
In other words, people, what is important is that you have come unto Christ! Way to be!
To drive the point home he chooses another social distinction, this time having to do with class.
Paul says that it does not matter whether you are a servant (euphemism for slave) or a free person when you convert, because "he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant" (1 Cor 7:22).
This juxtaposition is beautifully drawn. Christ, the Way, the Truth, and the Life, makes us free. He frees us from sin and bondage, from death and pain, from waste and worthlessness. But He does so in order that we may choose to serve Him. Again, note the use of the euphemism here; actually what we each get the opportunity to do is become His slave.
Because, after all, as Paul notes in the next verse, "Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men" (1 Cor 7:23). Slaves are bought by their owners. Jesus bought us. The purchase price was His blood. And yet some will still insist on serving the flesh, rather than being freed in the spirit that we might serve Jesus in love and in truth.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
A Bit of History
If you google The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints you will get a number of sites that will lead you to one of the two official Church websites (lds.org and mormon.org). The first site that is not an official Church site is that of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." Note the subtle difference in "Latter-day." This website correctly notes that not many people have heard of this particular church.
But I have. This is because I served my mission in Michigan, and as a part of my mission we covered the area of Beaver Island. This is, as noted in its name, an island off the west coast of Michigan in Lake Michigan. There isn't much on the island, from what I understand, but it does contain an interesting history in connection with the early history of the Church.
After Joseph Smith's death in 1844, a major question arose among members of the Church having to do with leadership. Joseph had never publicly declared the appropriate mode of prophetic "succession" (for lack of a better term) if he were to die. I say publicly with a bit of a hesitation. I wonder if it was supposed to be this way, to try the hearts of the Saints, to see what choice each individual would make.
As it turns out, the public declaration, as it were, occurred in August of 1844 at a meeting in which many of the Saints saw or heard Joseph speak during a short sermon of Brigham Young's. The majority of the membership followed Brigham and the other Apostles, but some split off into smaller groups following this man or that.
Those who ended up on Beaver Island followed a man named James Strang. The church that I mentioned above is the product of this group. The man who currently heads up the church is an intelligent, well-read man. I have never met him, but I have read things he has written and I have a great deal of respect for him.
That's all. I find this very interesting.
But I have. This is because I served my mission in Michigan, and as a part of my mission we covered the area of Beaver Island. This is, as noted in its name, an island off the west coast of Michigan in Lake Michigan. There isn't much on the island, from what I understand, but it does contain an interesting history in connection with the early history of the Church.
After Joseph Smith's death in 1844, a major question arose among members of the Church having to do with leadership. Joseph had never publicly declared the appropriate mode of prophetic "succession" (for lack of a better term) if he were to die. I say publicly with a bit of a hesitation. I wonder if it was supposed to be this way, to try the hearts of the Saints, to see what choice each individual would make.
As it turns out, the public declaration, as it were, occurred in August of 1844 at a meeting in which many of the Saints saw or heard Joseph speak during a short sermon of Brigham Young's. The majority of the membership followed Brigham and the other Apostles, but some split off into smaller groups following this man or that.
Those who ended up on Beaver Island followed a man named James Strang. The church that I mentioned above is the product of this group. The man who currently heads up the church is an intelligent, well-read man. I have never met him, but I have read things he has written and I have a great deal of respect for him.
That's all. I find this very interesting.
Monday, January 14, 2008
A Couple of Questions
Thanks to my first commenter ever on this site! I wish I had a screen name at least wherewith to identify you, but alas the anonymity must remain with the author of the comment. I must admit, though, that for a first comment it sure was, um, long. But if you've read some of my posts you know that I have no problem with "long." In fact, I welcome long, I encourage long, I plead for long! Or short too. I just like comments, to be honest.
Ah! There's the buzz-word: Honest. Have I been honest in my posting thus far on the site? That seems to be an unwritten question on the mind of my anonymous friend who so kindly broke the monotony of the one-sided-ness of this blog. To answer this question, Yes. I have been very honest in each of the posts and the two videos thus far. Inasmuch as the comment came on the videos allow me to say that it is true, in discussing the idea of Mormons having their own Bible, that most members of the Church indeed own their own copy of the Bible, and the Church does indeed print the KJV.
But there were other questions; granted, some were not phrased as questions, but I presume that at the heart of the comments there were questions unanswered. Therefore, allow me to thrill you know with my question-answering skill! I will, for your convenience, reference some scriptural passages in my answers; some from the Bible, others from the Book of Mormon.
Anonymous Commenter Question 1: Do you love the Holy Bible or the Book of Mormon more?
Answer: I don't think I want to choose. They are both the Word of God, both have inspired me to believe in Christ and come unto Him and seek His goodness and the Spirit in my life. I love them the same.
ACQ 2: Do you esteem Jesus Christ or Joseph Smith more?
Answer: Jesus Christ. Why? Because He is God (John 1:1; Mosiah 15:1), and Joseph Smith is not. Because it is only through Jesus Christ that I can be saved (Helaman 5:9), Joseph Smith did not suffer for my sins, die on the cross, and rise the third day as Jesus did. Because Jesus Christ lived a sinless life (Hebrews 5:8-9), and Joseph Smith did not. Because Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God (Matthew 17:5; 3 Nephi 11:7), and Joseph Smith is not. Because Jesus Christ is the Creator and the Lord of the Universe (Mosiah 3:8), and Joseph Smith is not. Now, don't get me wrong, I esteem Joseph Smith as a prophet, seer, and revelator. But he is not the Anointed of God. That is Jesus Christ.
ACQ3: Do you believe the Bible is the completely inerrant Word of God?
Answer: No. I belive the Bible is the Word of God, but it is not free of mistakes or errors. A short look at the textual criticism done on the Bible is enough to convince me of that. I don't believe that a book must be inerrant in order to be the Word of God. I'm thinking the only way to get a book that is completely perfect without any error would be to get it from the pen of God Himself. And nowhere does the Bible claim that of itself (save maybe in the case of the Ten Commandments, but they take up a part of one chapter, that's it).
ACQ4: Do I need the Book of Mormon because of errors in the Bible?
Answer: No. I need the Book of Mormon because of the times that I have been brought unto the Savior from reading it.
ACQ5: By extension of these last two questions, I'm going to ask another that is just begging to be asked: Is the Book of Mormon free of errors? Is it "completely inerrant"?
Answer: No. From the title page of the Book of Mormon, written by the last contributor to the book, Moroni, I quote, "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ." That is something that ought to be said of the Bible too (and I think Moroni would not complain one bit to have it so).
ACQ6: What are the earliest traceable manuscripts of the Bible?
Answer: I don't know exactly for each book. But I do know that the scrolls found at Qumran constitute some of the oldest Old Testament manuscripts in addition to some old Septuigant texts. And concerning the New Testament, I think the oldest manuscript fragment is from the Gospel of John and is dated at AD 125-150.
ACQ7: Are there traceable manuscripts of the Book of Mormon?
Answer: Yes. They just don't date back as far as those of the Bible, and the earliest ones are in English. Professor Royal Skousen, of Brigham Young University's English Department, has done a wonderful job of comparing these different manuscripts (i.e. the original MS, the printer's MS, and the different printed editions of the Book of Mormon). If you want to trace the book even further though, a profitable (not monetarily, mind you) experiment is to compare the Biblical texts quoted in the Book of Mormon to various ancient versions of the same text. It opens up a brand new avenue of Biblical Textual Criticism.
ACQ8: If the text of the Book of Mormon cannot be traced to the ancient world, does that not prove it false?
Answer: Only if you say that the book of Deuteronomy, a book that Jesus was very fond of quoting, is false as well. After all, it was hundreds of years after the book was supposed to have been written that King Josiah's aids discovered it in the temple and interpreted it for the people. The Book of Mormon has a very similar story.
ACQ9: There are other historical texts that support the Bible; are there for the Book of Mormon?
Answer: There are indeed other historical texts that verify events and people in the Bible (that is from the time, roughly, of King David on, though there is also a brief mention of the people Israel in the Merneptah Stele). There are not, outside of the Bible itself, texts that verify the existence of the people in the Book of Mormon, but that is partially because there is a lack of ancient texts from the geographic area of the Book of Mormon, whereas there is no lack of texts from the geographic area of the Bible.
ACQ10: What do DNA studies on American Idians indicate about the authenticity of the Book of Mormon?
Answer: My qualifications to answer this question are minimal. I will offer a few thoughts, though, for what they are worth. The Book of Mormon claims that the people written of in the book were Israelites from Jerusalem from a number of tribes (Manasseh and Judah specifically with a possibility of others). Authors of the book wrote that they hoped their words would someday be brought to the descendants of the Lamanites, presumably those who would still be living on the American Continent at the time of the European colonization. That's about it for the book itself, save to say that if we are to believe the geographic descriptions used in the book, particularly in Alma 22 for example, it is clear that the Nephites and Lamanites occupied a relatively small area of land somewhere on the American Continent. The possibility that there were other groups of people inhabiting those continents at the same time, even much larger groups spread over much larger areas, is absolutely possible and likely probable. So maybe I'm just being naive, but it does not bother me at all that DNA studies have shown other ancestors for the people indigenous to America than those spoken of in the Book of Mormon. Do I think there are descendants of the Lamanites out there? Absolutely, and they may have inter-mixed with those of other origins as well.
ACQ11: Am I, Abinadi's Pupil, a Christian?
Answer: Yes. I believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and have felt His redeeming power in my life. I know I have been forgiven of my sins because of Jesus Christ, and that only in and through His blood can I ever hope for salvation.
ACQ12: Are Mormons secretive about beliefs such as Satan and Jesus being brothers, becoming gods, seven levels of heaven, and baptism for the dead?
Answer: I don't know. Some are, maybe. But wait! Seven levels of heaven? I cannot think of a single place that I have ever read or heard about seven levels of heaven, except maybe in that TV show that may or may not have been cancelled, you know, the one about the family with a bunch of kids and the dad is a preacher and stuff. But I'll say that I'm not secretive about the doctrine of the Church. If it is true, I will say so. Satan and Jesus brothers? We all lived as spirit children of Heavenly Parents before coming to earth, including Jesus, the Firstborn in the Spirit. In that state we had agency, the ability to choose. It so happened that one individual rebelled against our Father and His plan for our happiness, and was cast out and not given the chance to progress as those who are born on earth are. This individual took with him a number of others who liked his ideas more than God's, and they are the evil spirits that roam the earth seeking out bodies to possess (you know, like in the New Testament when numbers of evil spirits would enter bodies until they were cast out by Jesus). We believe it is a part of our Father in Heaven's plan for us to become like him. He has provided every means possible for this through His Son Jesus Christ. And yes, Mormons do indeed practice what we call baptism for the dead. We believe that baptism is necessary for salvation "to fulfill all righteousness" (Matthew 3:15). Inasmuch as God is a perfectly just and merciful God, He has provided a way for us to perform baptism for those who died without the opportunity of receiving the ordinance in this life. Everyone, then, is given an opportunity for salvation in the Kingdom of Heaven. What a beautiful doctrine that is!
Ah! There's the buzz-word: Honest. Have I been honest in my posting thus far on the site? That seems to be an unwritten question on the mind of my anonymous friend who so kindly broke the monotony of the one-sided-ness of this blog. To answer this question, Yes. I have been very honest in each of the posts and the two videos thus far. Inasmuch as the comment came on the videos allow me to say that it is true, in discussing the idea of Mormons having their own Bible, that most members of the Church indeed own their own copy of the Bible, and the Church does indeed print the KJV.
But there were other questions; granted, some were not phrased as questions, but I presume that at the heart of the comments there were questions unanswered. Therefore, allow me to thrill you know with my question-answering skill! I will, for your convenience, reference some scriptural passages in my answers; some from the Bible, others from the Book of Mormon.
Anonymous Commenter Question 1: Do you love the Holy Bible or the Book of Mormon more?
Answer: I don't think I want to choose. They are both the Word of God, both have inspired me to believe in Christ and come unto Him and seek His goodness and the Spirit in my life. I love them the same.
ACQ 2: Do you esteem Jesus Christ or Joseph Smith more?
Answer: Jesus Christ. Why? Because He is God (John 1:1; Mosiah 15:1), and Joseph Smith is not. Because it is only through Jesus Christ that I can be saved (Helaman 5:9), Joseph Smith did not suffer for my sins, die on the cross, and rise the third day as Jesus did. Because Jesus Christ lived a sinless life (Hebrews 5:8-9), and Joseph Smith did not. Because Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of God (Matthew 17:5; 3 Nephi 11:7), and Joseph Smith is not. Because Jesus Christ is the Creator and the Lord of the Universe (Mosiah 3:8), and Joseph Smith is not. Now, don't get me wrong, I esteem Joseph Smith as a prophet, seer, and revelator. But he is not the Anointed of God. That is Jesus Christ.
ACQ3: Do you believe the Bible is the completely inerrant Word of God?
Answer: No. I belive the Bible is the Word of God, but it is not free of mistakes or errors. A short look at the textual criticism done on the Bible is enough to convince me of that. I don't believe that a book must be inerrant in order to be the Word of God. I'm thinking the only way to get a book that is completely perfect without any error would be to get it from the pen of God Himself. And nowhere does the Bible claim that of itself (save maybe in the case of the Ten Commandments, but they take up a part of one chapter, that's it).
ACQ4: Do I need the Book of Mormon because of errors in the Bible?
Answer: No. I need the Book of Mormon because of the times that I have been brought unto the Savior from reading it.
ACQ5: By extension of these last two questions, I'm going to ask another that is just begging to be asked: Is the Book of Mormon free of errors? Is it "completely inerrant"?
Answer: No. From the title page of the Book of Mormon, written by the last contributor to the book, Moroni, I quote, "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ." That is something that ought to be said of the Bible too (and I think Moroni would not complain one bit to have it so).
ACQ6: What are the earliest traceable manuscripts of the Bible?
Answer: I don't know exactly for each book. But I do know that the scrolls found at Qumran constitute some of the oldest Old Testament manuscripts in addition to some old Septuigant texts. And concerning the New Testament, I think the oldest manuscript fragment is from the Gospel of John and is dated at AD 125-150.
ACQ7: Are there traceable manuscripts of the Book of Mormon?
Answer: Yes. They just don't date back as far as those of the Bible, and the earliest ones are in English. Professor Royal Skousen, of Brigham Young University's English Department, has done a wonderful job of comparing these different manuscripts (i.e. the original MS, the printer's MS, and the different printed editions of the Book of Mormon). If you want to trace the book even further though, a profitable (not monetarily, mind you) experiment is to compare the Biblical texts quoted in the Book of Mormon to various ancient versions of the same text. It opens up a brand new avenue of Biblical Textual Criticism.
ACQ8: If the text of the Book of Mormon cannot be traced to the ancient world, does that not prove it false?
Answer: Only if you say that the book of Deuteronomy, a book that Jesus was very fond of quoting, is false as well. After all, it was hundreds of years after the book was supposed to have been written that King Josiah's aids discovered it in the temple and interpreted it for the people. The Book of Mormon has a very similar story.
ACQ9: There are other historical texts that support the Bible; are there for the Book of Mormon?
Answer: There are indeed other historical texts that verify events and people in the Bible (that is from the time, roughly, of King David on, though there is also a brief mention of the people Israel in the Merneptah Stele). There are not, outside of the Bible itself, texts that verify the existence of the people in the Book of Mormon, but that is partially because there is a lack of ancient texts from the geographic area of the Book of Mormon, whereas there is no lack of texts from the geographic area of the Bible.
ACQ10: What do DNA studies on American Idians indicate about the authenticity of the Book of Mormon?
Answer: My qualifications to answer this question are minimal. I will offer a few thoughts, though, for what they are worth. The Book of Mormon claims that the people written of in the book were Israelites from Jerusalem from a number of tribes (Manasseh and Judah specifically with a possibility of others). Authors of the book wrote that they hoped their words would someday be brought to the descendants of the Lamanites, presumably those who would still be living on the American Continent at the time of the European colonization. That's about it for the book itself, save to say that if we are to believe the geographic descriptions used in the book, particularly in Alma 22 for example, it is clear that the Nephites and Lamanites occupied a relatively small area of land somewhere on the American Continent. The possibility that there were other groups of people inhabiting those continents at the same time, even much larger groups spread over much larger areas, is absolutely possible and likely probable. So maybe I'm just being naive, but it does not bother me at all that DNA studies have shown other ancestors for the people indigenous to America than those spoken of in the Book of Mormon. Do I think there are descendants of the Lamanites out there? Absolutely, and they may have inter-mixed with those of other origins as well.
ACQ11: Am I, Abinadi's Pupil, a Christian?
Answer: Yes. I believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and have felt His redeeming power in my life. I know I have been forgiven of my sins because of Jesus Christ, and that only in and through His blood can I ever hope for salvation.
ACQ12: Are Mormons secretive about beliefs such as Satan and Jesus being brothers, becoming gods, seven levels of heaven, and baptism for the dead?
Answer: I don't know. Some are, maybe. But wait! Seven levels of heaven? I cannot think of a single place that I have ever read or heard about seven levels of heaven, except maybe in that TV show that may or may not have been cancelled, you know, the one about the family with a bunch of kids and the dad is a preacher and stuff. But I'll say that I'm not secretive about the doctrine of the Church. If it is true, I will say so. Satan and Jesus brothers? We all lived as spirit children of Heavenly Parents before coming to earth, including Jesus, the Firstborn in the Spirit. In that state we had agency, the ability to choose. It so happened that one individual rebelled against our Father and His plan for our happiness, and was cast out and not given the chance to progress as those who are born on earth are. This individual took with him a number of others who liked his ideas more than God's, and they are the evil spirits that roam the earth seeking out bodies to possess (you know, like in the New Testament when numbers of evil spirits would enter bodies until they were cast out by Jesus). We believe it is a part of our Father in Heaven's plan for us to become like him. He has provided every means possible for this through His Son Jesus Christ. And yes, Mormons do indeed practice what we call baptism for the dead. We believe that baptism is necessary for salvation "to fulfill all righteousness" (Matthew 3:15). Inasmuch as God is a perfectly just and merciful God, He has provided a way for us to perform baptism for those who died without the opportunity of receiving the ordinance in this life. Everyone, then, is given an opportunity for salvation in the Kingdom of Heaven. What a beautiful doctrine that is!
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Nature of Scripture
Article of Faith 8: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."
As a student at Brigham Young University I took a class from David Rolf Seely, Professor of Ancient Scripture. The first two days of class were spent discussing what Joseph Smith meant when he wrote this seemingly simple statement of belief. The part of the statement focused on was the conditional statement concerning the Bible. What did Joseph mean when he wrote "as far as it is translated correctly"? More specifically, what did Joseph mean by "translated"?
The average English-speaking Mormon today would probably say that Joseph was referring to the different "versions" of the Bible, and by that they would mean the different English translations, such as the King James Version, the New International Version, the New Revised Standard Version, etc. And they would likely tell you that Joseph was implying that the King James Version is the most correct translation, and that if you use other versions you are getting diluted doctrine.
However, Joseph Smith really only knew one English version, and that was the KJV. There were others available, but most American Christians used the KJV and were not terribly concerned with other versions in the early nineteenth century. So Joseph was probably not really making a reference to one English Bible over another. No, for Joseph, the word "translated" as used in this context likely has to do more with transmission and the different translations associated with the transmission of the Biblical text.
Let me explain. The Gospel of Mark is, according to the majority of New Testament scholars, the earliest written of the four Gospels. Mark apparently got his information from Peter who told Mark (presumptively speaking in Aramaic) about his experiences with Jesus. Here we have one transmission of a text, i.e. the "oral text" of Peter's experiences transmitted into a written text produced by Mark and written in Greek. We also see the first translation of the text from Aramaic to Greek. For the most part I think we trust that that first transmission occurred without much error, perhaps Peter proofread Mark's text, or maybe Mark waited a few years after Peter's death to record his Gospel, but had a good memory and produced a rather reliable text. Mark's written text was then copied by a few Christians and distributed, and copies were made of those copies and distributed further, and so on. Here we have a number of transmissions, all from Greek to Greek in the early Church, though some were likely copied in other languages such as Coptic. All of these first century copies of Mark are missing, and to find a complete manuscript of the Gospel of Mark one needs to look a few centuries into the future. How many transmissions took place between the original and the "received text"? We don't really know. But there are different versions from the ancient world, and text critics have studied the different versions exhaustively looking for variants, of which there are comparatively few. But how much these similar versions may differ from the original can only be surmised. Eventually these texts were translated into the common languages of Europe and distributed by means of a printing press which allowed for very few variations in texts.
But over the centuries things could have been changed, left out, added, etc. to the Biblical Text. And this, at least in part, seems to be what Joseph is referring to when he speaks of the Bible being "translated correctly."
Joseph did make inspired corrections to the King James text of the Bible. Studying these changes allow us to see a more correctly translated version of the Bible, but I think what Joseph would encourage us to do, and in fact our current Church leaders encourage the same thing, is to read by the lamp of the Spirit. Understand that the Bible is indeed the Word of God. It is inspired of God, but there may be things in there that don't sit right with your conscience. And if that is the case you have two basic choices: ignore it considering it to be part of the Bible that is not translated correctly, or deal with it by investigating further, asking questions, praying for inspiration, and coming up with your own answers. I think the latter is much more instructive an edifying.
As a student at Brigham Young University I took a class from David Rolf Seely, Professor of Ancient Scripture. The first two days of class were spent discussing what Joseph Smith meant when he wrote this seemingly simple statement of belief. The part of the statement focused on was the conditional statement concerning the Bible. What did Joseph mean when he wrote "as far as it is translated correctly"? More specifically, what did Joseph mean by "translated"?
The average English-speaking Mormon today would probably say that Joseph was referring to the different "versions" of the Bible, and by that they would mean the different English translations, such as the King James Version, the New International Version, the New Revised Standard Version, etc. And they would likely tell you that Joseph was implying that the King James Version is the most correct translation, and that if you use other versions you are getting diluted doctrine.
However, Joseph Smith really only knew one English version, and that was the KJV. There were others available, but most American Christians used the KJV and were not terribly concerned with other versions in the early nineteenth century. So Joseph was probably not really making a reference to one English Bible over another. No, for Joseph, the word "translated" as used in this context likely has to do more with transmission and the different translations associated with the transmission of the Biblical text.
Let me explain. The Gospel of Mark is, according to the majority of New Testament scholars, the earliest written of the four Gospels. Mark apparently got his information from Peter who told Mark (presumptively speaking in Aramaic) about his experiences with Jesus. Here we have one transmission of a text, i.e. the "oral text" of Peter's experiences transmitted into a written text produced by Mark and written in Greek. We also see the first translation of the text from Aramaic to Greek. For the most part I think we trust that that first transmission occurred without much error, perhaps Peter proofread Mark's text, or maybe Mark waited a few years after Peter's death to record his Gospel, but had a good memory and produced a rather reliable text. Mark's written text was then copied by a few Christians and distributed, and copies were made of those copies and distributed further, and so on. Here we have a number of transmissions, all from Greek to Greek in the early Church, though some were likely copied in other languages such as Coptic. All of these first century copies of Mark are missing, and to find a complete manuscript of the Gospel of Mark one needs to look a few centuries into the future. How many transmissions took place between the original and the "received text"? We don't really know. But there are different versions from the ancient world, and text critics have studied the different versions exhaustively looking for variants, of which there are comparatively few. But how much these similar versions may differ from the original can only be surmised. Eventually these texts were translated into the common languages of Europe and distributed by means of a printing press which allowed for very few variations in texts.
But over the centuries things could have been changed, left out, added, etc. to the Biblical Text. And this, at least in part, seems to be what Joseph is referring to when he speaks of the Bible being "translated correctly."
Joseph did make inspired corrections to the King James text of the Bible. Studying these changes allow us to see a more correctly translated version of the Bible, but I think what Joseph would encourage us to do, and in fact our current Church leaders encourage the same thing, is to read by the lamp of the Spirit. Understand that the Bible is indeed the Word of God. It is inspired of God, but there may be things in there that don't sit right with your conscience. And if that is the case you have two basic choices: ignore it considering it to be part of the Bible that is not translated correctly, or deal with it by investigating further, asking questions, praying for inspiration, and coming up with your own answers. I think the latter is much more instructive an edifying.
Tone of this Blog
The Deseret Morning News began a new section this morning, called "The Mormon Times." I read this article just now, and it caused me to reflect. I wonder if the tone of this blog, rather facetious thus far, is appropriate for the intent of the blog.
I wonder if responding to the notions of those who are unabashedly antagonistic in their feelings toward Mormonism is useful at all. Aside from inspiring some like-minded chuckles from readers who are already members of the Church, I can't imagine my posts heretofore written doing any good in the world at large. And that is concerning to me. After all, I started this blog in response to the invitation from Elder Ballard to enter the world of cyberspace discussing the Church.
So my apologies. From now on I will focus on writing about things that inspire faith and understanding.
I wonder if responding to the notions of those who are unabashedly antagonistic in their feelings toward Mormonism is useful at all. Aside from inspiring some like-minded chuckles from readers who are already members of the Church, I can't imagine my posts heretofore written doing any good in the world at large. And that is concerning to me. After all, I started this blog in response to the invitation from Elder Ballard to enter the world of cyberspace discussing the Church.
So my apologies. From now on I will focus on writing about things that inspire faith and understanding.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Trouble with The Book of Mormon
Bear with me, folks. Here is a comment from someone who watched one of my videos on youtube:
"did you notice foot notes in their bible that go to the book of Mormon. Did you know that Book of Mormon is copy right out of bible. For expamle Mosiash in the book of mormon copy for word for word in isaiah. the Mormon church is not christian. I know because I'm former mormon."
I just copied and pasted it. That's right; apparently this individual, whose name appears to be Former Mormon (an incredible example of foresight on the part of his/her parents if he/she was once a member of the Mormon Church), is an expert in the area of Book of Mormon studies. After all, they are really familiar with the book of Mosiash--that cleverly hidden book stuffed in the middle of the index of their copy (at least, that's where it must be inasmuch as any copy of the Book of Mormon I've seen contains no book of "Mosiash").
I think I will respond to some of the arguments presented here in my next video, but for the sake of sanity I want to at least address one element here. And to do so I'll quote from a review of a book by Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Uncovering the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon. Tom Nibley, son of famed LDS scholar Hugh Nibley, wrote the review which can be read on the website http://farms.byu.edu. After a lengthy review he includes this sentence in the last paragraph:
"They spend many pages trying to prove that because the Bible has many things in it that are not in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon cannot possibly be what it claims to be and then spend many more pages trying to prove that because there are many things in the Bible that are in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon cannot possibly be what it claims to be."
Thus he draws the paradox that the Book of Mormon finds itself in when it comes to a large majority of critics of the Church, and to Former Mormon in particular. At least, this is what I can assume. Former Mormon does not like the Book of Mormon because of the chapters that are quoted from the Bible; never mind that those Biblical passages each come in a context within the Book of Mormon in which they play crucial roles for those who are unabashedly quoting them. To Former Mormon, the Mormon Church is not Christian because one of its sacred books contains too much that is similar to the Holy Bible. So our hypothesis should then be, that in order for a book to be considered sacred to Former Mormon, it should not bear any resemblance in any of its passages whatsoever to the Bible--Old or New Testament.
Ah! But I assume that our friend, Former Mormon, would take exception to this though. Because they likely believe that the Bible is the Word of God. And if any book is going to purport to be sacred, it had better well smack of Bible stuff!
Actually, maybe I'm all wrong here, and maybe these critics are simply suffering from the syndrome Nephi describes in 2 Nephi 29. God has said all that He has to say. He's done all that He intended to do. We need no more Bible or revelation.
That's a wonderful thought now, isn't it?
"did you notice foot notes in their bible that go to the book of Mormon. Did you know that Book of Mormon is copy right out of bible. For expamle Mosiash in the book of mormon copy for word for word in isaiah. the Mormon church is not christian. I know because I'm former mormon."
I just copied and pasted it. That's right; apparently this individual, whose name appears to be Former Mormon (an incredible example of foresight on the part of his/her parents if he/she was once a member of the Mormon Church), is an expert in the area of Book of Mormon studies. After all, they are really familiar with the book of Mosiash--that cleverly hidden book stuffed in the middle of the index of their copy (at least, that's where it must be inasmuch as any copy of the Book of Mormon I've seen contains no book of "Mosiash").
I think I will respond to some of the arguments presented here in my next video, but for the sake of sanity I want to at least address one element here. And to do so I'll quote from a review of a book by Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Uncovering the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon. Tom Nibley, son of famed LDS scholar Hugh Nibley, wrote the review which can be read on the website http://farms.byu.edu. After a lengthy review he includes this sentence in the last paragraph:
"They spend many pages trying to prove that because the Bible has many things in it that are not in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon cannot possibly be what it claims to be and then spend many more pages trying to prove that because there are many things in the Bible that are in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon cannot possibly be what it claims to be."
Thus he draws the paradox that the Book of Mormon finds itself in when it comes to a large majority of critics of the Church, and to Former Mormon in particular. At least, this is what I can assume. Former Mormon does not like the Book of Mormon because of the chapters that are quoted from the Bible; never mind that those Biblical passages each come in a context within the Book of Mormon in which they play crucial roles for those who are unabashedly quoting them. To Former Mormon, the Mormon Church is not Christian because one of its sacred books contains too much that is similar to the Holy Bible. So our hypothesis should then be, that in order for a book to be considered sacred to Former Mormon, it should not bear any resemblance in any of its passages whatsoever to the Bible--Old or New Testament.
Ah! But I assume that our friend, Former Mormon, would take exception to this though. Because they likely believe that the Bible is the Word of God. And if any book is going to purport to be sacred, it had better well smack of Bible stuff!
Actually, maybe I'm all wrong here, and maybe these critics are simply suffering from the syndrome Nephi describes in 2 Nephi 29. God has said all that He has to say. He's done all that He intended to do. We need no more Bible or revelation.
That's a wonderful thought now, isn't it?
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
The Mormon Bible
I have posted these two videos on youtube to explain to the "world" what it sounds like to a Mormon to hear someone say, "Mormon's have their own Bible!"
Hope they're enjoyable...
Hope they're enjoyable...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
