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?

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?

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...