I know many (perhaps most) of those who will attend the Temple Conference are regular readers of this blog. The conference will be held in Logan at Utah State University. The total seating will allow approximately 320 to attend.
The fireside will be free. There is no requirement for you to either have a ticket, or to attend the conference to attend the fireside. It will be digitally recorded. The recording will be done by someone I trust, and they will be responsible for making it available once it has been finished.
Whether you attend the Temple Conference or not, you are welcome to attend the fireside. It is open to the public, and free of charge.
We originally reserved the Logan Tabernacle for the fireside. It is still reserved. However, given the difference between the conference, and the fireside, it appears likely it would be more convenient for fireside attendees if it is moved to the Wasatch Front. We have contracted for a 1,000 seat auditorium in Ogden and the plan is to hold the fireside there.
We estimate the fireside may have 350-400 attend. Therefore there should be ample seating.
_______________________________________
I want to clarify that I never post or write without using my name. If I comment on a news article or any other place, I always use my name. There are no anonymous or fictitious characters who are me in disguise. I do not do that.
Friday, September 28, 2012
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Further on Quiet
Joseph Smith had been confined for months in Liberty Jail. It was a harrowing ordeal, made all the more so because of so little news about the saints. On March 24th, Joseph received letters from several friends, including his brother Don Carlos Smith, Bishop Partridge and his wife Emma.
The letters were welcomed, but sent Joseph's mind racing in all directions as he considered the plight of his family, friends and the church. He wrote:
"[T]hose who have not been enclosed in the walls of a prison without cause or provocation, can have but little idea how sweet the voice of a friend is; one token of friendship from any source whatever awakens and calls into action every sympathetic feeling; it brings up in an instant everything that is passed; it seizes and present with the avidity of lightening; it grasps after the future with the fierceness of a tiger; it moves the mind backward and forward, from one thing to another..." (TPJS, p. 134.)
This frenzy of thought was provoked by the letters. It set his mind whirling. He was filled with emotion and with intensity of thought about it all: past, present and future. In this state of mind he was awakened to appreciate keenly these terrible events and his own captivity.
But it was in the quietness which followed where the spirit whispered to him and we received through him revelations now contained in the D&C. He continues:
"[U]ntil finally all enmity, malice and hatred, and past differences, misunderstandings and mismanagements are slain victorious at the feet of hope; and when the heart is sufficiently contrite, then the voice of inspiration steals along and whispers--" (TPJS, p. 134.)
"My son, peace be unto thy soul; thine adversity and thine afflictions shall be but a small moment; and then if thou endure it well, God shall exalt thee on high." (D&C 121: 7-8.)
The voice comes so quietly Joseph uses "steals along" to tell of its arrival.
It speaks so gently Joseph uses "whispers" to describe the voice.
The letters were welcomed, but sent Joseph's mind racing in all directions as he considered the plight of his family, friends and the church. He wrote:
"[T]hose who have not been enclosed in the walls of a prison without cause or provocation, can have but little idea how sweet the voice of a friend is; one token of friendship from any source whatever awakens and calls into action every sympathetic feeling; it brings up in an instant everything that is passed; it seizes and present with the avidity of lightening; it grasps after the future with the fierceness of a tiger; it moves the mind backward and forward, from one thing to another..." (TPJS, p. 134.)
This frenzy of thought was provoked by the letters. It set his mind whirling. He was filled with emotion and with intensity of thought about it all: past, present and future. In this state of mind he was awakened to appreciate keenly these terrible events and his own captivity.
But it was in the quietness which followed where the spirit whispered to him and we received through him revelations now contained in the D&C. He continues:
"[U]ntil finally all enmity, malice and hatred, and past differences, misunderstandings and mismanagements are slain victorious at the feet of hope; and when the heart is sufficiently contrite, then the voice of inspiration steals along and whispers--" (TPJS, p. 134.)
"My son, peace be unto thy soul; thine adversity and thine afflictions shall be but a small moment; and then if thou endure it well, God shall exalt thee on high." (D&C 121: 7-8.)
The voice comes so quietly Joseph uses "steals along" to tell of its arrival.
It speaks so gently Joseph uses "whispers" to describe the voice.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Quietness
Our dispensation opened on a "beautiful, clear day" in the woods in early spring 1820. (JS-H 1: 14.)
It jumped forward again in 1823, at night, after Joseph and his family had retired to bed. It was at this time when an angel came to visit him. (JS-H 1: 28-30.)
These towering events happened in quiet settings. It calls to mind Isaiah's remark about quietness: "And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever." (Isa. 32: 17.)
I think also of Paul's advice to the Thessalonians: "and that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you." (1 Thes. 4: 11.)
Why is being quiet a virtue worth acquiring?
Why is the effect of righteousness quietness?
Was it quiet when you had your most profound spiritual experience?
Have you ever known a deeply spiritual man or woman who could not be calm or quiet?
It jumped forward again in 1823, at night, after Joseph and his family had retired to bed. It was at this time when an angel came to visit him. (JS-H 1: 28-30.)
These towering events happened in quiet settings. It calls to mind Isaiah's remark about quietness: "And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever." (Isa. 32: 17.)
I think also of Paul's advice to the Thessalonians: "and that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you." (1 Thes. 4: 11.)
Why is being quiet a virtue worth acquiring?
Why is the effect of righteousness quietness?
Was it quiet when you had your most profound spiritual experience?
Have you ever known a deeply spiritual man or woman who could not be calm or quiet?
Upcoming Fireside
I've been asked about the upcoming fireside to be held on Sunday evening, October 28, 2012.
The fireside will occur somewhere in Northern Utah. When finalized, the details will be announced on this blog.
The fireside will focus on the temple and temple studies. The things I will discuss have meaning beyond the temple itself. I view the temple as a ritualized invitation to higher things. The presentation will extend into the nature of that invitation and the intended higher principles.
The fireside will occur somewhere in Northern Utah. When finalized, the details will be announced on this blog.
The fireside will focus on the temple and temple studies. The things I will discuss have meaning beyond the temple itself. I view the temple as a ritualized invitation to higher things. The presentation will extend into the nature of that invitation and the intended higher principles.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Answers to questions
Q: Why do you call the PEF a revelation?
A: The church has used that description. I have accepted the church's vocabulary. Am I vile because I am willing to allow the church to control their own terminology?
Q: Doesn't a revelation require "thus sayeth the Lord" and a transcript to be presented for approval by the church?
A: That has not been the practice for a long time. If the practice of limiting a "revelation" to something preceded by "thus sayeth the Lord" then some of Joseph Smith's canonized teachings in the Doctrine & Covenants, and his personal testimony in the JS-H in the P of GP would be disqualified by the standard. Once again, I am allowing the church to control the vocabulary.
Q: Which is it, a divinely revealed program, or a poorly administered program?
A: Are the Ten Commandments a divine revelation even they have been poorly obeyed since the days of Moses? Is the Sermon on the Mount a divinely revealed elaboration on the Ten Commandments clarifying that it is what is in your heart that matters most, even though it has rarely been obeyed since the time of Christ? If God reveals a standard, as he has done many times, and men fail to reach the standard, does that mean God did not give a revelation?
A: The church has used that description. I have accepted the church's vocabulary. Am I vile because I am willing to allow the church to control their own terminology?
Q: Doesn't a revelation require "thus sayeth the Lord" and a transcript to be presented for approval by the church?
A: That has not been the practice for a long time. If the practice of limiting a "revelation" to something preceded by "thus sayeth the Lord" then some of Joseph Smith's canonized teachings in the Doctrine & Covenants, and his personal testimony in the JS-H in the P of GP would be disqualified by the standard. Once again, I am allowing the church to control the vocabulary.
Q: Which is it, a divinely revealed program, or a poorly administered program?
A: Are the Ten Commandments a divine revelation even they have been poorly obeyed since the days of Moses? Is the Sermon on the Mount a divinely revealed elaboration on the Ten Commandments clarifying that it is what is in your heart that matters most, even though it has rarely been obeyed since the time of Christ? If God reveals a standard, as he has done many times, and men fail to reach the standard, does that mean God did not give a revelation?
Monday, September 24, 2012
Nephi's Isaiah
Nephi states straightforwardly why he uses the Isaiah material in his own prophecy. It is in Nephi's record, but the statement comes from his brother Jacob. Nephi records what is apparently his brother's first address.
The stage is set for the sermon in 2 Nephi Chapter 5. Here we learn of the construction of a temple by the Nephites. The temple dedication ceremonies are left out of the account. It is an interesting omission. By chapter 6 the temple is in service.
Jacob's sermon could very well have been both the event marking the commissioning of the temple, and the first sermon delivered to the people in the structure. Nephi put this into his account because he obviously approved of the sermon and wanted it preserved for all time.
Jacob states this:
"the words which I shall read are they which Isaiah spake concerning all the house of Israel; wherefore, they may be likened unto you, for ye are of the house of Israel. And there are many things which have been spoken by Isaiah which may be likened unto you, because ye are of the house of Israel." (2 Ne. 6: 5.)
-What does "likened unto you" mean?
-Is there a difference between something literal and being "likened?"
-Does that difference matter?
-What about the limitation Isaiah spoke about "all the house of Israel?"
-Does the Book of Mormon designation of the European bloodlines that would displace the Lamanites as "gentiles" disqualify the gentiles from "likening" the words to them?
-Does the Book of Mormon promise that the gentiles can be "numbered" with the house of Israel allow the same "likening" to apply to the converted gentiles? (2 Ne. 10: 18; 3 Ne. 16: 13; 3 Ne. 21: 6; 3 Ne. 30: 2.)
Assuming the words can be "likened" to you, then what does that mean? Are the words to be taken as an analogy to guide us or as a promise given to us?
Jacob explains the analogy he wants to draw to the Nephites beginning in 2 Nephi Chapter 9. It is instructive.
Nephi 'went to school' on his younger brother's example. He fills 2 Nephi with Isaiah's words. Then, in the closing chapters of his book, he provides his own commentary. He ends his record in this manner. With all he had seen, with all he knew, and with all he was told to withhold from us, he uses Isaiah as his basis to teach, preach, exhort and expound to us. Much of it is addressed directly to the "gentiles" of our day. He applies Isaiah to the gentiles.
A great key to understanding Nephi's prophecy is that he used Isaiah's words as a tool to deliver his (Nephi's) message. Using Isaiah's intent will not help you. It is irrelevant. You must use Nephi's interpretive keys in his closing chapters to understand Nephi's intent in "likening" the prophecy to his people and to the latter-day gentiles. This is why I wrote Nephi's Isaiah. You will be disappointed if you think it is an interpretation of Isaiah. It is not. The book is about Nephi's message, not the words he employed to "liken" unto us. If you accept this approach you don't need my book. You only need Nephi's words.
________________________
As a postscript about the Perpetual Education Fund:
When President Hinckley announced it in the April 2001 General Conference he said the following:
"they will return that which they have borrowed together with a small amount of interest designed as an incentive to repay the loan."
This was the original intent.
I've received many emails explaining the way the original program was compromised and poorly administered. I acknowledge there may be problems with how it turned out. But that is the responsibility of the employees at the Church Office Building. Those problems do not reflect the purity of intent by the church members who donated. I think there are a lot of people in the bowels of the Church Office Building who have performed poorly for the church. Since these are funds given by faithful members, there is a responsibility which hasn't been kept by some of these employees.
The stage is set for the sermon in 2 Nephi Chapter 5. Here we learn of the construction of a temple by the Nephites. The temple dedication ceremonies are left out of the account. It is an interesting omission. By chapter 6 the temple is in service.
Jacob's sermon could very well have been both the event marking the commissioning of the temple, and the first sermon delivered to the people in the structure. Nephi put this into his account because he obviously approved of the sermon and wanted it preserved for all time.
Jacob states this:
"the words which I shall read are they which Isaiah spake concerning all the house of Israel; wherefore, they may be likened unto you, for ye are of the house of Israel. And there are many things which have been spoken by Isaiah which may be likened unto you, because ye are of the house of Israel." (2 Ne. 6: 5.)
-What does "likened unto you" mean?
-Is there a difference between something literal and being "likened?"
-Does that difference matter?
-What about the limitation Isaiah spoke about "all the house of Israel?"
-Does the Book of Mormon designation of the European bloodlines that would displace the Lamanites as "gentiles" disqualify the gentiles from "likening" the words to them?
-Does the Book of Mormon promise that the gentiles can be "numbered" with the house of Israel allow the same "likening" to apply to the converted gentiles? (2 Ne. 10: 18; 3 Ne. 16: 13; 3 Ne. 21: 6; 3 Ne. 30: 2.)
Assuming the words can be "likened" to you, then what does that mean? Are the words to be taken as an analogy to guide us or as a promise given to us?
Jacob explains the analogy he wants to draw to the Nephites beginning in 2 Nephi Chapter 9. It is instructive.
Nephi 'went to school' on his younger brother's example. He fills 2 Nephi with Isaiah's words. Then, in the closing chapters of his book, he provides his own commentary. He ends his record in this manner. With all he had seen, with all he knew, and with all he was told to withhold from us, he uses Isaiah as his basis to teach, preach, exhort and expound to us. Much of it is addressed directly to the "gentiles" of our day. He applies Isaiah to the gentiles.
A great key to understanding Nephi's prophecy is that he used Isaiah's words as a tool to deliver his (Nephi's) message. Using Isaiah's intent will not help you. It is irrelevant. You must use Nephi's interpretive keys in his closing chapters to understand Nephi's intent in "likening" the prophecy to his people and to the latter-day gentiles. This is why I wrote Nephi's Isaiah. You will be disappointed if you think it is an interpretation of Isaiah. It is not. The book is about Nephi's message, not the words he employed to "liken" unto us. If you accept this approach you don't need my book. You only need Nephi's words.
________________________
As a postscript about the Perpetual Education Fund:
When President Hinckley announced it in the April 2001 General Conference he said the following:
"they will return that which they have borrowed together with a small amount of interest designed as an incentive to repay the loan."
This was the original intent.
I've received many emails explaining the way the original program was compromised and poorly administered. I acknowledge there may be problems with how it turned out. But that is the responsibility of the employees at the Church Office Building. Those problems do not reflect the purity of intent by the church members who donated. I think there are a lot of people in the bowels of the Church Office Building who have performed poorly for the church. Since these are funds given by faithful members, there is a responsibility which hasn't been kept by some of these employees.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Upcoming General Conference
I've heard from several sources that Elder Russell M. Nelson has announced to a number of Stake Presidents that President Thomas S. Monson has received a revelation that will affect every man, woman, and child in the church. This revelation is supposed to be announced in the upcoming general conference.
The last great revelatory program introduced in general conference was the Perpetual Education Fund announced by President Gordon B. Hinckley. That program is profoundly Christ-like.
During His ministry, Christ blessed lives in practical ways. He cured lepers; allowing them to return to society. He cured blindness; rescuing the blessed from darkness. He cured the lame; liberating them from physical captivity. His goodness conferred life-changing blessings, making practical changes to the lives of those he blessed.
Similarly, the Perpetual Education Fund has conferred practical, life-changing blessings. It mirrors the way Christ blessed people.
Not all beneficiaries of the Perpetual Education Fund have repaid their interest-free loans. Not all have remained active in the church. That is of no consequence. The goodness of the program is in the giving of the blessing. It does not matter whether those who are blessed are grateful. The church's (our) acts of Christ-like generosity is unchanged whether the beneficiary ever returns to thank us. Nine of the ten lepers never thanked the Lord. There is little evidence in the scriptures of the many who were healed by the Lord then becoming faithful disciples. The program is Christ-like. Its greatness consists in conferring a blessing. The Lord gives the sunshine and rain to all, the good and the bad. Very few are grateful to Him for that. It does not stop Him from being good and continuing in sustaining us all from moment to moment.
I encourage all to listen to upcoming general conference.
The last great revelatory program introduced in general conference was the Perpetual Education Fund announced by President Gordon B. Hinckley. That program is profoundly Christ-like.
During His ministry, Christ blessed lives in practical ways. He cured lepers; allowing them to return to society. He cured blindness; rescuing the blessed from darkness. He cured the lame; liberating them from physical captivity. His goodness conferred life-changing blessings, making practical changes to the lives of those he blessed.
Similarly, the Perpetual Education Fund has conferred practical, life-changing blessings. It mirrors the way Christ blessed people.
Not all beneficiaries of the Perpetual Education Fund have repaid their interest-free loans. Not all have remained active in the church. That is of no consequence. The goodness of the program is in the giving of the blessing. It does not matter whether those who are blessed are grateful. The church's (our) acts of Christ-like generosity is unchanged whether the beneficiary ever returns to thank us. Nine of the ten lepers never thanked the Lord. There is little evidence in the scriptures of the many who were healed by the Lord then becoming faithful disciples. The program is Christ-like. Its greatness consists in conferring a blessing. The Lord gives the sunshine and rain to all, the good and the bad. Very few are grateful to Him for that. It does not stop Him from being good and continuing in sustaining us all from moment to moment.
I encourage all to listen to upcoming general conference.
Friday, September 21, 2012
A number of clarifications from this week
It is impossible in a short post to ever discuss any subject completely. For the most part, all posts are a abbreviated ideas to cause anyone who reads this to think. I want the reader to turn ideas over in their own minds, and reach their own conclusion, after hopefully being provoked to thought by what I say. It is a mistake to think because I have said one thing that I have then said everything.
To illustrate and hopefully clarify, and certainly cause further thought, I want to add the following comments. These are taken from input I received this week from some of you.
_______________________________________________
I pray to the Father in the name of the Son. In my mind I think of the Father. I let heaven speak to my heart concerning that name-title and I do not presume to have the right to tell anyone what comes into my mind. I also thank the Father for the sacrifice of His Son.
I would add that "El" is singular. "Elohim" is plural. In Abraham 3, there is a group identified as "the noble and great." The noble and great are the "we" who are to prove "them." This is in Abraham 3.
When the matter is settled, in chapter 4 of Abraham, that "we" or "the noble and great" commence the creation, and that group throughout Abraham 4 are continually referred to as "the Gods." The English term "the Gods" captures the same idea as the Hebrew word "Elohim."
If you have not read The First Three Words of the Endowment, you may want to do so. **
_________________________________________________
It would be an astonishing, but not completely unprecedented, if one of the "sons of God" were to fall away. Were that to happen, the heavens would weep over him.
__________________________________________________
When Christ says that no man "comes unto the Father but by [Him]", this implicitly means that Christ will at some point take you to His Father.
When Christ promised not to leave us "comfortless", he added that "my Father will love him, and we come unto him, and make our abode with him." (John 14:23). Joseph Smith added "the appearing of the Father and the Son, in that verse is a personal appearance; and the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man's heart is an old secterian notion, and is false." (D&C 130: 3).
Joseph affirms he "saw two Personages."
It is more important that you come unto Christ and you allow Him to teach you these things. Pray to the Father in His name, ask Him, listen to Him. It is Christ alone who is responsible for the salvation of each of us. Read the scriptures carefully. In fact, if you will pray and study your scriptures diligently, He will open up to your mind the meaning of the more mysterious passages and use the words of the Prophets found in our scriptures to answer your questions. Do much more of that. There is no man who is a substitute for Jesus Christ. **
__________________________________________________
I agree that the purpose of keys, and in particular priesthood keys, is to confer an authoritative invitation to the recipient from God.
__________________________________________________
I would not encourage anyone to leave the church. It was commissioned by and still authorized by God. The majority has always had a divine preference and protecting hand. Splinter groups have always dwindled or fallen into abuse and corruption. The August 1844 vote in Nauvoo was the right of the saints under the Lord's law of "common consent." I believe the Lord did accept the vote. Whatever shortcomings that generation had, they were only like all of humanity. Our Lord suffered for all imperfect people. But He also will discipline and correct us, even if He needs to use a rod to do so.
___________________________________________________
In my thinking, a "President" or a "candidate to be the President" is a figure head. Once a man is elected to be the President of the United States, he is referred to as "the "Administration." I believe there is a great difference between a man, on the one hand, and "the President of the United States", or "the Administration", on the other.
Let me see if I can illustrate the point.
I think President Jimmy Carter was a failure. I think he was an embarrassment as an administration throughout the world. President Jimmy Carter made so many errors that in my mind I have little hesitation in thinking of him as foolish. In short, my regard for President Jimmy Carter borders on exasperation and deep disappointment.
In contrast, the man Jimmy Carter is principled, devoted, and admirable. As a man he possesses basic goodness. I think he is good-hearted.
Bear that distinction in mind. My comments concerning Mitt Romney had nothing to do with the man, and everything to do with the "the candidate", and the representative of a proposed "new Administration." Like Jimmy Carter, if I change the topic from the Candidate, to the man Mitt Romney, it's a different topic.
If you watched the GOP convention, before Mitt Romney's acceptance speech, there were many who had the opportunity to describe Mitt Romney, the man. He is a compassionate and exemplary Mormon bishop. He rendered kind, compassionate and loving support to members of his ward while he was bishop and for years afterwards. While those people were speaking, the camera panned the audience. There were many in the audience who were moved to tears as they listened to those people speak. Mitt Romney, the man, seems to me to be an example of how all bishops should be. More than that, he seems to be an example of what all of us should be.
When I said that I wish Mitt Romney did not represent my faith, I had exclusive reference to "the candidate" and not the man.
I know you cannot read my mind. So that is probably my communication failure. As to Mitt Romney the man, I am grateful he is a member of my faith.
I could write pages more. I am only offering a glimpse.
______________________________________________
When I am in the voting booth, (and I always vote) I have never voted for evil. Therefore, I have never voted for the "lesser of two evils."
While I don't think it is anyone's business, over the years I have voted for, among other people, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, written in Lee Iacocca and former LDS church historian, Marlin Jensen. As I cast these votes, I always thought I voted for someone who would be wise and good.
That post did not represent a decision about anything. That post represented musings I thought might be helpful to others.
In addition, I hoped there would be some few who might read that post and detect some layers. For anyone who would be open to the idea, I think you could well consider those musings to be about you, me, or all of us. What ultimately turns into the "Administration" almost always reflects quite accurately a collective decision. In other words, we always give the power to the "Administration" that we deserve to have lead us.
We have made thousands of decisions, and cast millions of votes to place the Candidate Romney at the head of a political party. That is us.
**[There is nothing inconsistent in these two statements. If you can't understand it, it is because you will not ask and allow God to enlighten your mind. Remember, I am not trying to get you to understand what I understand. I am trying to get you to open your heart, your mind; look to heaven for guidance and get answers to anything you don't understand.]
To illustrate and hopefully clarify, and certainly cause further thought, I want to add the following comments. These are taken from input I received this week from some of you.
_______________________________________________
I pray to the Father in the name of the Son. In my mind I think of the Father. I let heaven speak to my heart concerning that name-title and I do not presume to have the right to tell anyone what comes into my mind. I also thank the Father for the sacrifice of His Son.
I would add that "El" is singular. "Elohim" is plural. In Abraham 3, there is a group identified as "the noble and great." The noble and great are the "we" who are to prove "them." This is in Abraham 3.
When the matter is settled, in chapter 4 of Abraham, that "we" or "the noble and great" commence the creation, and that group throughout Abraham 4 are continually referred to as "the Gods." The English term "the Gods" captures the same idea as the Hebrew word "Elohim."
If you have not read The First Three Words of the Endowment, you may want to do so. **
_________________________________________________
It would be an astonishing, but not completely unprecedented, if one of the "sons of God" were to fall away. Were that to happen, the heavens would weep over him.
__________________________________________________
When Christ says that no man "comes unto the Father but by [Him]", this implicitly means that Christ will at some point take you to His Father.
When Christ promised not to leave us "comfortless", he added that "my Father will love him, and we come unto him, and make our abode with him." (John 14:23). Joseph Smith added "the appearing of the Father and the Son, in that verse is a personal appearance; and the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man's heart is an old secterian notion, and is false." (D&C 130: 3).
Joseph affirms he "saw two Personages."
It is more important that you come unto Christ and you allow Him to teach you these things. Pray to the Father in His name, ask Him, listen to Him. It is Christ alone who is responsible for the salvation of each of us. Read the scriptures carefully. In fact, if you will pray and study your scriptures diligently, He will open up to your mind the meaning of the more mysterious passages and use the words of the Prophets found in our scriptures to answer your questions. Do much more of that. There is no man who is a substitute for Jesus Christ. **
__________________________________________________
I agree that the purpose of keys, and in particular priesthood keys, is to confer an authoritative invitation to the recipient from God.
__________________________________________________
I would not encourage anyone to leave the church. It was commissioned by and still authorized by God. The majority has always had a divine preference and protecting hand. Splinter groups have always dwindled or fallen into abuse and corruption. The August 1844 vote in Nauvoo was the right of the saints under the Lord's law of "common consent." I believe the Lord did accept the vote. Whatever shortcomings that generation had, they were only like all of humanity. Our Lord suffered for all imperfect people. But He also will discipline and correct us, even if He needs to use a rod to do so.
___________________________________________________
In my thinking, a "President" or a "candidate to be the President" is a figure head. Once a man is elected to be the President of the United States, he is referred to as "the "Administration." I believe there is a great difference between a man, on the one hand, and "the President of the United States", or "the Administration", on the other.
Let me see if I can illustrate the point.
I think President Jimmy Carter was a failure. I think he was an embarrassment as an administration throughout the world. President Jimmy Carter made so many errors that in my mind I have little hesitation in thinking of him as foolish. In short, my regard for President Jimmy Carter borders on exasperation and deep disappointment.
In contrast, the man Jimmy Carter is principled, devoted, and admirable. As a man he possesses basic goodness. I think he is good-hearted.
Bear that distinction in mind. My comments concerning Mitt Romney had nothing to do with the man, and everything to do with the "the candidate", and the representative of a proposed "new Administration." Like Jimmy Carter, if I change the topic from the Candidate, to the man Mitt Romney, it's a different topic.
If you watched the GOP convention, before Mitt Romney's acceptance speech, there were many who had the opportunity to describe Mitt Romney, the man. He is a compassionate and exemplary Mormon bishop. He rendered kind, compassionate and loving support to members of his ward while he was bishop and for years afterwards. While those people were speaking, the camera panned the audience. There were many in the audience who were moved to tears as they listened to those people speak. Mitt Romney, the man, seems to me to be an example of how all bishops should be. More than that, he seems to be an example of what all of us should be.
When I said that I wish Mitt Romney did not represent my faith, I had exclusive reference to "the candidate" and not the man.
I know you cannot read my mind. So that is probably my communication failure. As to Mitt Romney the man, I am grateful he is a member of my faith.
I could write pages more. I am only offering a glimpse.
______________________________________________
When I am in the voting booth, (and I always vote) I have never voted for evil. Therefore, I have never voted for the "lesser of two evils."
While I don't think it is anyone's business, over the years I have voted for, among other people, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, written in Lee Iacocca and former LDS church historian, Marlin Jensen. As I cast these votes, I always thought I voted for someone who would be wise and good.
That post did not represent a decision about anything. That post represented musings I thought might be helpful to others.
In addition, I hoped there would be some few who might read that post and detect some layers. For anyone who would be open to the idea, I think you could well consider those musings to be about you, me, or all of us. What ultimately turns into the "Administration" almost always reflects quite accurately a collective decision. In other words, we always give the power to the "Administration" that we deserve to have lead us.
We have made thousands of decisions, and cast millions of votes to place the Candidate Romney at the head of a political party. That is us.
**[There is nothing inconsistent in these two statements. If you can't understand it, it is because you will not ask and allow God to enlighten your mind. Remember, I am not trying to get you to understand what I understand. I am trying to get you to open your heart, your mind; look to heaven for guidance and get answers to anything you don't understand.]
Thursday, September 20, 2012
"Leaning" Romney
I am not particularly political. Political partisanship is generally a distraction from what our problems really are. Once you have become partisan you tend to ignore the merits of the other side, as well as the mistakes of your own side.
We must all become converted in our hearts to Jesus Christ. If we have Christ in our hearts, all else will follow. Joseph Smith's comment that he "teaches them correct principles and they govern themselves" was not just a casual statement. It was the confidence a prophet of God in the ability of people to know the difference between good and bad, right and wrong. Even if they err, they would get closer to the correct course by considering the principles they had been taught than by assessing the argument or immediate decision before them.
When a man is converted to truth, correct principles, and true doctrine, such a man has no difficulty stating in simple, but clear terms, the truth which inhabits his heart.
Mitt Romney has been running to be the President of the United States for 5 years now. In all of that time, I find myself unconvinced that his heart is filled with sound, true, heartfelt principles and doctrines. Why can't he set forth in plainness true economic doctrine as well as I can? His background should qualify him to speak with greater plainness about the truths of economic freedom and the principles of economic growth better than I can. He does not. At times he is almost incoherent.
There are fundamental and universal God-given principles for the preservation of the freedom of mankind. Madison, Monroe, Jefferson, Washington, Mason, and the great John Adams could all state with clarity and simplicity, with the beauty that persuades you to your very core, these God-given truths. Why is Mitt Romney unable to do so?
In his first term, President Obama experimented with turning a soft hand to the Muslim world. It was something new. Although it failed, the virulent critics immediately labeled it "an apology tour." No one had any idea how the Cairo speech might move the Muslim hearts. Instead of condemning and even rooting for its failure, we should have prayed to God that our President would move the Muslim world. We should have asked God to soften the hearts of our enemies. We should asked God to embolden our friends. Instead we withheld our sustaining prayers, and in contempt, we let the matter proceed to its now complete failure.
Thinking upon the failure of that experiment, I recall how clearly Richard Nixon articulated, and Henry Kissinger elaborated, on the effective policy of projecting national strength to our enemies. Whatever terrible flaws Richard Nixon had, he was convinced to his core, and able to persuasively articulate the truth of national power in the international arena. After our national humiliation under Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan was elected in very large part because he could speak the principles of American power persuasively, convincingly, and from his heart.
Mitt Romney is unable to do this.
As I listen to Mitt Romney speak about any topic, principle, or true doctrine, he seems hollow. He sounds more like a spokesman for the opinions of others than a man speaking from his heart. He sounds like the chairman of a committee. He sounds like he is trying to use focus group phrases. He seems to be using the results of opinion polls to formulate his public statements. In short, he seems more like an artificial life form then a principled, true-hearted, complete convert to God given truths, proven economic doctrines, and historically successful foreign policy.
This leaves me wondering:
-It is not "who" but rather "what" am I electing?
-Is this a man with a true and converted heart and soul, or is this a weather vane prepared to be tossed to and fro with every wind of shifting opinion?
-Is he, as I suspect, double-minded and unstable as water?
If opinions shift on something which is absolutely fundamental and God-given to preserve man's freedom, will that popularity shift cause him to surrender such a principle?
Why should I regard him as something more than an empty suit espousing, without the conviction I can feel in my own heart, the results of market driven research?
I am "leaning" Romney. That is because I believe all of the quantitative easing has not worked and has hurt us all very much. This I could explain with simplicity, but that's beyond this post. I believe President Obama's soft approach foreign policy has utterly failed. I believe the stock market is over-priced, and nothing more than a politically manipulated show piece for the President's sake. I believe shutting down the pipeline was an act completely contrary to our national interest, and has resulted in increased gas prices to every American. Mitt Romney criticizes each of these things. But he sounds more like a puppet than a man of principle with a converted heart. To me, if in the end I vote for Mitt Romney, it will only be as a choice of the lesser of two evils. How I wish he were not Mormon. I think he represents the religion of conviction, devotion, and true principles (the ones which reside in my heart) in such an embarrassingly weak way that if taken as an example of our people should engender contempt and disrespect. He is like the progressively less principled Joel Osteen. As Mr. Osteen's popularity has risen, and his wealth has increased (he now lives in a $10 million dollar home) the principles he used to preach have eroded, softened, and been abandoned. He is a living example of the very problem Mitt Romney's behavior now puts on display.
May God have mercy on us all. May we all look to our Redeemer, Jesus Christ, for our salvation - both temporal and spiritual. Even so, Amen.
We must all become converted in our hearts to Jesus Christ. If we have Christ in our hearts, all else will follow. Joseph Smith's comment that he "teaches them correct principles and they govern themselves" was not just a casual statement. It was the confidence a prophet of God in the ability of people to know the difference between good and bad, right and wrong. Even if they err, they would get closer to the correct course by considering the principles they had been taught than by assessing the argument or immediate decision before them.
When a man is converted to truth, correct principles, and true doctrine, such a man has no difficulty stating in simple, but clear terms, the truth which inhabits his heart.
Mitt Romney has been running to be the President of the United States for 5 years now. In all of that time, I find myself unconvinced that his heart is filled with sound, true, heartfelt principles and doctrines. Why can't he set forth in plainness true economic doctrine as well as I can? His background should qualify him to speak with greater plainness about the truths of economic freedom and the principles of economic growth better than I can. He does not. At times he is almost incoherent.
There are fundamental and universal God-given principles for the preservation of the freedom of mankind. Madison, Monroe, Jefferson, Washington, Mason, and the great John Adams could all state with clarity and simplicity, with the beauty that persuades you to your very core, these God-given truths. Why is Mitt Romney unable to do so?
In his first term, President Obama experimented with turning a soft hand to the Muslim world. It was something new. Although it failed, the virulent critics immediately labeled it "an apology tour." No one had any idea how the Cairo speech might move the Muslim hearts. Instead of condemning and even rooting for its failure, we should have prayed to God that our President would move the Muslim world. We should have asked God to soften the hearts of our enemies. We should asked God to embolden our friends. Instead we withheld our sustaining prayers, and in contempt, we let the matter proceed to its now complete failure.
Thinking upon the failure of that experiment, I recall how clearly Richard Nixon articulated, and Henry Kissinger elaborated, on the effective policy of projecting national strength to our enemies. Whatever terrible flaws Richard Nixon had, he was convinced to his core, and able to persuasively articulate the truth of national power in the international arena. After our national humiliation under Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan was elected in very large part because he could speak the principles of American power persuasively, convincingly, and from his heart.
Mitt Romney is unable to do this.
As I listen to Mitt Romney speak about any topic, principle, or true doctrine, he seems hollow. He sounds more like a spokesman for the opinions of others than a man speaking from his heart. He sounds like the chairman of a committee. He sounds like he is trying to use focus group phrases. He seems to be using the results of opinion polls to formulate his public statements. In short, he seems more like an artificial life form then a principled, true-hearted, complete convert to God given truths, proven economic doctrines, and historically successful foreign policy.
This leaves me wondering:
-It is not "who" but rather "what" am I electing?
-Is this a man with a true and converted heart and soul, or is this a weather vane prepared to be tossed to and fro with every wind of shifting opinion?
-Is he, as I suspect, double-minded and unstable as water?
If opinions shift on something which is absolutely fundamental and God-given to preserve man's freedom, will that popularity shift cause him to surrender such a principle?
Why should I regard him as something more than an empty suit espousing, without the conviction I can feel in my own heart, the results of market driven research?
I am "leaning" Romney. That is because I believe all of the quantitative easing has not worked and has hurt us all very much. This I could explain with simplicity, but that's beyond this post. I believe President Obama's soft approach foreign policy has utterly failed. I believe the stock market is over-priced, and nothing more than a politically manipulated show piece for the President's sake. I believe shutting down the pipeline was an act completely contrary to our national interest, and has resulted in increased gas prices to every American. Mitt Romney criticizes each of these things. But he sounds more like a puppet than a man of principle with a converted heart. To me, if in the end I vote for Mitt Romney, it will only be as a choice of the lesser of two evils. How I wish he were not Mormon. I think he represents the religion of conviction, devotion, and true principles (the ones which reside in my heart) in such an embarrassingly weak way that if taken as an example of our people should engender contempt and disrespect. He is like the progressively less principled Joel Osteen. As Mr. Osteen's popularity has risen, and his wealth has increased (he now lives in a $10 million dollar home) the principles he used to preach have eroded, softened, and been abandoned. He is a living example of the very problem Mitt Romney's behavior now puts on display.
May God have mercy on us all. May we all look to our Redeemer, Jesus Christ, for our salvation - both temporal and spiritual. Even so, Amen.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Christ the Father
After Christ redeems the brother of Jared from the fall (Ether 3:13), He explains to the brother of Jared the doctrine of Christ's Fatherhood. The doctrine is simple. It is an elaboration on what Christ taught in the New Testament.
Here is the doctrine: "Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters." (Ether 3:14). In other words, because of our sins and the fall we have experienced, our relationship as sons and daughters of the Father cannot be restored without an intermediary who is willing to cleanse us and to accept us as His son.
This is what Jesus had reference to in John 14:6 when He declared: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." If you find yourself in the circumstance that a voice from heaven declares unto you that you are a son of God because this day He has begotten you (Psalms 2:7) that voice will be Christ's, your Father will be Christ, and you will understand that Christ is the Father and the Son.
Here is the doctrine: "Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters." (Ether 3:14). In other words, because of our sins and the fall we have experienced, our relationship as sons and daughters of the Father cannot be restored without an intermediary who is willing to cleanse us and to accept us as His son.
This is what Jesus had reference to in John 14:6 when He declared: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." If you find yourself in the circumstance that a voice from heaven declares unto you that you are a son of God because this day He has begotten you (Psalms 2:7) that voice will be Christ's, your Father will be Christ, and you will understand that Christ is the Father and the Son.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
An unknown piece of music
Sunday night I was up late praying and thinking about many things. Sometime shortly after midnight I quieted down and began listening carefully to KBYU FM (classical 89.1) which had been playing in the background. As I listened, they played a piece that sounded to me like it was played on a french horn. Most of the piece was a solo. The piece was delicate, despite the instrument, and it soared and delivered runs of delicate notes. It was astonishing that these notes could come from such a limited instrument. Now I know that there are competent french horn players, and that with practice it is possible to acquire this kind of skill and delicacy with a somewhat cumbersome instrument.
When the piece ended, the KBYU announcer, Peter Van de Graff, informed me that this piece had been played on the tuba. This stunned me. I have never met nor heard any one who can take that heavy, cumbersome and relatively inarticulate instrument and turn it into something that can play music wihch can soar into the skies and dance about like a piccolo. Here are a couple of examples: Baaddsvick and Marshall. The tuba is primarily a percussion instrument. It is like a bass guitar in a rock and roll band. They both thump out a foundation upon which the rest of the orchestra or rock band build melodies. While they exist, there are comparatively few bass guitar solos in rock music. The bass player for Primas, Les Claypool, is a rare exception, but even his amazing gift is mostly percussion. Moving them out of that role is akin to asking Andre the Giant to perform ballet.
As I pondered this, it struck me how very like the heavy, inarticulate, restricted instrument mankind is. But a skilled musician took the very same thing which in normal use gives merely a pounding back beat and brought it front and center in a solo that soared to heaven. If such skill can bring the tuba into submission, then with practice, diligence, desire and the help of God, we can likewise bring ourselves into harmony with God. All things typify Christ and the Gospel. Even that wonderful piece played on a tuba.
My vision of how high man can soar was ratified anew in the testimony of that skilled musician. I believe once we find it is possible to delicately soar in concert with heaven and enjoy the thrilling harmony in God's creation, that alone should help us rise up. May we each have the humility and the patience and undertake the long-suffering to change our clumsy efforts into a delicate symphony, even so amen.
When the piece ended, the KBYU announcer, Peter Van de Graff, informed me that this piece had been played on the tuba. This stunned me. I have never met nor heard any one who can take that heavy, cumbersome and relatively inarticulate instrument and turn it into something that can play music wihch can soar into the skies and dance about like a piccolo. Here are a couple of examples: Baaddsvick and Marshall. The tuba is primarily a percussion instrument. It is like a bass guitar in a rock and roll band. They both thump out a foundation upon which the rest of the orchestra or rock band build melodies. While they exist, there are comparatively few bass guitar solos in rock music. The bass player for Primas, Les Claypool, is a rare exception, but even his amazing gift is mostly percussion. Moving them out of that role is akin to asking Andre the Giant to perform ballet.
As I pondered this, it struck me how very like the heavy, inarticulate, restricted instrument mankind is. But a skilled musician took the very same thing which in normal use gives merely a pounding back beat and brought it front and center in a solo that soared to heaven. If such skill can bring the tuba into submission, then with practice, diligence, desire and the help of God, we can likewise bring ourselves into harmony with God. All things typify Christ and the Gospel. Even that wonderful piece played on a tuba.
My vision of how high man can soar was ratified anew in the testimony of that skilled musician. I believe once we find it is possible to delicately soar in concert with heaven and enjoy the thrilling harmony in God's creation, that alone should help us rise up. May we each have the humility and the patience and undertake the long-suffering to change our clumsy efforts into a delicate symphony, even so amen.
Monday, September 17, 2012
The Equinox
This coming weekend will mark the final Equinox of the year. One in the spring, marking the change from winter to spring, and this one marking the change from summer to fall. Apart from separating our designation of the seasons, these times also represent the most colorful times of the year. New and colorful life in nature stirs with the promise of fruit, flowers and planting. In contrast, the coming event marks the harvest when nature's bounty is gathered. In an agrarian society it is a time to enjoy the fruit, work is reduced, and the brilliant colors of a season well spent in growth shows its retirement for a time.
The fall Equinox is the time when, year after year, the Angel visited with Joseph. It is also when the plates were turned over to Joseph in that final year. This may not be mere coincidence. Every Equinox marks the balance of light and dark all over the world. From the North Pole to the South Pole, every place is in harmony with the sun. Wherever man lives, they receive the light equally; twelve hours of light and twelve hours of dark.
Joseph trusted in the power of that time, and perhaps waited to inquire as to his standing before the Lord specifically trusting that day would produce an answer.(JSH 1: 29) I also believe the balance of light has spiritual meaning.
Days and seasons do not control angelic visitations. They happen without regard to the calendar, but according to the will of God. However our faith matters. If we have great confidence, like Joseph, then marking your submission to heaven and desire to know your standing before the Lord may well be aided by such confidence.
I must confess, although I have had a number of visits, none have been calendar related so far as I can tell. There are many scriptural records of visitations that appear to have nothing to do with the dates on the calendar. They appear to me to be based on circumstances and our needs here, or upon the will of God. Therefore, I do not believe anyone is precluded from a visit at any time of the year.
Having said all that, I do not think the Equinox should go unnoticed. And, Joseph was alone when he was visited.
The fall Equinox is the time when, year after year, the Angel visited with Joseph. It is also when the plates were turned over to Joseph in that final year. This may not be mere coincidence. Every Equinox marks the balance of light and dark all over the world. From the North Pole to the South Pole, every place is in harmony with the sun. Wherever man lives, they receive the light equally; twelve hours of light and twelve hours of dark.
Joseph trusted in the power of that time, and perhaps waited to inquire as to his standing before the Lord specifically trusting that day would produce an answer.(JSH 1: 29) I also believe the balance of light has spiritual meaning.
Days and seasons do not control angelic visitations. They happen without regard to the calendar, but according to the will of God. However our faith matters. If we have great confidence, like Joseph, then marking your submission to heaven and desire to know your standing before the Lord may well be aided by such confidence.
I must confess, although I have had a number of visits, none have been calendar related so far as I can tell. There are many scriptural records of visitations that appear to have nothing to do with the dates on the calendar. They appear to me to be based on circumstances and our needs here, or upon the will of God. Therefore, I do not believe anyone is precluded from a visit at any time of the year.
Having said all that, I do not think the Equinox should go unnoticed. And, Joseph was alone when he was visited.
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Edit: A worthy cause
A CPA in our ward has been working with the Kunz family to straighten out the donation account. There was an account that was being used (an already existing account), that has now been closed. There is a new donation account with the last four digits 7987.
We would like to thank all of you for your generosity in donating, or trying to donate. The Kunz family is deeply appreciative, as are we.
We would like to thank all of you for your generosity in donating, or trying to donate. The Kunz family is deeply appreciative, as are we.
Friday, September 14, 2012
"Keys" as Challenge
What if "keys" are better viewed as a signal, or a sign post along a pathway? Instead of "I hold 'keys' and so I hold something of value."
The better view might be "I have been told one 'key' to my calling is to have angels minister to men. Therefore, I know this is a critical matter, or a key to search into."
What if "holding a key" is better viewed as being given a strong guide or route to take? It points you to something you need to obtain. You have a "key" and now need to discover what it is that must be unlocked.
A "key" is something used to open a lock. It is also something that is "important" or "central in importance." A "keystone" is the point in an arch that fits in the center, holding the arch together. Upon it all else rests.
If the word is viewed using these meanings, it suggests that holding a "key" implies using it in action. The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve use their key positions to manage and maintain the worldwide church organization. If not for that constant oversight, the organization of the church would lapse into disorganization. Their "keys" are indispensable to hold the entire structure together. Without them at the center, like a "keystone," the "building" would collapse. But the Gospel (and the church) is not a spectator sport. Even if fifteen presiding authorities waste and wear out their lives keeping the church organized, no one will be saved by observing them. It devolves upon us, each one, to obtain the keys of our own salvation by a covenant with God.
Offices belonging to others are their responsibility. For you, there are "keys" which come to us in our own sphere. We are all asked to rise up in testimony and knowledge until, at last, we arrive at "the perfect day" of understanding. (D&C 50: 24.) We are all invited to come to know the Lord, see His face, and know that He is. (D&C 93: 1.)
Can you imagine what a different church it would be if we were all able to say we know for ourselves, nothing doubting, our Lord? Can you imagine how all the problems we now face would evaporate overnight, if our quest was to grow from grace to grace until we too receive of the Father's fullness? (D&C 93: 20.) Most of what now afflicts us would become trivial, left behind as we grow in light and truth. (D&C 50: 23-25.)
Our temple rites symbolize the trek back to the presence of God. All of us, male and female, receive the same ceremonial blueprint to build upon. Every person within the church should obey and sacrifice (for God and not man), then learn through service, the Gospel of Christ by walking in His footsteps.You agreed to undertake obedience and sacrifice before committing to following His Gospel. This order is critical. Without it, you could err in thinking the Gospel will come to you without sacrifice.
From the Lectures on Faith, Lecture 6:
This outlines the "keys" for your own salvation. Seek for these for they belong to each of us. Do not be jealous of church positions, they do not matter and are not necessary. One thing is necessary; therefore choose the better part. (Luke 10: 39-42.)
The better view might be "I have been told one 'key' to my calling is to have angels minister to men. Therefore, I know this is a critical matter, or a key to search into."
What if "holding a key" is better viewed as being given a strong guide or route to take? It points you to something you need to obtain. You have a "key" and now need to discover what it is that must be unlocked.
A "key" is something used to open a lock. It is also something that is "important" or "central in importance." A "keystone" is the point in an arch that fits in the center, holding the arch together. Upon it all else rests.
If the word is viewed using these meanings, it suggests that holding a "key" implies using it in action. The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve use their key positions to manage and maintain the worldwide church organization. If not for that constant oversight, the organization of the church would lapse into disorganization. Their "keys" are indispensable to hold the entire structure together. Without them at the center, like a "keystone," the "building" would collapse. But the Gospel (and the church) is not a spectator sport. Even if fifteen presiding authorities waste and wear out their lives keeping the church organized, no one will be saved by observing them. It devolves upon us, each one, to obtain the keys of our own salvation by a covenant with God.
Offices belonging to others are their responsibility. For you, there are "keys" which come to us in our own sphere. We are all asked to rise up in testimony and knowledge until, at last, we arrive at "the perfect day" of understanding. (D&C 50: 24.) We are all invited to come to know the Lord, see His face, and know that He is. (D&C 93: 1.)
Can you imagine what a different church it would be if we were all able to say we know for ourselves, nothing doubting, our Lord? Can you imagine how all the problems we now face would evaporate overnight, if our quest was to grow from grace to grace until we too receive of the Father's fullness? (D&C 93: 20.) Most of what now afflicts us would become trivial, left behind as we grow in light and truth. (D&C 50: 23-25.)
Our temple rites symbolize the trek back to the presence of God. All of us, male and female, receive the same ceremonial blueprint to build upon. Every person within the church should obey and sacrifice (for God and not man), then learn through service, the Gospel of Christ by walking in His footsteps.You agreed to undertake obedience and sacrifice before committing to following His Gospel. This order is critical. Without it, you could err in thinking the Gospel will come to you without sacrifice.
From the Lectures on Faith, Lecture 6:
7. Let us here observe, that a religion [meaning true religion, no matter what another may say or do that tempts you to depart from it] that does not require
the sacrifice of all things, never has power [forget about office or position or authority to conduct a meeting, and realize this is the power to obtain eternal life] sufficient to produce the faith
necessary unto life and salvation; for from the first existence of man, the
faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained
without the sacrifice of all earthly things [meaning your own reputation, your standing, and any praise you may hope to gain from others-- all must be laid upon the altar even if your fellow Latter-day Saint falsely accuses you]: it was through this sacrifice, and
this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life; and it is
through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things, that men do actually
know that they are doing the things that are well pleasing in the sight of God [because God will make that known directly to you and you will know, nothing doubting].
When a man has offered in sacrifice all that he has, for the truth's sake, not
even withholding his life, and believing before God that he has been called to
make this sacrifice, because he seeks to do his will, he does know most
assuredly, that God does and will accept his sacrifice & offering, &
that he has not nor will not seek his face in vain. Under these circumstances, then, he can obtain the
faith necessary for him to lay hold on eternal life.
8 It is in vain for persons to fancy to themselves that they
are heirs with those, or can be heirs with them, who have offered their all in
sacrifice, and by this means obtained faith in God and favor with him so as to
obtain eternal life, unless they in like manner offer unto him the same
sacrifice [which you learn in the temple rites and which you have covenanted to do], and through that offering obtain the knowledge that they are accepted
of him.
This outlines the "keys" for your own salvation. Seek for these for they belong to each of us. Do not be jealous of church positions, they do not matter and are not necessary. One thing is necessary; therefore choose the better part. (Luke 10: 39-42.)
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Keys of Ministering of Angels
The Aaronic Priesthood has the "keys of the ministering of angels." (D&C 84: 26.) This raises these questions:
-Do the "keys of ministering of angels" guarantee the holder he will entertain angels?
-Does the ministry of angels depend entirely on possession of these keys?
-Does the appearance of an angel necessarily mean the one to whom the angel appears holds the Aaronic Priesthood? Even in the case of a woman, such as Mary? (Luke 1: 26-27.)
-If the appearance of an angel does not equate with holding of the Aaronic Priesthood, then does it equate with holding the keys of ministering of angels?
-Can the keys of ministering of angels be separated from the Aaronic Priesthood, or are they entirely confined to this priesthood?
-If the keys can be separated from the priesthood, then what is priesthood and what are "keys?"
We tend to gloss over a great deal and have too little curiosity about important questions. In The Second Comforter, I explained part of being "childlike" is to possess relentless curiosity about things you do not understand. We should try to get every answer to every question we can obtain from God. First through the scriptures. Then through prayer and inquiry.
What if "keys to the ministering of angels" are not coequal with the Aaronic Priesthood? Who or under what circumstances could angels minister in the absence of Aaronic Priesthood? Are there "keys" conferred whenever an angel ministers to a person, any person? If an angel appears to a woman in Tibet, does that appearance give her the "keys of ministering of angels" even if she is not Mormon? If so, what is meant by "keys of ministering of angels?"
If an angel has appeared to someone outside the church, and if, because of that, the person does hold some "keys" because of an actual appearance, what of the Mormon priest who has never had an angel appear to him? If he has never had an angelic visitor, does he still hold the "keys of the ministering of angels?"
Do "keys of the ministering of angels" guarantee angels will appear? If not, then what do the "keys" entail? What do they confer? Must an angel minister to the key holder if he demands it? Are angels subject to the keys or not? If not, then how should these "keys" be understood:
-As a right?
-As a privilege?
-As an invitation?
-As a matter to inquire into until you have understanding?
-Do the "keys of ministering of angels" guarantee the holder he will entertain angels?
-Does the ministry of angels depend entirely on possession of these keys?
-Does the appearance of an angel necessarily mean the one to whom the angel appears holds the Aaronic Priesthood? Even in the case of a woman, such as Mary? (Luke 1: 26-27.)
-If the appearance of an angel does not equate with holding of the Aaronic Priesthood, then does it equate with holding the keys of ministering of angels?
-Can the keys of ministering of angels be separated from the Aaronic Priesthood, or are they entirely confined to this priesthood?
-If the keys can be separated from the priesthood, then what is priesthood and what are "keys?"
We tend to gloss over a great deal and have too little curiosity about important questions. In The Second Comforter, I explained part of being "childlike" is to possess relentless curiosity about things you do not understand. We should try to get every answer to every question we can obtain from God. First through the scriptures. Then through prayer and inquiry.
What if "keys to the ministering of angels" are not coequal with the Aaronic Priesthood? Who or under what circumstances could angels minister in the absence of Aaronic Priesthood? Are there "keys" conferred whenever an angel ministers to a person, any person? If an angel appears to a woman in Tibet, does that appearance give her the "keys of ministering of angels" even if she is not Mormon? If so, what is meant by "keys of ministering of angels?"
If an angel has appeared to someone outside the church, and if, because of that, the person does hold some "keys" because of an actual appearance, what of the Mormon priest who has never had an angel appear to him? If he has never had an angelic visitor, does he still hold the "keys of the ministering of angels?"
Do "keys of the ministering of angels" guarantee angels will appear? If not, then what do the "keys" entail? What do they confer? Must an angel minister to the key holder if he demands it? Are angels subject to the keys or not? If not, then how should these "keys" be understood:
-As a right?
-As a privilege?
-As an invitation?
-As a matter to inquire into until you have understanding?
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
What is Meant by Keys
There are many different ways in which the words "key" or "keys" are used in scripture. It is an interesting topic to research. President John Taylor was so interested in the word that he did a study he titled, "The Book of Keys" wherein he attempted to reconstruct the topic in whole. So far as I have been able to learn, that book no longer exists.
In Temple Recommend interviews you are asked to acknowledge the current church president "holds all the keys" and "is the only person authorized to exercise them" on the earth today. This is a question we all answer. But in discussions with bishops, stake presidents, religion professors, friends and mission presidents, I've never been able to determine, nor has anyone been able to explain what is included. Below is the answer given in The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, (entry written by Alan Perish):
As far as it goes, I think this is a good attempt. But when church members are asked if the church president holds "all the keys" I cannot be certain the above definition is what is meant. Here is the clearest way I think it is illustrated:
From the smallest branch to the largest ward, through all the areas, missions, stakes, wards and branches of the church, there is not a single place in the church where President Thomas Monson would not be recognized as the presiding authority in any meeting he attended. He could go anywhere, in any location, in any meeting, and he alone would be the final authority. While a bishop presides and has the keys over his ward, and in that ward can call or release anyone to any position, President Monson would preside over that bishop if he were to attend the ward. No one would doubt or question whether President Monson could release and call a replacement bishop in that, or any, ward. The same is true of any stake president, or any mission president or any area authority, or any general authority. There is simply no one other than President Monson alone who holds the keys to put the church in order. Period.
I think this is the best definition of "all the keys."
In Temple Recommend interviews you are asked to acknowledge the current church president "holds all the keys" and "is the only person authorized to exercise them" on the earth today. This is a question we all answer. But in discussions with bishops, stake presidents, religion professors, friends and mission presidents, I've never been able to determine, nor has anyone been able to explain what is included. Below is the answer given in The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, (entry written by Alan Perish):
The keys of the priesthood refer to the right to exercise power in
the name of Jesus Christ or to preside over a priesthood function,
quorum, or organizational division of the Church. Keys are necessary to
maintain order and to see that the functions of the Church are performed
in the proper time, place, and manner. They are given by the laying on
of hands in an ordination or setting apart by a person who presides and
who holds the appropriate keys at a higher level. Many keys were
restored to men on earth by heavenly messengers to the Prophet Joseph
Smith and Oliver Cowdery.
The keys of the kingdom of God on earth are held by the apostles. The
president of the church, who is the senior apostle, holds all the keys
presently on earth and presides over all the organizational and
ordinance work of the Church (D&C 107:8-9, 91-92). He delegates authority by giving the keys of specific offices to others (D&C 124:123).
Only presiding priesthood officers (including General Authorities,
stake presidents, mission presidents, temple presidents, bishops, branch
presidents, and quorum presidents) hold keys pertaining to their
respective offices. Latter-day Saints distinguish between holding the
priesthood and holding keys to direct the work of the priesthood: one
does not receive additional priesthood when one is given keys (Joseph F.
Smith, IE 4 [Jan. 1901]:230).
The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that "the fundamental principles,
government, and doctrine of the Church are vested in the keys of the
kingdom" (TPJS, p. 21). "The keys have to be brought from heaven
whenever the Gospel is sent"; they are revealed to man under the
authority of Adam, for he was the first to be given them when he was
given dominion over all things. They have come down through the
dispensations of the gospel to prophets, including Noah, Abraham, Moses,
Elijah; to Peter, James, and John; and to Joseph Smith and the
designated prophets of the latter days (HC 3:385-87). Keys to
perform or preside over various priesthood functions were bestowed upon
Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery by John the Baptist (see Aaronic Priesthood: Restoration), by Peter, James, and John (see Melchizedek Priesthood: Restoration of Melchizedek Priesthood), and by Moses, Elias, and Elijah in the Kirtland Temple (see Doctrine and Covenants: Sections 109-110).
Many types of keys are mentioned in the scriptures of the Church (see MD,
pp. 409-13). Jesus Christ holds all the keys. Joseph Smith received the
keys pertaining to the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ (D&C 6:25-28;28:7;35:18), and through him the First Presidency holds the "keys of the kingdom," including the sealing ordinances (D&C 81:1-2;90:1-6;110:16;128:20;132:19).
Specific mention of certain keys and those who hold them include the
following: The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles exercises the keys "to open
the door by the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ" in all the
world (D&C 107:35;112:16;124:128). Adam holds "the keys of salvation under the counsel and direction of the Holy One," and "the keys of the universe" (D&C 78:16; TPJS, p. 157); Moses, "the keys of the gathering of Israel" (D&C 110:11); Elias, the keys to bring to pass "the restoration of all things" (D&C 27:6);
and Elijah, "the keys of the power of turning the hearts of the fathers
to the children, and the hearts of the children to the fathers" (D&C 27:9).
Holders of the Melchizedek Priesthood are said to have "the keys of the
Church," "the key of knowledge," and "the keys of all the spiritual
blessings of the church" (D&C 42:69;84:19;107:18),
while belonging to the Aaronic Priesthood are "the keys of the
ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism
by immersion for the remission of sins" (D&C 13:1;84:26). All these stewardships will eventually be delivered back into the hands of Jesus Christ (TPJS, p. 157).
As far as it goes, I think this is a good attempt. But when church members are asked if the church president holds "all the keys" I cannot be certain the above definition is what is meant. Here is the clearest way I think it is illustrated:
From the smallest branch to the largest ward, through all the areas, missions, stakes, wards and branches of the church, there is not a single place in the church where President Thomas Monson would not be recognized as the presiding authority in any meeting he attended. He could go anywhere, in any location, in any meeting, and he alone would be the final authority. While a bishop presides and has the keys over his ward, and in that ward can call or release anyone to any position, President Monson would preside over that bishop if he were to attend the ward. No one would doubt or question whether President Monson could release and call a replacement bishop in that, or any, ward. The same is true of any stake president, or any mission president or any area authority, or any general authority. There is simply no one other than President Monson alone who holds the keys to put the church in order. Period.
I think this is the best definition of "all the keys."
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Bearing Testimony v. Presiding
When Mary Magdalene, and Joanna and Mary and other women saw the angels in the empty tomb, and then testified of what they saw and knew, were they disrespecting the proper authority? (Luke 24: 1-10.) Was there something improper about them knowing something that the Lord's Apostles did not know yet? (Luke 24: 11-12.)
Was there something wrong with the Lord appearing to, and speaking with Mary on the morning of His resurrection, even before He returned to His Father? (John 20: 11-17.)
Was there something improper, too sacred, or too private in these events to prevent these witnesses from testifying of them? Isn't everyone required to bear their testimony of the Lord? If those who can read the Lord's revelation are required to testify they have "heard his voice" (D&C 18: 35-36) how much greater an obligation is imposed upon those who have seen Him?
Testimony of Christ is not co-equal with presiding. All who can do so should testify. Presiding, however, is based on the common consent given exclusively to those who are in the church's hierarchy. Unless sustained to such presiding positions, no one has the right to such office. (D&C 26: 2; 28: 13.)
Was there something wrong with the Lord appearing to, and speaking with Mary on the morning of His resurrection, even before He returned to His Father? (John 20: 11-17.)
Was there something improper, too sacred, or too private in these events to prevent these witnesses from testifying of them? Isn't everyone required to bear their testimony of the Lord? If those who can read the Lord's revelation are required to testify they have "heard his voice" (D&C 18: 35-36) how much greater an obligation is imposed upon those who have seen Him?
Testimony of Christ is not co-equal with presiding. All who can do so should testify. Presiding, however, is based on the common consent given exclusively to those who are in the church's hierarchy. Unless sustained to such presiding positions, no one has the right to such office. (D&C 26: 2; 28: 13.)
Monday, September 10, 2012
A Worthy Cause
A family in my ward lost their father in a one-car accident on Tuesday, August 14. He leaves behind a family in need. There is a fund established to help the family members at Wells Fargo Bank. If any of you have the means and would like to do so, donations can be given at any Wells Fargo Bank to: The Todd Kunz Family Memorial Fund.
I have home taught this family for many years. His wife is a wonderful woman left now to care for the family alone. There are two grandchildren belonging to the oldest son and his wife. I've followed their son's missionary work in Kenya and seen the faithfulness of this good family. Another son just finished high school and isn't old enough for a mission yet. Their youngest daughter is the same age as one of my daughters.
Todd was a gentle, decent and caring man. He did volunteer work at the Utah State Prison, and helped others in need. Circumstances combined to take his life at this moment leave his family in need of help. If you can assist, it will go directly to the fund. Only his family can access the account.
UPDATE: Last four digits of the account for verification purposes 4899
I have home taught this family for many years. His wife is a wonderful woman left now to care for the family alone. There are two grandchildren belonging to the oldest son and his wife. I've followed their son's missionary work in Kenya and seen the faithfulness of this good family. Another son just finished high school and isn't old enough for a mission yet. Their youngest daughter is the same age as one of my daughters.
Todd was a gentle, decent and caring man. He did volunteer work at the Utah State Prison, and helped others in need. Circumstances combined to take his life at this moment leave his family in need of help. If you can assist, it will go directly to the fund. Only his family can access the account.
UPDATE: Last four digits of the account for verification purposes 4899
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Faith
The scriptures say that without faith it is impossible to please God. (Hebrews 11:6.) Have you thought about what that means? From the Lectures on Faith it is clear that faith is a "principle of action." If it is a principle of action, whose action is it? Must you do something, and if so, what? What action must you take? What is the role you occupy in faith?
The Lectures on Faith also say that faith is a "principle of power." What does that mean? Whose power? Is there a relationship between the action of man and the power of God?
Think of any great example of faith in scriptures and apply these questions to them. It can be as simple as David and Goliath, or as complicated as Elijah. After you have studied the example, ask yourself, "what action did the man or woman take? Why did they act in that way? What was the intention? How was God's power used? Who controlled the power? More precisely, from what source did the power come? Is this principle of power connected with priesthood? (D&C 121:36.) If it is, then when any person exercises faith as a principle of power, are they exercising priesthood?
The Lectures on Faith also say that faith is a "principle of power." What does that mean? Whose power? Is there a relationship between the action of man and the power of God?
Think of any great example of faith in scriptures and apply these questions to them. It can be as simple as David and Goliath, or as complicated as Elijah. After you have studied the example, ask yourself, "what action did the man or woman take? Why did they act in that way? What was the intention? How was God's power used? Who controlled the power? More precisely, from what source did the power come? Is this principle of power connected with priesthood? (D&C 121:36.) If it is, then when any person exercises faith as a principle of power, are they exercising priesthood?
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Proverbs 6: 20 - 23
My son, keep thy father's commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother:
Bind them continually upon thine heart, and tie them about thy neck.
When thou goest, it shall lead thee; when thou sleepest, it shall keep thee; and when thou awakest, it shall talk with thee.
For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life:
We should teach with more simplicity. We should take the counsel in the scriptures to heart and bind them to us.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
The Church's Greatest Appeal
There are many disagreements among Latter-day Saints. Sitting in on a Sunday lesson in my High Priest's Group will show just how many topics divide us. We understand a great deal differently from our history, our doctrine, and our priorities. This is normal among any group of people, even when they join together as fellow believers.
The most unifying thing about the church, however, is the service we render to others. Unlike many other denominations, our church is filled with opportunities to serve. It is expected. And it is rendered. Everywhere you turn the members are giving service.
I am not particularly political. The differences between political parties is so little as to not justify enthusiasm for either. However, I watched the evening of Mitt Romney's acceptance last week. A number of speakers extolled his past service to others. There wasn't a dry eye in the house as parents spoke about the support they received from Bishop Romney for their troubles.
As I listened, it seemed to me this was a description of a typical Mormon Bishop. It can be found in thousands of wards throughout the church. It is an expected part of the calling. And that service and support is rendered willingly, week after week, throughout the church.
From Home Teachers to Visiting Teachers, Relief Society Presidents and Bishops, Elder's Quorums and Young Women Leaders, there are continual acts of service and support expected and delivered.
It is my view this is the church's greatest strength and its greatest appeal. We take it for granted. But when behavior which is "normal" for a Mormon Bishop was put on public display, it touched people to the point of tears. We get used to it. We shouldn't. It is, after all, the pure religion of Christ. (James 1: 22-27.) It is what we do, more than what we say, that matters in practicing our faith.
This should unify us no matter what may divide us.
The most unifying thing about the church, however, is the service we render to others. Unlike many other denominations, our church is filled with opportunities to serve. It is expected. And it is rendered. Everywhere you turn the members are giving service.
I am not particularly political. The differences between political parties is so little as to not justify enthusiasm for either. However, I watched the evening of Mitt Romney's acceptance last week. A number of speakers extolled his past service to others. There wasn't a dry eye in the house as parents spoke about the support they received from Bishop Romney for their troubles.
As I listened, it seemed to me this was a description of a typical Mormon Bishop. It can be found in thousands of wards throughout the church. It is an expected part of the calling. And that service and support is rendered willingly, week after week, throughout the church.
From Home Teachers to Visiting Teachers, Relief Society Presidents and Bishops, Elder's Quorums and Young Women Leaders, there are continual acts of service and support expected and delivered.
It is my view this is the church's greatest strength and its greatest appeal. We take it for granted. But when behavior which is "normal" for a Mormon Bishop was put on public display, it touched people to the point of tears. We get used to it. We shouldn't. It is, after all, the pure religion of Christ. (James 1: 22-27.) It is what we do, more than what we say, that matters in practicing our faith.
This should unify us no matter what may divide us.
Monday, September 3, 2012
Waiting on Others
The fullness of the Gospel is found in the Book of Mormon. There you will find individual after individual who have returned, through faith, back to God's presence. Once they have returned to God's presence, they have a different view of themselves and others.
In the case of Lehi and his family, he listened to the testimony of others warning of the destruction of Jerusalem, took their warning seriously, and begged God on behalf of his people. (1 Ne. 1: 5.) As a result of his intercession and compassion for others, he was visited by God. (1 Ne. 1: 6.)
Lehi's family did not believe him. They followed him into the wilderness, but only because of the respect accorded to the father in their society. None of the family could believe what he was saying.
The younger son, Nephi, prayed to be able to believe what his father Lehi was saying. Even though Nephi wanted to acquire faith, it was not easy to trust his father's message. Because of his desire to believe, Nephi reports the Lord "did visit me;" this sounds like something more than it was. The Lord's initial "visit" to Nephi consisted only in 'softening Nephi's heart so that he was able to believe his father.' (1 Ne. 2: 16.)
This is the beginning. This is the first step. When the Lord first takes hold of your hand, it is a faint grip, a partial contact, a weak beginning. It is the token, however, that everyone must first receive. It comes from obeying and then acting faithfully on what has been shown to you. It requires you to sacrifice your own will to the Lord's.
No one will return to the presence of God who has not received this gentle grip from the Lord. It is a true token given by the Lord; not just something ceremonial. It is the companion to faith. It is the start of the path you will walk back to the presence of God, passing the sentinels who stand along the way. They will want to know you have learned all you need from your experiences here to be able to return to God's presence.
When the most dramatic points of struggle happen along the path, the Book of Mormon provides us with a view into the person where the struggle takes place. Nephi's record of the fullness includes his testimony of kneeling on a dark Jerusalem street where he found the person of Laban lying drunk and unconscious before him. (1 Ne. 4: 7-8.) He disarmed him. Then took the time to admire the weapon of war he had taken from his fallen uncle, noting its precious material and workmanship. (1 Ne. 4: 9.)
While admiring the sword, he had the urge to slay Laban. (1 Ne. 4: 10.) Though Nephi attributed this impulse to "the Spirit" it was nothing more than an impulse. Here is where the cosmic struggle plays out. In Nephi's heart, there is a strong urge to kill a man which, in Nephi's life, is unprecedented. It is foreign to him. It is "the Spirit" and not Nephi who has this will to kill the man.
Nephi's hesitancy is not based solely on moral scruples, but on all he believes about himself. He is not a man of war. He has "never before shed the blood of man" and does not think it appropriate to start now. (1 Ne. 4: 10.) This is not about self control, this is about who his identity. This is who Nephi believes himself to be. He is better than this base impulse. It is beneath him.
When he resists this impulse, "the Spirit" elevates the message. No longer is it "constraint" or inclination, but "the Spirit" now "speaks" to him in unmistakable words. (1 Ne. 4: 11.) The message not only clearly tells Nephi the Lord's will in 'delivering Laban into his hands,' but also makes enough sense to Nephi that he can immediately recognize the many reasons for the Lord accomplishing this. (1 Ne. 4: 11.) The proof of the Lord's hand lays before Nephi. After all, Laban is lying helpless, and "has been delivered into thy hands" as the most tangible, clear proof of God's power. (Id.)
Yet all of this struggle is internal to Nephi. You could stand on the same street, at the same moment and see the same scene play out before you, and you would not be a witness to God's great work underway.
The fullness of the Gospel requires us to recognize the hand of God guiding us. The battle we join is within. No one is spared from these stages of growth and development.
The church cannot provide you with an alternative means to get there. It is between you and God, alone. The scene will be as the Book of Mormon continually portrays it. That record is the most comprehensive retelling of how to return to God's presence ever compiled. It was put together by those who made the journey along the path, passing all the sentinels who stand guard along the way. They embraced their Lord through the veil before entering again into His presence. Then, having been true and faithful, they were brought back into His presence and redeemed from the fall of mankind. (Ether 3: 13.) They, like the Brother of Jared, were redeemed because of their knowledge. (Ether 3: 19.)
Yet you insist on captivity because you have no knowledge. (Isa. 5: 13.) You take blind guides and are therefore, blinded by your own ignorance. (Matt. 23: 16.) You insist on keeping what can never inform you, while rejecting what is told you in plain words. (2 Ne. 32: 7.) You refuse to see and are willingly blind and therefore the greater darkness lies within you.
You can wait, as one recent and frequent, anonymous commentator has insisted, until there is a program offered to you by an institution and see how long it takes for you to learn of God. Or, believe in the Book of Mormon and remove yourself from condemnation. (D&C 84: 56-57.) But if you seek for approval from an institution, then the Lord cannot overcome the barrier you have erected between you and Him.
In the case of Lehi and his family, he listened to the testimony of others warning of the destruction of Jerusalem, took their warning seriously, and begged God on behalf of his people. (1 Ne. 1: 5.) As a result of his intercession and compassion for others, he was visited by God. (1 Ne. 1: 6.)
Lehi's family did not believe him. They followed him into the wilderness, but only because of the respect accorded to the father in their society. None of the family could believe what he was saying.
The younger son, Nephi, prayed to be able to believe what his father Lehi was saying. Even though Nephi wanted to acquire faith, it was not easy to trust his father's message. Because of his desire to believe, Nephi reports the Lord "did visit me;" this sounds like something more than it was. The Lord's initial "visit" to Nephi consisted only in 'softening Nephi's heart so that he was able to believe his father.' (1 Ne. 2: 16.)
This is the beginning. This is the first step. When the Lord first takes hold of your hand, it is a faint grip, a partial contact, a weak beginning. It is the token, however, that everyone must first receive. It comes from obeying and then acting faithfully on what has been shown to you. It requires you to sacrifice your own will to the Lord's.
No one will return to the presence of God who has not received this gentle grip from the Lord. It is a true token given by the Lord; not just something ceremonial. It is the companion to faith. It is the start of the path you will walk back to the presence of God, passing the sentinels who stand along the way. They will want to know you have learned all you need from your experiences here to be able to return to God's presence.
When the most dramatic points of struggle happen along the path, the Book of Mormon provides us with a view into the person where the struggle takes place. Nephi's record of the fullness includes his testimony of kneeling on a dark Jerusalem street where he found the person of Laban lying drunk and unconscious before him. (1 Ne. 4: 7-8.) He disarmed him. Then took the time to admire the weapon of war he had taken from his fallen uncle, noting its precious material and workmanship. (1 Ne. 4: 9.)
While admiring the sword, he had the urge to slay Laban. (1 Ne. 4: 10.) Though Nephi attributed this impulse to "the Spirit" it was nothing more than an impulse. Here is where the cosmic struggle plays out. In Nephi's heart, there is a strong urge to kill a man which, in Nephi's life, is unprecedented. It is foreign to him. It is "the Spirit" and not Nephi who has this will to kill the man.
Nephi's hesitancy is not based solely on moral scruples, but on all he believes about himself. He is not a man of war. He has "never before shed the blood of man" and does not think it appropriate to start now. (1 Ne. 4: 10.) This is not about self control, this is about who his identity. This is who Nephi believes himself to be. He is better than this base impulse. It is beneath him.
When he resists this impulse, "the Spirit" elevates the message. No longer is it "constraint" or inclination, but "the Spirit" now "speaks" to him in unmistakable words. (1 Ne. 4: 11.) The message not only clearly tells Nephi the Lord's will in 'delivering Laban into his hands,' but also makes enough sense to Nephi that he can immediately recognize the many reasons for the Lord accomplishing this. (1 Ne. 4: 11.) The proof of the Lord's hand lays before Nephi. After all, Laban is lying helpless, and "has been delivered into thy hands" as the most tangible, clear proof of God's power. (Id.)
Yet all of this struggle is internal to Nephi. You could stand on the same street, at the same moment and see the same scene play out before you, and you would not be a witness to God's great work underway.
The fullness of the Gospel requires us to recognize the hand of God guiding us. The battle we join is within. No one is spared from these stages of growth and development.
The church cannot provide you with an alternative means to get there. It is between you and God, alone. The scene will be as the Book of Mormon continually portrays it. That record is the most comprehensive retelling of how to return to God's presence ever compiled. It was put together by those who made the journey along the path, passing all the sentinels who stand guard along the way. They embraced their Lord through the veil before entering again into His presence. Then, having been true and faithful, they were brought back into His presence and redeemed from the fall of mankind. (Ether 3: 13.) They, like the Brother of Jared, were redeemed because of their knowledge. (Ether 3: 19.)
Yet you insist on captivity because you have no knowledge. (Isa. 5: 13.) You take blind guides and are therefore, blinded by your own ignorance. (Matt. 23: 16.) You insist on keeping what can never inform you, while rejecting what is told you in plain words. (2 Ne. 32: 7.) You refuse to see and are willingly blind and therefore the greater darkness lies within you.
You can wait, as one recent and frequent, anonymous commentator has insisted, until there is a program offered to you by an institution and see how long it takes for you to learn of God. Or, believe in the Book of Mormon and remove yourself from condemnation. (D&C 84: 56-57.) But if you seek for approval from an institution, then the Lord cannot overcome the barrier you have erected between you and Him.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
What We Control
We are not accountable for things we do not control. The Lord alone in His wisdom will determine what will be done about such things. For us, it is what we do control that will matter. Our decisions about what opportunities He offers have eternal consequences.
One of those decisions is whether we recognize the opportunities before us. We allow a great deal to blind us and let us think the opportunity was never ours, when it was really within our control all along.
One of those decisions is whether we recognize the opportunities before us. We allow a great deal to blind us and let us think the opportunity was never ours, when it was really within our control all along.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Role of Women, Conclusion
I've addressed the issue of "plural wives" elsewhere. I do not believe it is a requirement imposed on those who are sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. The greatest challenge is to produce a couple who, in the image of God, are one. If a couple manage to overcome the world and become so, they do not need additional women to join them to qualify for exaltation. And if a group insists upon complicating the process by the multiplicity of wives before they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, the challenge to become one may never be overcome.
I have no doubts about the Lord's kindness and compassion for all men and women. Therefore, I have no doubt about the circumstances of the single, or the forsaken woman who is faithful to the Gospel. There will be none who are abandoned by the Lord who are faithful to His teachings.
The role of woman is more glorious than I can explain in the present circumstances. To discuss all I know would be to violate the present order, which I will not do. But I have no hesitation to say that the "many great and important things" which are "yet to be revealed" (Articles of Faith, Article 9) will include a great deal more than presently understood about women. I do not know if that will need to wait until after the Lord's second coming, or if it will be known to the church before then. What I do know, however, is that the full picture of woman's past and future glory is presently withheld from man's view in the wisdom of the Lord.
Temple rites are not complete. I've said that before on a number of occasions. When they are, the role of women will be greatly clarified. But it is not my calling or my right to get ahead of the Lord on such matters. What I can do, however, is to testify that among the things which "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor yet entered into the heart of man" is included a sound understanding of the role of women. It is only withheld at present because of our wickedness. What we have is enough to test us, and we are being tested. Will we ever be enough to pass the test to warrant the Lord giving more?
When we have more before we are ready to receive it then it only condemns us. The Lord is merciful in witholding such things.
What I also know is that if He will reveal things to any man He will do so to all mankind. Therefore as I said at the beginning, these are legitimate and worthy questions. They deserve an answer. Ask the Lord and trust His answer.
No man has ever been elevated to a throne in eternity who was not placed upon it by his wife.
I have no doubts about the Lord's kindness and compassion for all men and women. Therefore, I have no doubt about the circumstances of the single, or the forsaken woman who is faithful to the Gospel. There will be none who are abandoned by the Lord who are faithful to His teachings.
The role of woman is more glorious than I can explain in the present circumstances. To discuss all I know would be to violate the present order, which I will not do. But I have no hesitation to say that the "many great and important things" which are "yet to be revealed" (Articles of Faith, Article 9) will include a great deal more than presently understood about women. I do not know if that will need to wait until after the Lord's second coming, or if it will be known to the church before then. What I do know, however, is that the full picture of woman's past and future glory is presently withheld from man's view in the wisdom of the Lord.
Temple rites are not complete. I've said that before on a number of occasions. When they are, the role of women will be greatly clarified. But it is not my calling or my right to get ahead of the Lord on such matters. What I can do, however, is to testify that among the things which "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor yet entered into the heart of man" is included a sound understanding of the role of women. It is only withheld at present because of our wickedness. What we have is enough to test us, and we are being tested. Will we ever be enough to pass the test to warrant the Lord giving more?
When we have more before we are ready to receive it then it only condemns us. The Lord is merciful in witholding such things.
What I also know is that if He will reveal things to any man He will do so to all mankind. Therefore as I said at the beginning, these are legitimate and worthy questions. They deserve an answer. Ask the Lord and trust His answer.
No man has ever been elevated to a throne in eternity who was not placed upon it by his wife.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)