"[F]or ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people." (2 Cor. 6: 16.)
"I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God; wherefore, gird up your loins and I will suddenly come to my temple." (D&C 36: 8; see also D&C 133: 2-3, 3 Ne. 24: 1.)
"Verily, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my face and know that I am." (D&C 93: 1.)
Showing posts with label temple. Show all posts
Showing posts with label temple. Show all posts
Monday, October 22, 2012
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.
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.
Friday, July 13, 2012
A Question About "Seeds of Doubt"
This comment was a question I received this week: "You are hinting that we have 'strayed from mine ordinances' and broken the covenant as a people. Does this encourage faith in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? I would argue that it does not. You appear conflicted. You appear to be trying to plant seeds of doubt because of changes to the temple ceremonies over the years."
This is a question only an idolator could ask. The question presumes the object of faith should be an institution. That is idolatry.
To the extent that the church teaches faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, it is of value. To the extent it teaches faith in itself, it will damn you.
Those who inherit the Telestial Kingdom, or the lowest condition in the afterlife apart from outer darkness, will keep company with liars, thieves and adulterers. (D&C 76: 103.) These damned folks, who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, (D&C 76: 106) are the ones who worship the church, but not Christ. They prefer the institutional leaders (D&C 76: 99-100) rather than receiving the testimony of Christ (D&C 76: 101).
These people are those who "love and make a lie" because the truth is not in them. (D&C 76: 103.) They lie about the terms of salvation. They substitute the commandments of men for faith in Christ. This is the heart of lying - to deceive on matters affecting the souls of mankind.
Let me be as clear as I possibly can: I am not trying to "encourage faith in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." That would damn anyone who would listen to me. I have tried to encourage activity in the church; to encourage payment of tithes, support of leadership, serving in callings, and living its standards. But NOT faith in the church.
I am trying to encourage faith in Jesus Christ. The Articles of Faith clarify who we are to have faith in: "We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." (Article of Faith 4.)
It is incidental to that faith that we believe in a church organization. (Article of Faith 6.) Nowhere in the Articles of Faith, nor in the scriptures does it require anyone to have "faith in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" for salvation.
The person (or committee) who posed the question should repent. They suffer from a damning form of idolatry, denounced in scripture, which will condemn them to hell unless they repent-- if the revelations from Jesus Christ can be trusted. If they teach this as doctrine to others, they are leading them astray.
As to the other part of the question - that the temple ordinances have been changed, let me be clear on that also. Yes, they have been changed. Your question admits it. We all know that is true. They have been substantially reworked, deleted, portions eliminated, whole characters removed from the presentation, and even the parts that are identified as "most sacred" have been altered. They certainly have been changed. I leave it for each person to decide the extent to which these alterations are or are not important to them.
I will add, however, that when a Dispensation of the Gospel is conferred on mankind through a Dispensation head (like Enoch, Moses, Joseph Smith) then those who live in that Dispensation are obligated to honor the ordinances laid down through the Dispensation head by the Lord. For so long as the ordinances remain unchanged, the ordinances are effective. When, however, the ordinances are changed without the Lord's approval [THE critical question], they are broken. At that point, the cure is for the Lord to bestow a new Dispensation in which a new covenant is made available.
IF (and I leave it to you to answer that question) you decide the ordinances are now broken by the many changes, then you should look for the Lord to deliver them again. IF (and I leave it entirely to you to decide) the many changes were authorized by the Lord and approved by Him, then you have no concerns. The covenant was not broken. Everything continues intact. It would be curious to know why He changed them. Particularly when Joseph (the Dispensation head) said that couldn't be done. But if your confidence is in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the instrument of salvation, then you should not trouble yourself with this question. If your faith is in Christ, then take the matter up with Him and let Him explain to you what your state and standing is before Him. I know what mine is. I have no fear of His judgements.
I don't know if I could be any more clear. Maybe I should add that if I were a church leader, I would never have agreed to any change ever to any of the ordinances. But I was not a church leader, and when the great changes were made in 1990 no one asked me to even sustain them. Those in charge imposed them. As a member, I wasn't even afforded the chance to give a sustaining vote on the question. I have never been required to take a position, either by the church or the leaders or common consent. The church just DID it. To the extent that anyone is accountable for this, it cannot be me. That leaves everyone the freedom to decide individually what these things mean to them.
I would also add that if I'd been asked to vote I would have voted against it. Today, if the church provided periodic sessions using the earlier form, I would make it a practice to always attend only those sessions. I wish I could provide those for my own ancestors as I attend sessions now. I attended so frequently before the changes that, even today, when attending I still recite in my own mind missing portions of the ceremonies. I cannot avoid it. They are embedded and remain, despite not being present in the temple ceremony any longer.
Have faith in Christ. He doesn't change. (1 Ne. 10: 18; 2 Ne. 27: 23; Moroni 10: 7, among many others.) I concede that it's weird an unchanging God has a predeliction in this Dispensation of changing His ordinances. He, at least, doesn't change. If you lose your idolatry and anchor faith in Him, you will be fine.
So, where does that leave us with the issue of "seeds of doubt?" I doubt:
-men
-institutions
-lies
-foolishness
-vanity
-error
-pomposity
-arrogance
-ignorance
-good intentions
-the value of sincerity
-the commandments of men
-the present generation
-the popular solutions to most problems
-Hollywood
-opposing attorneys
-Chief Justice Roberts' reasoning
-quantative easing as a long term solution
-quantative easing as a short term solution
-the assumptions contained in the question I have answered in this post.
But I do NOT doubt Christ.
This is a question only an idolator could ask. The question presumes the object of faith should be an institution. That is idolatry.
To the extent that the church teaches faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, it is of value. To the extent it teaches faith in itself, it will damn you.
Those who inherit the Telestial Kingdom, or the lowest condition in the afterlife apart from outer darkness, will keep company with liars, thieves and adulterers. (D&C 76: 103.) These damned folks, who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, (D&C 76: 106) are the ones who worship the church, but not Christ. They prefer the institutional leaders (D&C 76: 99-100) rather than receiving the testimony of Christ (D&C 76: 101).
These people are those who "love and make a lie" because the truth is not in them. (D&C 76: 103.) They lie about the terms of salvation. They substitute the commandments of men for faith in Christ. This is the heart of lying - to deceive on matters affecting the souls of mankind.
Let me be as clear as I possibly can: I am not trying to "encourage faith in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." That would damn anyone who would listen to me. I have tried to encourage activity in the church; to encourage payment of tithes, support of leadership, serving in callings, and living its standards. But NOT faith in the church.
I am trying to encourage faith in Jesus Christ. The Articles of Faith clarify who we are to have faith in: "We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." (Article of Faith 4.)
It is incidental to that faith that we believe in a church organization. (Article of Faith 6.) Nowhere in the Articles of Faith, nor in the scriptures does it require anyone to have "faith in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" for salvation.
The person (or committee) who posed the question should repent. They suffer from a damning form of idolatry, denounced in scripture, which will condemn them to hell unless they repent-- if the revelations from Jesus Christ can be trusted. If they teach this as doctrine to others, they are leading them astray.
As to the other part of the question - that the temple ordinances have been changed, let me be clear on that also. Yes, they have been changed. Your question admits it. We all know that is true. They have been substantially reworked, deleted, portions eliminated, whole characters removed from the presentation, and even the parts that are identified as "most sacred" have been altered. They certainly have been changed. I leave it for each person to decide the extent to which these alterations are or are not important to them.
I will add, however, that when a Dispensation of the Gospel is conferred on mankind through a Dispensation head (like Enoch, Moses, Joseph Smith) then those who live in that Dispensation are obligated to honor the ordinances laid down through the Dispensation head by the Lord. For so long as the ordinances remain unchanged, the ordinances are effective. When, however, the ordinances are changed without the Lord's approval [THE critical question], they are broken. At that point, the cure is for the Lord to bestow a new Dispensation in which a new covenant is made available.
IF (and I leave it to you to answer that question) you decide the ordinances are now broken by the many changes, then you should look for the Lord to deliver them again. IF (and I leave it entirely to you to decide) the many changes were authorized by the Lord and approved by Him, then you have no concerns. The covenant was not broken. Everything continues intact. It would be curious to know why He changed them. Particularly when Joseph (the Dispensation head) said that couldn't be done. But if your confidence is in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the instrument of salvation, then you should not trouble yourself with this question. If your faith is in Christ, then take the matter up with Him and let Him explain to you what your state and standing is before Him. I know what mine is. I have no fear of His judgements.
I don't know if I could be any more clear. Maybe I should add that if I were a church leader, I would never have agreed to any change ever to any of the ordinances. But I was not a church leader, and when the great changes were made in 1990 no one asked me to even sustain them. Those in charge imposed them. As a member, I wasn't even afforded the chance to give a sustaining vote on the question. I have never been required to take a position, either by the church or the leaders or common consent. The church just DID it. To the extent that anyone is accountable for this, it cannot be me. That leaves everyone the freedom to decide individually what these things mean to them.
I would also add that if I'd been asked to vote I would have voted against it. Today, if the church provided periodic sessions using the earlier form, I would make it a practice to always attend only those sessions. I wish I could provide those for my own ancestors as I attend sessions now. I attended so frequently before the changes that, even today, when attending I still recite in my own mind missing portions of the ceremonies. I cannot avoid it. They are embedded and remain, despite not being present in the temple ceremony any longer.
Have faith in Christ. He doesn't change. (1 Ne. 10: 18; 2 Ne. 27: 23; Moroni 10: 7, among many others.) I concede that it's weird an unchanging God has a predeliction in this Dispensation of changing His ordinances. He, at least, doesn't change. If you lose your idolatry and anchor faith in Him, you will be fine.
So, where does that leave us with the issue of "seeds of doubt?" I doubt:
-men
-institutions
-lies
-foolishness
-vanity
-error
-pomposity
-arrogance
-ignorance
-good intentions
-the value of sincerity
-the commandments of men
-the present generation
-the popular solutions to most problems
-Hollywood
-opposing attorneys
-Chief Justice Roberts' reasoning
-quantative easing as a long term solution
-quantative easing as a short term solution
-the assumptions contained in the question I have answered in this post.
But I do NOT doubt Christ.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
God's People
When God begins work with people, the group becomes "chosen," and therefore the focus of His continuing efforts to save mankind. Although "chosen people" do not always remain faithful to Him, they do remain the center of His work.
A good illustration of this was during the Second Temple period in ancient Israel. Throughout this time, the people were apostate. Margaret Barker's work reconstructing the era is perhaps as good a job as any scholar has been able to accomplish to date. Israel was led by corrupt and uninspired priests. The nation descended generation by generation until, by the time the New Testament era opened, the nation's "king" was appointed by Rome from a well-connected family having only quasi-Jewish lineage and no real devotion to their faith. The High Priest was also a political appointment, based on family patronage and bribery.
Into this corrupt society, the dawn of a new Dispensation conformed to the old patterns of the fallen, idolatrous religion. The angel Gabriel came to Zacharias in the place and time that honored the ceremonies established by Moses.
Zacharias was in the Holy Place, before the veil of the Temple, burning incense and offering the morning prayer. The prayer asked for the light of God's presence to return to Israel. As the cloud of incense ascended from the altar upward, symbolizing the ascent of prayers to God, Gabriel appeared on the right side of the altar. (Luke 1: 11.) This is the exact spot a person would stand if they emerged from the Holy of Holies of the Temple, conforming to the then existing religious pattern. The angel announced to Zacharias that "thy prayer is heard" (Luke 1: 13), meaning that the set prayer for God's presence to return to Israel was accepted. The religious pattern was vindicated.
Though Israel had endured hundreds of years of apostate decline, when the time to refresh and restore arrived, the work resumed inside the existing pattern. God honored the religion of His chosen people, even though the religion was at the time fallen, worldly and apostate.
Zacharias lived among this apostate people and yet was unhindered by it. His prayer was heard, the angel was sent, and God's promise to return to Israel was not only vindicated, but Zacharias was told he would have a son who would "go before [the Lord] in the spirit and power of Elias." (Luke 1: 13, 17.)
Similarly, the prophet Simeon and the prophetess Anna lived among a fallen and apostate people, but honored the traditions, kept the faith, and saw beyond the evil of their day. Each received by revelation a promise they would live to see their Lord come into the flesh. (Luke 2: 25-38.) These faithful believers, both male and female, were not hindered by the apostasy then underway.
The Lord follows the same pattern throughout, because He is the same yesterday, today and forever. (Moroni 10: 19.) Therefore, once the work recommenced through Joseph Smith, and there was a "chosen people," the work will always continue, or if necessary begin anew among the same "chosen people." Though the gentiles will fail, as Christ prophesied would eventually occur (3 Ne. 16: 10), the work will not be abandoned.
General apostasy, therefore, cannot prevent individual participation in the fullness of God's promises. Though it may be interrupted for three or four generations when there is rebellion (Ex. 20: 5), when it resumes it will begin among the same people where it left off.
This is the pattern of the Lord. And mankind's failure does nothing to prevent eventual fulfillment of the Lord's promises. (D&C 1: 38.)
A good illustration of this was during the Second Temple period in ancient Israel. Throughout this time, the people were apostate. Margaret Barker's work reconstructing the era is perhaps as good a job as any scholar has been able to accomplish to date. Israel was led by corrupt and uninspired priests. The nation descended generation by generation until, by the time the New Testament era opened, the nation's "king" was appointed by Rome from a well-connected family having only quasi-Jewish lineage and no real devotion to their faith. The High Priest was also a political appointment, based on family patronage and bribery.
Into this corrupt society, the dawn of a new Dispensation conformed to the old patterns of the fallen, idolatrous religion. The angel Gabriel came to Zacharias in the place and time that honored the ceremonies established by Moses.
Zacharias was in the Holy Place, before the veil of the Temple, burning incense and offering the morning prayer. The prayer asked for the light of God's presence to return to Israel. As the cloud of incense ascended from the altar upward, symbolizing the ascent of prayers to God, Gabriel appeared on the right side of the altar. (Luke 1: 11.) This is the exact spot a person would stand if they emerged from the Holy of Holies of the Temple, conforming to the then existing religious pattern. The angel announced to Zacharias that "thy prayer is heard" (Luke 1: 13), meaning that the set prayer for God's presence to return to Israel was accepted. The religious pattern was vindicated.
Though Israel had endured hundreds of years of apostate decline, when the time to refresh and restore arrived, the work resumed inside the existing pattern. God honored the religion of His chosen people, even though the religion was at the time fallen, worldly and apostate.
Zacharias lived among this apostate people and yet was unhindered by it. His prayer was heard, the angel was sent, and God's promise to return to Israel was not only vindicated, but Zacharias was told he would have a son who would "go before [the Lord] in the spirit and power of Elias." (Luke 1: 13, 17.)
Similarly, the prophet Simeon and the prophetess Anna lived among a fallen and apostate people, but honored the traditions, kept the faith, and saw beyond the evil of their day. Each received by revelation a promise they would live to see their Lord come into the flesh. (Luke 2: 25-38.) These faithful believers, both male and female, were not hindered by the apostasy then underway.
The Lord follows the same pattern throughout, because He is the same yesterday, today and forever. (Moroni 10: 19.) Therefore, once the work recommenced through Joseph Smith, and there was a "chosen people," the work will always continue, or if necessary begin anew among the same "chosen people." Though the gentiles will fail, as Christ prophesied would eventually occur (3 Ne. 16: 10), the work will not be abandoned.
General apostasy, therefore, cannot prevent individual participation in the fullness of God's promises. Though it may be interrupted for three or four generations when there is rebellion (Ex. 20: 5), when it resumes it will begin among the same people where it left off.
This is the pattern of the Lord. And mankind's failure does nothing to prevent eventual fulfillment of the Lord's promises. (D&C 1: 38.)
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Last Week's Comments
I wanted to respond to some of last week's comments:
There is a difference between calling and election and Second Comforter. I've written about the Second Comforter, but haven't ever commented on calling and election other than what is said in Beloved Enos. It isn't useful, in my view, to spend time discussing or studying a topic that is between the individual and the Lord, because if they are brought to the Lord, they will receive what He intends for them to receive.
In a quote from Joseph Smith (which is on page 3 of The Second Comforter) the order he puts these events in is the calling and election first, and Second Comforter second. However, as I pointed out in Beloved Enos, it did not happen in that order for Joseph.
These are important concepts to understand. But knowing the concept and then undertaking the process are quite separate things. I have friends who know a good deal more about the literature of deep Mormon doctrine than they have the capacity to practice in their lives. I think you draw closer to the Lord when you faithfully serve in primary, or as a home teacher, or as a young women's counselor than when you are amassing knowledge of trivia about our history or doctrine. It is in the doing that the learning occurs. We must do what the Lord asks to understand Him. The four part Power in the Priesthood series will address that issue.
The idea of "evil speaking" has never been clearly defined by anyone, including the scriptures. Implicit in the idea is that you are trying to falsely make someone hated or reviled. You are, in essence, seeking to make a good man, or an innocent act to appear evil or corrupt when it is not. In essence you are calling good evil and evil good. The measure for that is best taken from inside the person. That is, they intend to call someone or something which is good or innocent as "evil" when they know or should know better. It reflects a malignant or at least indifferent heart.
I have suggested "the Lord's anointed" should be interpreted to be anyone who has been through the temple, which is the broadest meaning. I've never thought it is safe to narrowly define obligations. If we are wrong by narrowly defining the term, then we miss the mark. Whereas, if we are wrong in broadly defining the term, we proceed cautiously and safely.
I understand "sustaining" or "supporting" the Brethren to be doing what we are asked when asked. We get assignments or callings, and we ought to do them. When, we are asked to obey the word of wisdom, or we are asked to attend a conference, or to undertake some kind of conduct, then we do it.
On following the Prophet: I think that is quite easy. What, exactly, do you find hard about this? It is not at all difficult to attend sacrament meetings, pay tithing, do our home teaching, attend the temple, etc. They really do not ask much of us. What they do ask is by and large simple. What is the problem? The scriptures ask us a LOT more. It is not incompatible for you to do everything the church asks, and still pursue the things you understand the scriptures instruct you to do. They are not mutually exclusive. They are complimentary. Or, at least they ought to be. In my experience they are complimentary and the one (what the Prophet asks of us) is by far the easier of the two. I wish the scriptures (and the Lord) only wanted what we are asked to do as active members of the church. Full, faithful, diligent service in the church is a small thing. Each of us should willingly submit to it, and find joy in service there. Faithful Latter-day Saints are among the best people on earth, and are actually seeking to find God.
On detailed knowledge of church history: For faithful, active and satisfied Latter-day Saints: It certainly isn't necessary, no. But everything needs perspective. Ultimately you are alone in your test, in being proven, in finding God. The church is a profound help and a great hindrance. It is a help in all it has preserved: ordinances, scriptures, organization, libraries of material and the venue for performing ordinances and meetings. It is a hindrance when it becomes a substitute for God, and refocuses your attention away from the Lord. If you can receive its help without becoming idolatrous, then detailed study of church history is not useful or necessary. For disaffected, alienated and inactive Latter-day Saints: It is necessary, yes. It puts into perspective the things which have alienated them. When the weaknesses of men are apparent, they are easier to forgive and for you to move on to finding God. When you can see the hand of God moving in spite of the weaknesses and failing of men, you can resort the things which alienated you, put into categories the mistakes and errors, find what is good and retain faithfulness to that goodness.
On my schedule: It isn't important.
On evil spirits: I've never felt it important to discuss the topic. They exist. One of the side-effects of an inordinate preoccupation with the topic is the misunderstanding that you can relate to them. You can't. They are your enemy. Their tool in trade is deception and lying. Summary dismissal is what is taught in the scriptures and in the temple and should be the approach when dealing with them.
Internal committees of the church are all presided over by a general authority. When the committee works, they work as a group of men assigned to the task, and churn out their product. The assigned general authority will meet on occasion with them, some weekly, some monthly, some less often, to "preside" and give face time to the committee. The committee produces a product or a project and whatever that is is said to belong to the general authority because it is "his" committee. In truth, however, the work goes on among the faceless, nameless members with little more than thin oversight by the assigned general authority. This gives the Correlation process its power because the committee uses the general authority's name to shield themselves from criticism or accountability. It is "Elder Holland" or "Elder Ballard" who takes the assigned credit for "his" committee's product. This insures that even though he has but very little to do with it, the work-product is regarded as his. Almost anyone would question a bureaucratic process and decision if they knew how it worked. However, almost no active church member would dare to question "Elder Oaks." Speaking of Elder Oaks, he gets credit for the Sunday School Manual because that's his committee. Interestingly, in one of the Mormon Stories Podcasts, a member of the BYU Religion Department who helped write the manual told an amusing story. (I think it was Peterson, but I'm not sure) In a New Testament manual book of Acts, there is the incident where Paul spoke till midnight. He put a young man to sleep who fell from the window and died. (Acts 20: 7-12.) One of the discussion questions he put into the draft manual was something to the effect, "Have you ever killed anyone in a Sacrament Meeting talk?" Of course this was tongue-in-cheek. To his surprise, the question made it through to the print proof stage before he removed it. The story shows just how "tightly" the manual committee actually scrutinizes their work. A good many of those involved are more interested in the "face time" with the presiding general authority, hoping that will give them opportunity for advancement in the structure. I believe you can be critical of a committee without having anything in mind for the general authority who has the unfortunate assignment of being "over" the committee. The purpose of Correlation is to conflate the two. Correlation relies on that conflation to work their disastrous mischief presently underway. There are a significant number of general authorities who would undo Correlation, and that number is growing.
At some point I will contrast the Light of Christ, Spirit of Christ, Holy Ghost and gift of the Holy Ghost. But that's not appropriate in a quick response here.
Fasting in the form of abstaining from all food and drink may not be practical for the elderly, those who are diabetic or ill. For some, refraining from food and drink is possible without any danger to their health, but if they choose to do so for more than a day, then eating once in the evening allows the fast to continue the next day. For someone unable to fast, but who can surrender some part of their diet--abstaining from all sweets, for example--it can serve the purpose. Underlying the idea of the fast are two things. First, submission to God. Second, aiding the poor. (Isa. 58: 6.) You can accomplish those purposes even if the "fast" you choose has nothing to do with food. However, our appetite for food is one of the most direct ways to discipline the will of the body. Remember though, it is your thoughts, not your belly, where the real battle is fought.
Christ sanctifies us, we don't sanctify ourselves. Our "righteousness" is borrowed from Him. It can be symbolized in this way. He provides a white robe, we put it on, and then He looks upon the whiteness and purity of the robe we received from Him and treats us as if the borrowed robe is our condition. We owe Him for that. He is willing to proceed with us as if we merited the robe. (See 2 Ne. 9: 14.)
Colors all have symbolic meaning. Blue is the color of priesthood. Red is the color of judgment. Gold is the color of heavenly royalty. Green is the color of healing. There are colors we can't see. All you have to do to make something veiled from our view is to put that color on what you want to conceal. It is rather like our own practice of wearing camouflage when hunting.
There is a difference between calling and election and Second Comforter. I've written about the Second Comforter, but haven't ever commented on calling and election other than what is said in Beloved Enos. It isn't useful, in my view, to spend time discussing or studying a topic that is between the individual and the Lord, because if they are brought to the Lord, they will receive what He intends for them to receive.
In a quote from Joseph Smith (which is on page 3 of The Second Comforter) the order he puts these events in is the calling and election first, and Second Comforter second. However, as I pointed out in Beloved Enos, it did not happen in that order for Joseph.
These are important concepts to understand. But knowing the concept and then undertaking the process are quite separate things. I have friends who know a good deal more about the literature of deep Mormon doctrine than they have the capacity to practice in their lives. I think you draw closer to the Lord when you faithfully serve in primary, or as a home teacher, or as a young women's counselor than when you are amassing knowledge of trivia about our history or doctrine. It is in the doing that the learning occurs. We must do what the Lord asks to understand Him. The four part Power in the Priesthood series will address that issue.
The idea of "evil speaking" has never been clearly defined by anyone, including the scriptures. Implicit in the idea is that you are trying to falsely make someone hated or reviled. You are, in essence, seeking to make a good man, or an innocent act to appear evil or corrupt when it is not. In essence you are calling good evil and evil good. The measure for that is best taken from inside the person. That is, they intend to call someone or something which is good or innocent as "evil" when they know or should know better. It reflects a malignant or at least indifferent heart.
I have suggested "the Lord's anointed" should be interpreted to be anyone who has been through the temple, which is the broadest meaning. I've never thought it is safe to narrowly define obligations. If we are wrong by narrowly defining the term, then we miss the mark. Whereas, if we are wrong in broadly defining the term, we proceed cautiously and safely.
I understand "sustaining" or "supporting" the Brethren to be doing what we are asked when asked. We get assignments or callings, and we ought to do them. When, we are asked to obey the word of wisdom, or we are asked to attend a conference, or to undertake some kind of conduct, then we do it.
On following the Prophet: I think that is quite easy. What, exactly, do you find hard about this? It is not at all difficult to attend sacrament meetings, pay tithing, do our home teaching, attend the temple, etc. They really do not ask much of us. What they do ask is by and large simple. What is the problem? The scriptures ask us a LOT more. It is not incompatible for you to do everything the church asks, and still pursue the things you understand the scriptures instruct you to do. They are not mutually exclusive. They are complimentary. Or, at least they ought to be. In my experience they are complimentary and the one (what the Prophet asks of us) is by far the easier of the two. I wish the scriptures (and the Lord) only wanted what we are asked to do as active members of the church. Full, faithful, diligent service in the church is a small thing. Each of us should willingly submit to it, and find joy in service there. Faithful Latter-day Saints are among the best people on earth, and are actually seeking to find God.
On detailed knowledge of church history: For faithful, active and satisfied Latter-day Saints: It certainly isn't necessary, no. But everything needs perspective. Ultimately you are alone in your test, in being proven, in finding God. The church is a profound help and a great hindrance. It is a help in all it has preserved: ordinances, scriptures, organization, libraries of material and the venue for performing ordinances and meetings. It is a hindrance when it becomes a substitute for God, and refocuses your attention away from the Lord. If you can receive its help without becoming idolatrous, then detailed study of church history is not useful or necessary. For disaffected, alienated and inactive Latter-day Saints: It is necessary, yes. It puts into perspective the things which have alienated them. When the weaknesses of men are apparent, they are easier to forgive and for you to move on to finding God. When you can see the hand of God moving in spite of the weaknesses and failing of men, you can resort the things which alienated you, put into categories the mistakes and errors, find what is good and retain faithfulness to that goodness.
On my schedule: It isn't important.
On evil spirits: I've never felt it important to discuss the topic. They exist. One of the side-effects of an inordinate preoccupation with the topic is the misunderstanding that you can relate to them. You can't. They are your enemy. Their tool in trade is deception and lying. Summary dismissal is what is taught in the scriptures and in the temple and should be the approach when dealing with them.
Internal committees of the church are all presided over by a general authority. When the committee works, they work as a group of men assigned to the task, and churn out their product. The assigned general authority will meet on occasion with them, some weekly, some monthly, some less often, to "preside" and give face time to the committee. The committee produces a product or a project and whatever that is is said to belong to the general authority because it is "his" committee. In truth, however, the work goes on among the faceless, nameless members with little more than thin oversight by the assigned general authority. This gives the Correlation process its power because the committee uses the general authority's name to shield themselves from criticism or accountability. It is "Elder Holland" or "Elder Ballard" who takes the assigned credit for "his" committee's product. This insures that even though he has but very little to do with it, the work-product is regarded as his. Almost anyone would question a bureaucratic process and decision if they knew how it worked. However, almost no active church member would dare to question "Elder Oaks." Speaking of Elder Oaks, he gets credit for the Sunday School Manual because that's his committee. Interestingly, in one of the Mormon Stories Podcasts, a member of the BYU Religion Department who helped write the manual told an amusing story. (I think it was Peterson, but I'm not sure) In a New Testament manual book of Acts, there is the incident where Paul spoke till midnight. He put a young man to sleep who fell from the window and died. (Acts 20: 7-12.) One of the discussion questions he put into the draft manual was something to the effect, "Have you ever killed anyone in a Sacrament Meeting talk?" Of course this was tongue-in-cheek. To his surprise, the question made it through to the print proof stage before he removed it. The story shows just how "tightly" the manual committee actually scrutinizes their work. A good many of those involved are more interested in the "face time" with the presiding general authority, hoping that will give them opportunity for advancement in the structure. I believe you can be critical of a committee without having anything in mind for the general authority who has the unfortunate assignment of being "over" the committee. The purpose of Correlation is to conflate the two. Correlation relies on that conflation to work their disastrous mischief presently underway. There are a significant number of general authorities who would undo Correlation, and that number is growing.
At some point I will contrast the Light of Christ, Spirit of Christ, Holy Ghost and gift of the Holy Ghost. But that's not appropriate in a quick response here.
Fasting in the form of abstaining from all food and drink may not be practical for the elderly, those who are diabetic or ill. For some, refraining from food and drink is possible without any danger to their health, but if they choose to do so for more than a day, then eating once in the evening allows the fast to continue the next day. For someone unable to fast, but who can surrender some part of their diet--abstaining from all sweets, for example--it can serve the purpose. Underlying the idea of the fast are two things. First, submission to God. Second, aiding the poor. (Isa. 58: 6.) You can accomplish those purposes even if the "fast" you choose has nothing to do with food. However, our appetite for food is one of the most direct ways to discipline the will of the body. Remember though, it is your thoughts, not your belly, where the real battle is fought.
Christ sanctifies us, we don't sanctify ourselves. Our "righteousness" is borrowed from Him. It can be symbolized in this way. He provides a white robe, we put it on, and then He looks upon the whiteness and purity of the robe we received from Him and treats us as if the borrowed robe is our condition. We owe Him for that. He is willing to proceed with us as if we merited the robe. (See 2 Ne. 9: 14.)
Colors all have symbolic meaning. Blue is the color of priesthood. Red is the color of judgment. Gold is the color of heavenly royalty. Green is the color of healing. There are colors we can't see. All you have to do to make something veiled from our view is to put that color on what you want to conceal. It is rather like our own practice of wearing camouflage when hunting.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Joseph Smith History, Part 4
Once Joseph had an encounter with God through the veil, he hesitated to discuss the matter fully. Even at the end he remained reluctant, even forbidden, to share all he knew from the encounter. (JS-H 1: 20.) The first attempt to tell someone about the encounter happened only a few days afterwards. He records that it was to a Methodist minister, the sect he had been most impressed with as he investigated the various religions. (JS-H 1: 8.) This fulfills one of the laws ordained before the foundation of the world (D&C 130: 20-21) because it is necessary for the Lord's servants, and even the Lord Himself, to first make an offering of the truth to the existing religious authorities before either Christ, or Joseph, or any of His servants could then move forward independent of them. (See John 1: 11; D&C 10: 57.) Query in your own mind what would have happened if the Methodist minister had accepted Joseph's experience as authentic.
Joseph explains this encounter as follows: "Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them." (JS-H 1: 21.) This theme of the false minister opposing new revelation found its way into the endowment ceremony Joseph later restored. That portion of the ceremony was eliminated in the 1990 temple changes. Before then the endowment taught how professional ministers were men in Satan's employ, but true messengers were angels, sent from God's presence with a message from God. This endowment teaching came from the actual experiences of Joseph's life, as shown above. It is repeated, of course, in the experiences of all those who follow God, are taught by angels, and opposed by professional's making their living from religion. Ultimately there must be a choice between those who come bearing a message from God and those who oppose it, and claim there can't be any such revelation, and that the organized faith they advocate (i.e., Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Catholic, etc.) is the guardian and possessor of the right to teach all truth. They claim to be the spokesmen for heaven and heaven does not really send any messengers apart from themselves. Of course it follows that those like Joseph Smith were "all of the devil" and not to be trusted.
Joseph lived this. As did Christ. The temple rites, until 1990, fortified the endowed against this particular deception of Satan's.
Joseph's history includes an observation about the reactions the religious critics had toward him. It is always the false, pseudo-religious who are offended by the truth; not the atheists or agnostics. The athiests and agnostics allow others the liberty of believing as they wish. The religious are another story. They were the ones who, throughout Joseph's life, worked against him. Ultimately it was the disaffected within the church, and the ministers outside the church, who were directly responsible for killing him.
There is a passing comment in Joseph's history which is so undeniably authentic it leaps off the page. He writes that he was "persecuted by those who ought to have been my friends and to have treated me kindly, and if they supposed me to be deluded to have endeavored in a proper and affectionate manner to have reclaimed me." (JS-H 1: 28.) Joseph is absolutely correct. The right way to proceed, if those who claimed Joseph was wrong and they were followers of God, would have been to have treated Joseph kindly, and endeavored in a proper and affectionate manner to have reclaimed him from error. But they didn't! This is a great key to understanding how the plan of God works. It conforms to a law irrevocably ordained in heaven. The false ministers cannot help themselves.
Why was it that the people claiming to be religious were persecuting Joseph rather than trying to persuade him with affectionate persuasion? It is because when men think that they have God on their side, and they do not, then they become abusive. They seek to have control, dominion and power over others in order to force the true disciples of the Lord to change and surrender faith. They abuse their position by claiming to follow God, while actually doing the opposite.
They had to follow the law of their master, Satan, who deceived them. This was because only in this manner could Joseph also obey the law ordained by God upon which blessings were predicated. For Joseph to grow, it was required for the men inspired by Satan to be revealed in their true light. They had to supress, oppose, persecute and defame Joseph because they could not "in a proper and affectionate manner" have ever reclaimed him while serving Satan. He had the truth and they did not.
Joseph "had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me falsely for so saying, I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation." (JS-H 1: 25.) Joseph was following the law ordained before the foundation of the world, and so were his critics. This is the same battle fought endlessly when God intervenes in the affairs of men.
We see the same thing when King Noah feared that Abinadi may have actually been sent by God. Noah was about to release him, but the priestly committee he surrounded himself with interfered. They aroused the vanity and pride of the king to make him angry. As a result, King Noah did not repent, and instead followed the law of the persecutor. (Mosiah 17: 11-12.) Joseph Smith lived according to law, and according to law he was persecuted. According to a higher law he was vindicated by God, though like Abinadi it required his life. We are the beneficiaries of Joseph's death. Through it the latter-day work is sealed, and will ultimately triumph. Temporary set-backs will not prevent the final return of natural fruit, and at last Zion itself.
Joseph's history is the story of how one individual obtained salvation by following the laws ordained for saving any of us. It is authentic. He shares details that conform to the same pattern all disciples of the Lord must follow. He is saved, while his persecutors who followed the law of their master, Satan, opposed the truth and were damned. It is always the case. Joseph explained: "The world always mistook false prophets for true ones, and those that were sent of God, they considered to be false prophets, and hence they killed, stoned, punished and imprisoned the true prophets….and though the most honorable men of the earth, they banished them from their society as vagabonds, whilst they cherished, honored and supported knaves, vagabonds, hypocrites, impostors, and the basest of men.” (DHC 4: 574.)
Joseph was not just a source of new scripture, but his life conformed to the pattern of it. To study his history is to see the hand of God acting again to offer mankind the opportunity to repent and come to Him. The way never changes. The pattern never varies. Occasionally men who are initially following the law of persecuting the Lord's chosen will repent. Mostly they do not. Instead they reject what is offered, and incur the wrath of God. Joseph's life and death are testimony to this ancient, yet still intact, system of law by which men choose to be saved or damned.
Joseph explains this encounter as follows: "Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them." (JS-H 1: 21.) This theme of the false minister opposing new revelation found its way into the endowment ceremony Joseph later restored. That portion of the ceremony was eliminated in the 1990 temple changes. Before then the endowment taught how professional ministers were men in Satan's employ, but true messengers were angels, sent from God's presence with a message from God. This endowment teaching came from the actual experiences of Joseph's life, as shown above. It is repeated, of course, in the experiences of all those who follow God, are taught by angels, and opposed by professional's making their living from religion. Ultimately there must be a choice between those who come bearing a message from God and those who oppose it, and claim there can't be any such revelation, and that the organized faith they advocate (i.e., Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Catholic, etc.) is the guardian and possessor of the right to teach all truth. They claim to be the spokesmen for heaven and heaven does not really send any messengers apart from themselves. Of course it follows that those like Joseph Smith were "all of the devil" and not to be trusted.
Joseph lived this. As did Christ. The temple rites, until 1990, fortified the endowed against this particular deception of Satan's.
Joseph's history includes an observation about the reactions the religious critics had toward him. It is always the false, pseudo-religious who are offended by the truth; not the atheists or agnostics. The athiests and agnostics allow others the liberty of believing as they wish. The religious are another story. They were the ones who, throughout Joseph's life, worked against him. Ultimately it was the disaffected within the church, and the ministers outside the church, who were directly responsible for killing him.
There is a passing comment in Joseph's history which is so undeniably authentic it leaps off the page. He writes that he was "persecuted by those who ought to have been my friends and to have treated me kindly, and if they supposed me to be deluded to have endeavored in a proper and affectionate manner to have reclaimed me." (JS-H 1: 28.) Joseph is absolutely correct. The right way to proceed, if those who claimed Joseph was wrong and they were followers of God, would have been to have treated Joseph kindly, and endeavored in a proper and affectionate manner to have reclaimed him from error. But they didn't! This is a great key to understanding how the plan of God works. It conforms to a law irrevocably ordained in heaven. The false ministers cannot help themselves.
Why was it that the people claiming to be religious were persecuting Joseph rather than trying to persuade him with affectionate persuasion? It is because when men think that they have God on their side, and they do not, then they become abusive. They seek to have control, dominion and power over others in order to force the true disciples of the Lord to change and surrender faith. They abuse their position by claiming to follow God, while actually doing the opposite.
They had to follow the law of their master, Satan, who deceived them. This was because only in this manner could Joseph also obey the law ordained by God upon which blessings were predicated. For Joseph to grow, it was required for the men inspired by Satan to be revealed in their true light. They had to supress, oppose, persecute and defame Joseph because they could not "in a proper and affectionate manner" have ever reclaimed him while serving Satan. He had the truth and they did not.
Joseph "had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two Personages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was hated and persecuted for saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me falsely for so saying, I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation." (JS-H 1: 25.) Joseph was following the law ordained before the foundation of the world, and so were his critics. This is the same battle fought endlessly when God intervenes in the affairs of men.
We see the same thing when King Noah feared that Abinadi may have actually been sent by God. Noah was about to release him, but the priestly committee he surrounded himself with interfered. They aroused the vanity and pride of the king to make him angry. As a result, King Noah did not repent, and instead followed the law of the persecutor. (Mosiah 17: 11-12.) Joseph Smith lived according to law, and according to law he was persecuted. According to a higher law he was vindicated by God, though like Abinadi it required his life. We are the beneficiaries of Joseph's death. Through it the latter-day work is sealed, and will ultimately triumph. Temporary set-backs will not prevent the final return of natural fruit, and at last Zion itself.
Joseph's history is the story of how one individual obtained salvation by following the laws ordained for saving any of us. It is authentic. He shares details that conform to the same pattern all disciples of the Lord must follow. He is saved, while his persecutors who followed the law of their master, Satan, opposed the truth and were damned. It is always the case. Joseph explained: "The world always mistook false prophets for true ones, and those that were sent of God, they considered to be false prophets, and hence they killed, stoned, punished and imprisoned the true prophets….and though the most honorable men of the earth, they banished them from their society as vagabonds, whilst they cherished, honored and supported knaves, vagabonds, hypocrites, impostors, and the basest of men.” (DHC 4: 574.)
Joseph was not just a source of new scripture, but his life conformed to the pattern of it. To study his history is to see the hand of God acting again to offer mankind the opportunity to repent and come to Him. The way never changes. The pattern never varies. Occasionally men who are initially following the law of persecuting the Lord's chosen will repent. Mostly they do not. Instead they reject what is offered, and incur the wrath of God. Joseph's life and death are testimony to this ancient, yet still intact, system of law by which men choose to be saved or damned.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Ten Parables
My purpose in writing Ten Parables
was to take an ancient literary form and use it to illustrate the path back to God. It was intended to replicate the underlying meaning of the temple endowment, but without employing theatrical presentations, signs, tokens or key words. Instead the process is portrayed through parables involving characters in the stories moving from a state of disassociation with God, through understanding His attributes and manner, adopting His virtues and conduct, then back to a reconciliation with Him, at last reaching His presence by satisfying angelic sentinals and obtaining His tutelage.
was to take an ancient literary form and use it to illustrate the path back to God. It was intended to replicate the underlying meaning of the temple endowment, but without employing theatrical presentations, signs, tokens or key words. Instead the process is portrayed through parables involving characters in the stories moving from a state of disassociation with God, through understanding His attributes and manner, adopting His virtues and conduct, then back to a reconciliation with Him, at last reaching His presence by satisfying angelic sentinals and obtaining His tutelage. The book is actually only one story: the process of redemption. It was written to be readable in the same time as it would take to attend a temple endowment session. However, its meaning can take many days of reflection to fully unlock. It is intended to provoke action or changes within the reader who sees the messages.
Some people have seen the value of that little book and, as a consequence, have gained some considerable benefits in their own search into the mysteries of godliness. Others have regarded it as nothing more than a little story book, and I suppose gained varying degrees of entertainment from it.
We are all entitled to see as much or as little as we choose to see. That is the beauty of communications that employ symbols. It does not force the listener to understand a thing. It only invites.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Remnant, part III
To understand our own history and prophecies, we have to look at the events taking place during the time of the revelations. The composition of people and geography were dynamic, and changing. They were anything but static. So when you look at events at a specific moment in time, you have to look at the composition of the land and people to understand what was occurring. If you miss it by a decade, you miss what was revealed.
From the beginning of the United States the Indians were a political problem in need of a solution for both State and Federal government. Various conflicts and battles resulted in temporary solutions. By the time we reach the end of the 1820's, a more general solution was needed. Andrew Jackson came to office with a plan to deal with the problem.
From the beginning of the United States the Indians were a political problem in need of a solution for both State and Federal government. Various conflicts and battles resulted in temporary solutions. By the time we reach the end of the 1820's, a more general solution was needed. Andrew Jackson came to office with a plan to deal with the problem.
Andrew Jackson wanted the Indians removed from the eastern portion of the United States, from Maine to Florida and from the Atlantic to the Mississippi. He wanted them all relocated. Congress responded and passed the Indian Relocation Act of 1830, forcibly removing all Native Americans to the area owned by the United States and acquired from France in the Louisiana Purchase. The land used for the relocation was just beyond the western border of Missouri. In fact, the border town of Independence was located immediately adjacent to, and in the center of the relocated Indian tribes. You couldn't get any closer, and you couldn't be any more in the center than in Independence, Missouri.
Joseph Smith, expressing that “one of the most important points in the faith of the Church of the Latter-day Saints . . . is the gathering of Israel (of whom the Lamanites constitute a part)” seemed pleased that the American government was assisting in a gathering of the Lamanites, anticipating that it would facilitate their reception of the gospel. He even included in his history a positive statement expressing President Jackson’s views on the Native Americans (History of the Church 2:357–60).
By 1831, after the relocation was well underway, the closest a white man could get to the Indians was Independence, Missouri. When you left Independence heading west, you would encounter the line dividing the land and establishing the territory the Federal Government exercised control over for the benefit of the tribes located there. It was for this reason the revelation given in 1831 refers to the "line running directly between Jew and Gentile." (D&C 57: 4.) The "Jew" being the American Indian tribes located across the border, and the "gentile" being the Americans, including the LDS missionaries at the time.
In 1830 the first missionary to the "Lamanites" was called. Oliver Cowdery was told, among other things, the following: "And now, behold, I say unto you that you shall go unto the Lamanites and preach my gospel unto them; and inasmuch as they receive thy teachings thou shalt cause my church to be established among them; and thou shalt have revelations, but write them not by way of commandment. And now, behold, I say unto you that it is not revealed, and no man knoweth where the city Zion shall be built, but it shall be given hereafter. Behold, I say unto you that it shall be on the borders by the Lamanites." (D&C 28: 8-9.)
Later the same month, Peter Whitmer was told to join Oliver in this first mission to the Lamanites. That revelation states: "Behold, I say unto you, Peter, that you shall take your journey with your brother Oliver; for the time has come that it is expedient in me that you shall open your mouth to declare my gospel; therefore, fear not, but give heed unto the words and advice of your brother, which he shall give you. And be you afflicted in all his afflictions, ever lifting up your heart unto me in prayer and faith, for his and your deliverance; for I have given unto him power to build up my church among the Lamanites;" (D&C 30: 5-6). Both Oliver and Peter Whitmer were assigned to find these Lamanites, preach the Gospel, and at some point a place where the city of Zion would be built would be revealed. So the Lamanite conversion and revealing of the city of Zion were to happen together. The remnant being required for Zion to be built.
You will recall we discussed earlier how the gentiles will only "assist" in building the city. The remnant will do most of the work. (3 Nephi 21: 23, discussed already.) So this mission was to locate the relevant group, and also locate the relevant spot where the remnant would construct the city of Zion.
In addition to Oliver and Peter, Parley Pratt and Ziba Peterson were called to serve this same mission. They went to Indians in New York, passed through Kirtland, and wound up in Independence at the end of the journey some time later. The Kirtland detour resulted in a large conversion, including Sidney Rigdon. Kirtland was the largest LDS congregation.
Well, the asides are interesting, but the point is that the search for Lamanites began in New York, and moved along until its end in a location center of the relocated tribes. It is immediately next to the boundary separating the Indians and whites, or in the language of revelation, "the Jews and gentiles."
By the following year, Joseph came to visit the area. With the large relocated group of Lamanite nations across the border, and Independence the site from which all of them could be reached, Joseph received this revelation in July, 1831: "Hearken, O ye elders of my church, saith the Lord your God, who have assembled yourselves together, according to my commandments, in this land, which is the land of Missouri, which is the land which I have appointed and consecrated for the gathering of the saints. Wherefore, this is the land of promise, and the place for the city of Zion. And thus saith the Lord your God, if you will receive wisdom here is wisdom. Behold, the place which is now called Independence is the center place; and a spot for the temple is lying westward, upon a lot which is not far from the courthouse. Wherefore, it is wisdom that the land should be purchased by the saints, and also every tract lying westward, even unto the line running directly between Jew and Gentile; And also every tract bordering by the prairies, inasmuch as my disciples are enabled to buy lands. Behold, this is wisdom, that they may obtain it for an everlasting inheritance." (D&C 57: 1-5.)
At that moment in time we had everything in one convenient place. A land to build Zion, the remnant next door, central location, approval from God, and the permission to proceed with establishing a temple.
People, places, opportunities and events would all change between the early 1830's and the mid 1840's. Dramatically. And so we will follow a few of those events and the accompanying revelations which reflect the dynamic changes among both the Saints and the Lamanites.
Friday, August 27, 2010
2 Nephi 31: 16
"And now, my beloved brethren, I know by this that unless a man shall endure to the end, in following the example of the Son of the living God, he cannot be saved."
What does it mean to "endure to the end?" It is to put up with all the difficulties of mortality? Are we simply supposed to overcome boredom, irritation, trials of our patience, and the offenses caused by others? Is that what it means to "endure?"
What about "endure to the end in following the example of the Son of the living God?" Is that something different?
What if you see errors and mistakes all around you? Is it "enduring" to keep your mouth shut? Do you need to speak up?
What about the changes that have been made or are being made which alarm you? Is it "enduring" to stay silent in the face of things that suggest this is harmful?
When I first went through the Temple, it was the understood and longstanding practice of the Saints to hold prayer circles in their homes, invoking the "True Order of Prayer" as taught in the Temple. President Kimball sent a letter to the Stake Presidents terminating that practice. I have a copy of that letter. It said that prayer circles were no longer to be practiced outside the Temple - by anyone in the church.
Then in 1990 the True Order of Prayer was altered again, with the elimination of penalties. Thereafter the name changed to the "Order of Prayer," rather than the "True Order of Prayer."
Those who went through the Temple before 1990 would know about how to conduct a prayer circle involving the True Order of Prayer. But they were instructed not to do so outside the Temple. Those who went through after 1990 would not know how to conduct a True Order of Prayer circle, because they were not instructed in the Temple in anything other than the Order of Prayer.
It was still possible for those who knew the pre-1990 form to communicate the process in the Temple to others. However, recently there has begun a practice of hushing any discussions seen taking place inside the Celestial Rooms of the Temples.
It is as if those who are in control are opposed to keeping the earlier information, and working to keep it from being preserved by others. Is it "enduring to the end" to watch these changes and say nothing? Or is it "enduring" to actually endure, to preserve, to persevere against opposition and to keep as an enduring feature of the faith, information you received if you went through the Temple before 1990? Does a person who, in all sincerity before God, believes that Isaiah's prophecy warned against this (Isa. 24: 5), "endure" if he remains silent? Or must he speak up? If so, how and to who? Which is enduring? Which is enduring to the end in following the example of the Son of the Living God? What example did Christ set in relation to this kind of a conflict? Did Christ submit, or resist authority? If He did both, how does one endure while appropriately weighing those things they will submit to, and those things they will resist?
What about Nephi's warning that you "cannot be saved" if you fail to do the right kind of "enduring" to the end? If salvation itself hinges upon solving this riddle, then how carefully must you weigh what you resist and what you submit to?
It is for this reason we work out our salvation before God as Nephi has explained, acting no hypocrisy, with real intent, having faith in God, but also with fear and trembling. (Mormon 9: 27, also Philip. 2: 12.)
Indeed, God has given us a test worthy of a God. And only those worthy of becoming among the gods will be able to solve the riddle. Because only they will humble themselves, come with a contrite spirit and broken heart to offer upon the altar a sacrifice worthy of being accepted. Others will proceed in ignorance and arrogance to proudly proclaim: "I know my culture is true!" "I know all is well in Zion!" "I follow a broad and safe mainstream into a great and spacious building where there is peace, pride, success, prosperity and assurance that I am saved while all around me there are those who will be cast down to hell!" Or similar such nonsense... Warmed over Evangelical gibberish, with a vague Mormonesque vocabulary applied to it. Having a form of godliness, but without power. This new form of ungodliness will not be lacking in body, parts and passions, for the image of the idol raised will be the very image of the person looking in the mirror. They will think themselves destined to rule and reign over principalities, dominions, heights, depths and others. They are their own idols! What irony it all invokes! It must make the devil look up to heaven and laugh still. (Moses 7: 26.) Perhaps we ought to see some humor in it as well. ...Or, since we're speaking of the loss of men's souls, maybe it can never be humorous. Only tragedy. Only disappointment. Only foolishness.
Where is the hope? Is there none? Yes, in repentance! Changing our course! Remembering God again! Restoring what has been lost! Returning and repenting! That's right! And Nephi has invited us to do just that.
So "enduring to the end in following the example of the Son of the living God" is not easy. Even understanding the meaning of these words is challenging. Thank you Nephi. You have proven yet again how prayerful we all must be. Let us, therefore, repent!
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
2 Nephi 28: 9
"Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark."
The alarming use of the word "many" suggests this is to be a widespread problem in our time. These teachings are denounced as "false and vain and foolish." We should look at each:
What does "false" mean? Does something have to be thoroughly and completely wrong to be false? Is it enough to be off by enough to rob the teaching of power? How many truths will a liar tell while trying to get you to believe an ultimate lie? How well does a deception work if there isn't some truth included in the message? So, then, how difficult will detecting the error be? May the very elect be deceived? (Matt. 24: 24, see also JS-M 1: 22.) How will one be able to decide between a false and a true teaching? (Moroni 10: 5.)
What does "vain" mean? Is the best meaning "futile" or "without power?" If a teaching robs you of power, deprives you of the Spirit, is that "vain?" What would you trade in exchange for having power in the Spirit? If a little flattery is enough, would you take the assurance that God loves you, and will never let you be deceived enough to get you to let go of the responsibility to ever have His Spirit to be with you? (Moroni 5: 2.) If the current President of the Quorum of the Twelve has lamented our lack of power, is it really a lament about our vain beliefs? If so, what can you do about it? How can you avoid having your faith become vain?
What does "foolish" mean? Would something that is so poorly based, so weak and powerless to save, and utterly false be foolish? What about trusting a man to save you, rather than the Lord? What about the notion that there is a man who will be perfectly unable to ever lead you astray? How foolish is it to trust your salvation to the inerrancy of a man?
What kind of a heart is "puffed up?" How would these false, vain and foolish doctrines result in a proud following? Why would they think themselves better than they are because of these doctrines?
What does it mean to "seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord?" What does it mean to "seek deeply?" What foolish men would think they could ever "hide their counsel from the Lord?" Who would believe that God would be bound to follow what a man dictates--because they have keys to bind Him-- rather than recognizing that the Lord alone holds all authority to judge and will alone determine all judgment? (See 3 Ne. 27: 27.) How foolish is it to become a sycophant of priestly pretenders, hoping that they will save you in the day of judgment? Will appeasing an LDS authority be of any more value than kissing a Cardinal's ring when you are standing before the Lion of Israel to be judged? How well will the vain ceremonies and guarded conspiracies work in the day when everything is shouted from the rooftops?
What does it mean to have "works" which "shall be in the dark?" Does this just mean hidden? Does "darkness" also include the quality of the works? What kinds of work are "dark?" Can obliterating part of a sacred ceremony remove light and replace it with dark? Does curtailing the Saints' ability to discuss true principles, exercising control and dominion and compulsion to prevent knowledge from spreading all contribute to darkness in the minds of the Saints?
When is the last time you were encouraged in the Temple to understand and discuss the meaning of the Temple ceremonies? When was the last time you were told NOT to discuss the Temple meaning inside the Temple? If you can't discuss it inside the Temple, and you covenanted not to discuss it outside the Temple, then where can you discuss its meaning? How will you learn if you are unable to share ideas about the symbols and their meaning? Is it "dark" when the light of teaching is closed to view?
I don't know if any of you recall that Hugh Nibley was given access to the chapel in the Provo Temple to speak to waiting patrons about the meaning of the Temple for a number of years. While waiting for a session to begin, patrons could listen to and ask questions of Hugh Nibley in an atmosphere of sharing and getting answers. Today, in contrast, they discourage you from discussing anything about the Temple even inside the Temple. I refer to an incident in the Jordan River Temple in The Second Comforter. I was told to not discuss meanings while in the Celestial Room speaking with full time missionaries assigned to my stake. I presided over the missionary work of the stake and worked closely with these wonderful young men. But I was told to stop teaching them. This is common today. It ought to end. We will only understand sacred symbols if we are able to teach one another about what we have learned. When I think of the library of material I have had to get through to be able to understand, I am left to wonder at how difficult the process has been made for those who would sincerely and humbly like to seek after further light and knowledge by teaching one another.
We should welcome as much light and truth in our exchanges with one another as we have to offer; in the right setting and with the right Spirit. It is not casting pearls before swine when the audience is prepared, worthy and interested in obtaining knowledge for the right reason. Now even if you have the very best of audiences, in the most sacred setting, we are told to not discuss what may be of vital interest to a soul seeking to gain further light and knowledge by conversing with the Lord through the veil.
How little discarding of light must one cause before they are doing "works in the dark?" It is such a terrible question with such fearful results that I would hesitate to be the one who limits the Saints' ability to seek into truth.
Now, to balance things somewhat, I want to affirm several fundamental truths:
-We are accountable for our own search into the truth.
-No one can limit you if you are searching with real intent having a contrite spirit and broken heart.
-There is no conflict between fulfilling your duties to the church on the one hand and your responsibilities to the Lord on the other.
-You cannot blame anyone else if you have not been diligent about your own search.
-In the end, whether there is active opposition or active assistance provided to you, it is necessary for you to make the internal changes and to follow the path.
No outside party will control what is yours alone to control. But the first step to be taken is to realize you really are personally responsible. You can't depend on others nor on an institution to do the work for you. But as you awaken to that recognition, you should not lose heart or become discouraged. Nothing has been lost collectively which you may not still lay claim upon for yourself.
No outside party will control what is yours alone to control. But the first step to be taken is to realize you really are personally responsible. You can't depend on others nor on an institution to do the work for you. But as you awaken to that recognition, you should not lose heart or become discouraged. Nothing has been lost collectively which you may not still lay claim upon for yourself.
I do think we could make a greater overall gentile success with a different, more benign attitude as a group. But even if you must work against a corrosive environment, you can still do it. You have the greatest tool in your hands. You truly can get closer to the Lord through the Book of Mormon than any other means. It is a guidebook written for us and for now.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
1 Nephi 14: 6
"Therefore, wo be unto the Gentiles if it so be that they harden their hearts against the Lamb of God."
Interestingly, rather than shouting out in rejoicing that all who repent will escape punishment, the angel instead pronounces a "wo" upon the gentiles. It is almost as if the future of the gentile conduct inspires nothing but pessimism for the angel. It inspires another warning and condemnation for the gentiles who, having received the Book of Mormon and other sacred writings, are then fully responsible to repent.
Notice that the relationship is between the "Lamb of God" and the gentiles. It is not between the gentiles and "leaders" or "prophets" or "administrators" or "general authorities" or even messengers. It is between the gentiles and "the Lamb of God."
Why that specific a relationship? Why is it exclusively between the individual and Christ?
Read again the description of the Telestial folk who return "worlds without end" to their condemnation: "And the glory of the telestial is one, even as the glory of the stars is one; for as one star differs from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in glory in the telestial world; For these are they who are of Paul, and of Apollos, and of Cephas. These are they who say they are some of one and some of another—some of Christ and some of John, and some of Moses, and some of Elias, and some of Esaias, and some of Isaiah, and some of Enoch; But received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets, neither the everlasting covenant." (D&C 76: 98-101.)
From what you've now learned can you see how one might follow even a true messenger but fail to gain "the testimony of Jesus?"
Can you now understand why, although you have followed messengers, you may have not in fact received the "everlasting covenant?"
The Temple is a type and shadow. It is a symbol of the real thing, but it is not the real thing. The "everlasting covenant" is taught there. But to gain it you must receive it through "the testimony of Jesus." Is this "testimony of Jesus" yours? Of is it rather Jesus testifying to you? If it is He testifying to you, then what must His testimony be?
In light of that does it mean then to "harden your hearts against the Lamb of God?" As you answer that, keep in mind His formula in D&C 93: 1: "Verily, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my face and know that I am." Here Christ is but reiterating the message of the Book of Mormon.
Then how do you repent? I was asked about idolatry among the Saints. Anything that separates you from the Lamb of God is an idol. Cast it aside and come to Him. Why we have idols between us and the Lord is as different as one person is from another. Almost without exception, it comes as a result of a false tradition handed down. Your false traditions are based on your life's experiences while another's false traditions are based on theirs. No matter what they are or how they were acquired, whatever separates Christ from you must be set aside. Come to HIM. Not to me or any other. Only He can save you.
No wonder that after making great promises to the gentiles, if they will but repent, the angel cries out "wo be unto the Gentiles!" They won't receive: 1) the Gospel, neither 2) the testimony of Jesus, neither 3) the prophets sent to warn them and the message given to them, neither 4) the everlasting covenant offered to them.
Will you?
Friday, April 2, 2010
Various Creation Accounts
There are different versions of the creation. The Moses, Abraham and Genesis accouts are similar in putting Adam alone at the point when the commandment was given to not partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The Temple account does not preserve this.
All the accounts are intended as initiation ceremonies. In the Abraham account, for example, there are directions given to the players who perform the ceremony. They are all "endowment" documents.
Each ceremony can be viewed as a separate revelation. The fact that there are differences means nothing. All of them are intended to highlight or emphasize different teachings. It is foolish to ask "which one is right" because they are all right.
The creation (or transplant of man onto this world) is not really the reason for the various ceremonial accounts of the event. They are intended to orient us to how we got here (by a deliberate, planned act of God), why were are here (to find our way back to God) and why conditions here are difficult (to gain knowledge of good and evil). The accounts are really about us. Each of us was born innocent in the beginning, gradually become accountable, feel ourselves outside the presence of God, and must work to return.
All the accounts are intended as initiation ceremonies. In the Abraham account, for example, there are directions given to the players who perform the ceremony. They are all "endowment" documents.
Each ceremony can be viewed as a separate revelation. The fact that there are differences means nothing. All of them are intended to highlight or emphasize different teachings. It is foolish to ask "which one is right" because they are all right.
The creation (or transplant of man onto this world) is not really the reason for the various ceremonial accounts of the event. They are intended to orient us to how we got here (by a deliberate, planned act of God), why were are here (to find our way back to God) and why conditions here are difficult (to gain knowledge of good and evil). The accounts are really about us. Each of us was born innocent in the beginning, gradually become accountable, feel ourselves outside the presence of God, and must work to return.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Twelve Oxen
The Temple of Solomon had a "sea" for washings of the priests. The description of that "sea" is found in 1 Kings 7: 23-26. Significantly the "sea" sat upon the backs of twelve oxen. (verse 25.) Three were facing north, three facing west, three facing south, and three facing east.
In the time of the First Temple, these twelve oxen foreshadowed the scattering of Israel to the four corners of the earth. The destruction of the First Temple completed the scattering, which began at the death of Solomon, who was responsible the construction of the First Temple. When he died, the kingdom was divided north and south. The northern kingdom contained ten tribes, which would be taken into Assyrian captivity at about 725 b.c., and then be lost to history as they scattered northward. The remaining two tribes of the south were taken captive by Babylon at 600 b.c., and then a "remnant" returned. They were finally dispossessed of their land at 70 a.d. by the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, and scattered throughout the Roman Empire.
We also build fonts in Temples with twelve oxen bearing the font of water used for baptisms for the dead. These twelve oxen are also divided into groups of three facing north, west, south and east. Now, however, the oxen signify the gathering of scattered Israel. They also signify by their number, three, the concept of presidency or organization under restored priestly authority. The circle of twelve also are a symbol of restored, reorganized Israel in the latter-days to once again exist as a united people upon the earth.
In the time of the First Temple, these twelve oxen foreshadowed the scattering of Israel to the four corners of the earth. The destruction of the First Temple completed the scattering, which began at the death of Solomon, who was responsible the construction of the First Temple. When he died, the kingdom was divided north and south. The northern kingdom contained ten tribes, which would be taken into Assyrian captivity at about 725 b.c., and then be lost to history as they scattered northward. The remaining two tribes of the south were taken captive by Babylon at 600 b.c., and then a "remnant" returned. They were finally dispossessed of their land at 70 a.d. by the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, and scattered throughout the Roman Empire.
We also build fonts in Temples with twelve oxen bearing the font of water used for baptisms for the dead. These twelve oxen are also divided into groups of three facing north, west, south and east. Now, however, the oxen signify the gathering of scattered Israel. They also signify by their number, three, the concept of presidency or organization under restored priestly authority. The circle of twelve also are a symbol of restored, reorganized Israel in the latter-days to once again exist as a united people upon the earth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)