Selections from the Book of Moses

Selections from the Book of Moses contains 8 chapters in the PofGP.  It starts with the Moses encountering God “when Moses was caught up into an exceedingly high mountain…” (Moses 1:1). This encounter and the subsequent revelations and visions received by Moses fit in the Book of Exodus Chapter 19 starting at verse 3. The chapter documents three separate visits (v3 to v6, v8 to v13 and v20 to v24) that Moses had with “the Lord,” presumed to be Jehovah rather than Heavenly Father even though the Hebrew word Elohim is used in the beginning of verse 3. All subsequent references are to Jehovah.

The chapters of the Book of Moses do not indicated separate encounters.

The remaining chapters describe God’s revealing to Moses:

• The entire creation story
• How Satan become the devil
• The fall of Adam and Eve
• The story of Cain and Abel
• The story of Enoch and the City of Enoch
• Noah and the preparation before the flood.

As well as these key gospel principles:

• The role and mission of Jesus Christ.
• The role of Satan.
• How the fall of Adam effects mankind
• The nature of man.
• Gospel of Jesus Christ was taught in the beginning.
• God’s ways versus man’s ways.
• The priesthood.
• Covenants.

The Selections from the Book of Moses are the replacement for the beginning chapters of Genesis in the JST. But, in the PofGP, the story ends rather abruptly at Chapter 8:30 with “And God said unto Noah: The end of all flesh is come before me, for the earth is filled with violence, and behold I will destroy all flesh from off the earth.”

This corresponding spot in Genesis is Gen 6:13. Why did it end there?

Well, according to Alan K. Parrish writing in “Studies in Scripture, Vol. 2: The Pearl of Great Price” edited by Robert L. Millet, Kent P. Jackson,

“Under the direction of Elder Orson Pratt, the 1878 committee assigned to revise the Pearl of Great Price for the general church membership used the 1867 edition of the Inspired Version of the Holy Scriptures, published by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It was necessary to bring the Moses material to an end at some point. The flood, being so extensive an act, seemed to provide a convenient termination point.”

So, basically “we had to stop somewhere.”  If you have a copy of the JST (published by the RLDS, now Community of Christ), you will find that there are more changes made to the remainder of the Genesis account. The LDS edition of the Bible has most of them as footnotes or in the back under the JST section.

One of the interesting changes that Joseph Smith made was covered in a recent lesson.

The Genesis account of the story of Rebekah and Isaac has the servant of Abraham putting his hand under the thigh of Abraham as part of an oath taking to accomplish the mission of finding Isaac a wife.  (Gen 24:2). The JST corrects that to say “hand” instead of thigh (As in: “Put forth I pray thee thy hand under my hand.” JST Gen 24:2). Which makes sense except for the fact that “Israel says to Joseph exactly what Abraham says to Eliezer, “Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh.” (Genesis 47:29) Perhaps the idea was for Abraham to hold Eliezer’s hand under his hand and against his thigh.”  Joseph Smith did not “correct” that verse.

“The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible says the purpose of this custom was to relate the oath-taker to the source of life in the other person. Given the nature of Eliezer’s task, this must have been an appropriate way to swear the oath: Eliezer was to make a journey to see that Abraham would have descendants under the covenant.” (Sandra Packard, Dennis Packard, Feasting upon the Word, 1981, from Gospellink.com)

The Book of Abraham

Many, many things have been written about the Book of Abraham and its origin, so I’ll not rehash them here.  Except to point out that the Book of Abraham is purported to be a translation of Papyri acquired by Joseph Smith in 1835.  Published in the Times and Seasons for March 5, 1842 (vol. 3, p. 704) was “A translation of some ancient Records, from the Catacombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand upon papyrus.” These writings were included as part of the Pearl of Great Price, which was canonized as Scripture by the common consent of the church in General Conference on October 10, 1880. The phrase “purported to be” was removed.

The Book of Abraham, consisting of 5 chapters, contains the writings of the Prophet Abraham while he was in Egypt and, much as the Book of Moses does, documents Abraham’s direct encounters with God and what was revealed to him by God. The first Chapter chronicles Abraham’s journey from Ur of Chaldea, the land of his birth to Haran. Chapters 2 through 5 documents Abraham visits with Jehovah and his learning about the creation of the world up through Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

The Book of Abraham adds to the LDS canon of scripture and gospel principles in the following ways:

• Premortal Councils held
• Foreordination
• Nature of Premortal Spirits
• The Heavens, including the concept of Kolob and the relationship to Christ
• The concept that God had a Father

The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible

Beginning in June of 1830, Joseph Smith began a project to revise portions of the King James Version of the Bible to restore “plain and precious things taken away.” (1 Nephi 13:28). The motivation for this work was largely gained through the work of translation of the Book of Mormon and Joseph’s encounters with prophets like Moroni, whose recitations of various scriptural verses were different than the rendering in the KJV version of the Bible.

Starting with the first chapter of Genesis, moving though both the Old and New Testaments, the Prophet provided embellishments, corrections, word changes and even some significant additions to the Bible. (See Joseph Smith-Mathew and Book of Moses in the PofGP). The translation efforts culminated in 1833.  But it appears that Joseph continued revisions up to his death in June of 1844. The Prophet used his translations of the Bible in the Lectures on Faith as well as publishing excerpts in the “Evening and Morning Star” and “Times and Seasons.”

The JST has never been formally published by the LDS Church has Church leaders were convinced that Joseph had not finished the work on the scriptures.

However, the RLDS (now, CofC) published the JST in 1867 as “The Holy Scriptures.” Subsequent editions included the words “Inspired Version.” The latest edition, published in 1974 is thought to be the most accurate.

The LDS Church did incorporate the JST into its own edition of the KJV published in 1979 using footnotes where a few words were changed or added, and an extended JST section in the rear of the Bible for longer passages. The Book of Moses and Joseph Smith – Matthew remained in the PofGP.

Process of Translation

Joseph Smith was not schooled in ancient languages or possessed early manuscripts of the scriptures. He did have the Egyptian Papyri and the gold plates of the Book of Mormon. So just how did he translate (which is the word used most often) these ancient records and produce the PofGP books and the JST?

According to the preface to the Book of Mormon, it was “To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof… The interpretation thereof by the gift of God.“ (Preface Title Page 1).

In spite of having the physical plates in his presence and, in spite of paintings and pictures drawn to the contrary, Joseph did not “translate” the book as we would understand the translation process. It was by revelation and by the “gift and power of God.”

The same is true of the other books we are discussing as well as the revelations given in the Doctrine and Covenants. They were given to Joseph through revelation, not by scholarly translation. Even the Book of Abraham was given in this manner. The Prophet never fully explained how he received these translations, but we can surmise it was in the manner after the Book of Mormon.

One of the most troubling aspects for some critics of the Church is to understand this concept as it applies to the Book of Abraham. Since the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York discovered some of the Papyri reported to have belonged to Joseph Smith, critics have hammered away at the authenticity of the Book of Abraham since the fragments found did not represent the same text as the Book of Abraham. According to the Church Press Release at the time (November 27, 1967), “The collection presented to the Church today is only a part of the papyri which Joseph Smith had in his possession. “ The remainder was presumed lost in the Great Chicago fire of 1871.

The bottom line is this, it all comes down to the belief that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God or not. If he was a Prophet and able to receive revelation from God and thus able to provide these revelations and scriptures, then we should be satisfied it comes from God and is authentic.

If we don’t believe that Joseph was a Prophet, then all bets are off as to the value of these additional scriptures at all.

One of the beautiful things about the Old Testament and also one of the most frustrating is its use of symbols, types and shadows,  signs,  and tokens.  It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words and the same can be true of a symbol or type.  A symbol can represent something that is often hard to explain or cannot be expressed in a small amount of words.

Our entire life is full of symbols and other devices to represent an idea, or even a rule.  Symbols like the $, £ or € are readily identified as types of money.  Others, such as: ©, §, ™ each has a special meaning, which we might recognize,  but would require a long explanation to fully understand it. Others still, like traffic signs are very obvious like a STOP sign, but others such as the one pictured here, need training to understand what it means and how we are to use it.

And so it is with the symbols, types and shadows, signs and tokens of the Gospels. A general rule that might be applied, as described in 2 Nephi 11:4 is that all things typify of Christ.  In other words, all things somehow point to Jesus Christ. Our task is to figure out how.

So just what are symbols, types and shadows, signs,  and tokens.

Symbols – According to The Merriam-Webster Dictionary a symbol is: ”an authoritative summary of faith or doctrine: or 2 : something that stands for or suggests something else by reason of relationship, association, convention, or accidental resemblance. “

“Symbols are teaching devices. Symbols are the language in which all gospel covenants and all ordinances of salvation have been revealed. From the time we are immersed in the waters of baptism to the time we kneel at the altar of the temple with the companion of our choice in the ordinance of eternal marriage, every covenant we make will be written in the language of symbolism.”  (Donald W. Parry, Joseph Fielding McConkie, Guide to Scriptural Symbols, 1990 Page 1)

Examples of Gospel Symbols

Noah’s Ark is a symbol of the Savior Jesus Christ because for Noah’s family and mankind from that point forward, it was the Ark that figuratively saved them from destruction in much the same way as the Savior saves us from eternal destruction.

The Arm is a symbol of power and strength, such as:

“With him is an arm of flesh; but with us is the LORD our God to help us, and to fight our battles.  And the people rested themselves upon the words of Hezekiah king of Judah. (2 Chronicles 32:8)”

The Passover is rich with symbols such as the unleavened bread, the Matzah, which reminds us of the haste in which the Israelites left their captivity and the sweetness of freedom. The Bitter Herbs, which reminds us of the bitterness of slavery and the bitterness of sin and finally, the unblemished firstborn Lamb, sacrificed for freedom,  a symbol of Jesus Christ, the greatest sacrifice of all who frees us from sin and brings us freedom through repentance.

Types and shadows – “a person or thing (as in the Old Testament) believed to foreshadow another (as in the New Testament)” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/type). A type can be a person, an event or a place or location. (Alonzo L. Gaskill, The Lost Language of Symbolism, Salt Lake City 2003)

Examples of Types and Shadows

People – There are a significant number of examples where people are types for others, mainly the Savior.  Adam, Enoch, Noah, Moses, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and David, etc. are all types for Jesus Christ, for example. Cain is a type for Satan/Lucifer. The story of Esau and Jacob has Esau as a type for the old Covenant and Jacob representing the Gospel of Jesus Christ or the new Covenant.

Events- the Renting of the Veil typifies the ability for us to return to Our Heavenly Father and our new found access to Him though the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

Place or Location – Kolob is a place that typifies Jesus Christ.

“And I saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it;

And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.” (Abraham 3:2 – 3)

Jesus stands next to the Father and is certainly one of the great ones. And at the Father’s right hand, He is the nearest to Him.

Signs – “something material or external that stands for or signifies something spiritual or  something indicating the presence or existence of something else.”  ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sign)  Signs are typically given to show or warn the people of, a future event. The sign can mark a good event or a bad event. The most common usage for signs is to inform the people of the impending Savior’s birth, or to describe how the last days before the second coming of Christ will play themselves out (i.e. the Signs of the Times).

Examples of Signs

The birth of the Savior – “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14)

To show the power of God – “And thou shalt take this rod in thine hand, wherewith thou shalt do signs.” (Exodus 4:17)

Keeping the Sabbath Day Holy – “Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, Verily my sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the LORD that doth sanctify you. Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.” (Exodus 31:13 – 14)

Token – an outward sign or expression (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/token) The token is usually a physical thing that represents a covenant between God and man or the sealing of a covenant between God and man.

Examples of Tokens

The rainbow – After the Flood, The Lord told Noah, “This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.” (Genesis 9:12 – 13)

Circumcision – And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. (Genesis 17:11). This token was done away with by the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

The blood on the door post during the Passover – The Lord instructed the Israelites to take the blood of the lamb and apply it to their door post as a token of their obedience to the Lord’s instructions. Did the Angel of death or the Lord need the blood on the door to identify the faithful?  Of course not. But the Israelites needed to do it to show their obedience.

“And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 12:13)

These are but a small example of the symbols, types and shadows, signs and tokens contained in the Old Testament. As you study them, please keep in mind these guidelines given by Gerald Lund in the Book, “Literature of Belief: Sacred Scripture and Religious Experience,” edited by Neal A. Lambert:

1.   Look beyond the symbol for its intended meaning.

2.   Look for the interpretation of the symbol in the scriptures themselves.

3.   Look for Christ in the symbols and imagery of the scriptures.

4.   Let the nature of the object used as a symbol contribute to your understanding of its spiritual meaning.

5.   Seek the reality behind the symbol.

In D&C 86: 1- 7, the Lord gives the interpretation of that parable. He states that in the last days, the separation of the Wheat from the Tares will occur.

It appears to indicate that this sifting occurs during the judgment period.

But with more than 2/3’s of the Church inactive, and many people leaving the Church altogether, is the Wheat being separated from the Tares now?

Not only are middle initials used when referring to the leaders of the Church, one cannot even say the names without the middle initials. It just doesn’t sound right.   Gordon Hinckley, Russell Ballard, Reuben Clark? In some cases,the first name is not even used just the initial, probably to distinguish a son from his father.

Many of the early leaders of the Church didn’t have middle names, like Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Lorenzo Snow, Wilford Woodruff, Hyrum Smith, to name a few. But, then again, some did.  Heber C. (Chase) Kimball, John W. (Willard) Young, George Q. (Quayle) Cannon and George A. (Albert) Smith, for example.

In some case, it is understandably necessary to distinguish one person from another. Joseph F. Smith, for example, not to confuse him with his uncle, Joseph Smith, and Joseph Felding Smith, not to confuse him with his father, Joseph F. Smith.

In some case, leaders used their entire name, Ezra Taft Benson, George Albert Smith.

And what is wrong with perfectly good names like Nathan (N. Eldon Tanner), Joshua (Joshua Reuben Clark) or Melvin (M. Russell Ballard). Ok, maybe Melvin.

Why the rest then?  We would know who Gordon Hinckley is/was without the B (Bitner)?  Thomas Monson with the S (Spencer)?

What is strange to me is that not only do we all know the full names with the initials, in many cases, even what the initials stand for.

Any ideas as to why we do this?

The Latter Day Prophet Song

“And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that they did prosper in the land; and I beheld a book, and it was carried forth among them. And the angel said unto me: Knowest thou the meaning of the book? And I said unto him: I know not. And he said: Behold it proceedeth out of the mouth of a Jew. And I, Nephi, beheld it; and he said unto me: The book that thou beholdest is a record of the Jews, which contains the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; and it also containeth many of the prophecies of the holy prophets; and it is a record like unto the engravings which are upon the plates of brass, save there are not so many; nevertheless, they contain the covenants of the Lord, which he hath made unto the house of Israel; wherefore, they are of great worth unto the Gentiles.

And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God. Wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God. And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.

And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men. Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.  And after these plain and precious things were taken away it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, thou seest—because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God—because of these things which are taken away out of the gospel of the Lamb, an exceedingly great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them.” (1 Nephi 13:20 – 29)

If you ask most members of the Church whether the Old Testament had “plain and precious things” missing from its pages, I aspect many of them would answer “yes.”  And certainly the passages from 1 Nephi clearly state this.  However, Nephi and Joseph Smith in Article of Faith 8 are referring to the whole Bible and not just the Old Testament.

So the question I ask myself is just when, where and how did this “removal” take place? If it happened, was it deliberate, by accident, lost in translation or just lost? And was it an actually removal of text or just changes in gospel principles?

Here a few ways to think about this topic.

1. Loss of Gospel Truth

Rather than view this situation as a removal of text from the scriptures, one can think of it as a loss of Gospel truth.  Since the death of the Apostles a great apostasy occurred, as Talmage writes, “from the Church and of the Church.” (Great Apostasy, page 23). Not only was priesthood authority lost, but “we find the Church itself apostate, boasting of temporal power, making its own laws, teaching its own dogmas, preserving only a form of godliness, while denying the power thereof.” (page 23)

In this condition, many gospel truths, such as the true nature of God, clearly a plain and precious truth, were lost until the restoration of the Gospel by Joseph Smith.

2. Missing Books

The Old and New Testament and the Book of Mormon all reference books of scriptures not found in the canons.  These books, were deliberately not included, not available at the time of canon creation or just plain lost.  Here are some examples:

Old Testament

New Testament

Book of Mormon

Now it would naïve to think that these books carried the “fullness of the Gospel” and the exclusion of them is the reason why “plain and precious things” were lost. These books could have carried some of those things, but does not seem to fully explain a total loss.

3. Deliberate Removal of the “Plain and Precious Things”

I suspect a number of folks subscribe to this theory that “…in consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, “(D&C 89:4), some deliberately removed “Plain and Precious Things” from the scriptures in order to promote their own agenda.  Either a. they were Jews who did not want specific references to the Savior to be included in the Old Testament, thus preserving the Jewish tradition, or b. they were those in the New Testament era who wanted their views of the nature of God, Jesus and the Church to prevail.

But, as they say in the detective game, one has to have motive AND opportunity.  I think that motive could easily be established but what about opportunity….?

a. Some Jews removed more specific references to the Savior from the Old Testament.

This idea is actually rather far-fetched in my opinion for the following reasons:

• They would have had to have done it after 33 AD, after Jesus died and was resurrected. As I wrote in part 3 of this series, there were copies of the Old Testament Septuagint as early as 2^nd century BC. Since the Jews were looking for a Messiah, it seems hardly likely that they would have wiped out most references prior to Christ’s ministry.  Also, they would have had to ensure that all copies of the Old Testament in existence were all changed the same.  And I am quite sure they had no idea where they all were or the opportunity to retrieve them.

• While errors in translation are possible and extremely likely, why would only those “plain and precious” passages suffer from translation errors? Comparisons to other existing manuscripts seem to show that not many translation errors really existed.

• If they removed “Plain and Precious things” that clearly referenced the Savior, it appears they forgot a few.  Namely, Isaiah 9, 42, 53, Zechariah 9:9; 11:12-13 to name some, but not all.

b. Christian Leaders in the New Testament era wanted their views to prevail.

This one actually has some level of plausibility to it.  But, rather than remove text from canonized books, some chose what books to canonize based on their view. We know from the history of the great ecumenical councils that doctrine was discussed, argued about and voted on, or later that Constantine actually dictated what Christians would believe. So, in some cases, the scriptural text says one thing but the prevailing doctrinal view might actually be different.

So, in conclusion, I am more apt to accept theory 1, Loss of Gospel Truth as an explanation of the loss of “Plain and Precious Things” rather than any other theory.  I am sure there are other theories, maybe one that is more possible than the one I noted.

I’m interested in your take on this.

So what do we do?

First, we follow the course of study in Gospel Doctrine. We recognize that the intent of the class is to use the Old Testament to reinforce LDS Gospel Principles. Not to study the Old Testament as a book of scripture unto itself. But, there is much to be gained by the class itself. We also recognize the intent of the class so it is no use trying to make it more than it is. We can add insights and historical perspective but after all, we only have 40 minutes a week so we really do not study but a small portion of the entire Old Testament.

Second, we can, through personal study expand our study as much as we like. Here are a few suggestions:

• Understand the historical aspects of the book itself. The time line and the events.
• Recognize that for many hundreds of years, God was dealing with new converts to His teachings. Up to that point, there was a lot of pagan worship. You’ll note that much of the time, it was difficult for the people to give up their old ways for the new ways. And they faltered a great deal of the time. Not much different than today, really.
• Look for the preparation for the coming of the Messiah. It is not so clear as the Book of Mormon, but it is there. Be careful not to assume that scriptures point to the Messiah because of what we know now.
• Try to put things in the perspective of the time. it is easy to pass judgment on the harshness we read about. But we need to put it into proper context with the time.

Any other suggestions on how to go beyond the study we do in Sunday School?

In this part 3, I wanted to discuss how the Old Testament was transmitted, translated and how those things affect how the Old Testament is portrayed  in the New Testament.

Transmission

Transmission refers to how we have come to have biblical texts.  Were they orally transmitted? Written down, by whom, when and under what circumstances.  For example, the Book of Mormon was transmitted to Joseph Smith by the Angel Moroni on Gold Plates.  Joseph then translated the texts “by the gift and power of God.”

For the Old Testament, the route of transmission was, how should we say, a bit more circuitous.

The commonly held belief is that God inspired Moses to write the first five books of the Hebrew Bible (the Pentateuch).  It is unlikely that these books or other number of biblical books were physically written down for a long time.  As scholars study the Torah (first five books of Moses), some issues arise. For instance, if Moses was the sole author of the first five books, how did he write about his own death?

Depending on the scholar, the written text of the Torah begins to appear around 600BC at the earliest.  But, the most commonly held belief is the around 450BC.  Before that, it was transmitted orally.  Even though we all know what happens when things are transmitted orally, the texts of the Old Testament are surprisingly intact when compared with versions such as the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Translations/ Versions

There are two major versions of the Old Testament in use today.  One is derived from a Hebrew version called the Masoretic text, the other from a Greek translation known as the Septuagint.

Masoretic Text

The Masoretic Text (MT) is the authoritative Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible regarded almost universally as the official version of the Tanakh. It defines not just the books of the Jewish canon, but also the precise letter-text of the biblical books in Judaism, as well as their vocalization and accentuation known as the Masorah. The MT is also widely used as the basis for translations of the Old Testament in Protestant Bibles, and in recent years also for Catholic Bibles. In modern times the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown the MT to be nearly identical to some texts of the Tanakh dating from 200 B.C.E. but different from others.

The MT was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the seventh and tenth centuries CE. Though the consonants differ little from the text generally accepted in the early second century (and also differ little from some Qumran texts that are even older), it has numerous differences of both greater and lesser significance when compared to (extant 4th century) manuscripts of the Septuagint, a Greek translation (made in the 3rd to 2nd centuries BC) of the Hebrew Scriptures that was in popular use in Egypt and Palestine and that is often quoted in the New Testament.

The oldest extant manuscripts of the Masoretic Text date from approximately the ninth century AD, and the Aleppo Codex (once the oldest complete copy of the Masoretic Text, but now missing its Torah section) dates from the tenth century. (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The current received text finally achieved predominance through the reputation of the Masoretes, schools of scribes and Torah scholars working between the 7th and 11th centuries, based primarily in Palestine in the cities of Tiberias and Jerusalem, and in Babylonia. These schools developed such prestige for the accuracy and error-control of their copying techniques that their texts established an authority beyond all others. Differences remained, sometimes bolstered by systematic local differences in pronunciation and cantillation. Every locality, following the tradition of its school, had a standard codex embodying its readings.  In Babylonia the school of Sura differed from that of Nehardea; and similar differences existed in the schools of the Land of Israel as against that at Tiberias, which in later times increasingly became the chief seat of learning. In this period, living tradition ceased, and the Masoretes in preparing their codices usually followed the one school or the other, examining, however, standard codices of other schools and noting their differences.

The earliest labors of the Masoretes included standardizing division of the text into books, sections, paragraphs, verses, and clauses (probably in the chronological order here enumerated); the fixing of the orthography, pronunciation, and cantillation; the introduction or final adoption of the square characters with the five final letters (comp. Numbers and Numerals); some textual changes to guard against blasphemy and the like; the enumeration of letters, words, verses, etc., and the substitution of some words for others in public reading. (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The Septuagint

The Septuagint or simply “LXX is the Koine Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, translated in stages between the 3rd and 1st centuries BCE in Alexandria. It was begun by the third century BCE and completed before 132 BCE. It is the oldest of several ancient translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean Basin from the time of Alexander the Great (356-323 BCE).

The Septuagint was held in great respect in ancient times; Philo and Josephus (associated with Hellenistic Judaism) ascribed divine inspiration to its authors.Besides the Old Latin versions, the LXX is also the basis for the Slavonic, the Syriac, Old Armenian, Old Georgian and Coptic versions of the Old Testament. Of significance for all Christians and for Bible scholars, the LXX is quoted by the New Testament and by the Apostolic Fathers.

Jewish scholars (see also Hellenistic Judaism) first translated the Torah into Koine Greek in the third century BCE. Further books were translated over the next two centuries.

The sources of the many differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text have long been discussed by scholars.  The most widely accepted view today is that the original Septuagint provided a reasonably accurate record of an early Semitic textual variant, now lost, that differed from ancestors of the Masoretic text.  Ancient scholars, however, had no reason to suspect such a possibility. Early Christians—who were largely unfamiliar with Hebrew texts, and were thus only made aware of the differences through the newer Greek versions—tended to dismiss the differences as a product of uninspired translation of the Hebrew in these new versions. Following the Renaissance, a common opinion among some humanists was that the LXX translators made a poor translation from the Hebrew and that the LXX became more corrupt with time.  (From Wikipedia)

Many of the oldest Biblical fragments among the Dead Sea Scrolls, particularly those in Aramaic, correspond more closely with the LXX than with the Masoretic text (although the majority of these variations are extremely minor, e.g. grammatical changes, spelling differences or missing words, and do not affect the meaning of sentences and paragraphs). This confirms the scholarly consensus that the LXX represents a separate Hebrew-text tradition from that, which was later standardized as the Masoretic text.

In the 3rd century BCE, most Jewish communities were located in the Hellenistic world where Greek was the main language. It is believed that the LXX was produced because many Jews outside of Judea needed a Greek version of the scripture for use during synagogue readings or for religious study. Some theorize that Hellenistic Jews intended the Septuagint as a contribution to Hellenistic culture. Alexandria held the greatest diaspora Jewish community of the age and was also a great center of Greek letters.  Alexandria is thus likely the site of LXX authorship, a notion supported by the legend of Ptolemy and the 72 scholars. The Septuagint enjoyed widespread use in the Hellenistic Jewish diaspora and even in Jerusalem, which had become a rather cosmopolitan (and therefore Greek-speaking) town. Both Philo and Josephus show a reliance on the Septuagint in their citations of Jewish scripture.

Starting approximately in the 2nd century, several factors led most Jews to abandon use of the LXX. The earliest gentile Christians of necessity used the LXX, as it was at the time the only Greek version of the bible, and most, if not all, of these early non-Jewish Christians could not read Hebrew. The association of the LXX with a rival religion may have rendered it suspect in the eyes of the newer generation of Jews and Jewish scholars. Perhaps more importantly, the Greek language—and therefore the Greek Bible—declined among Jews after most of them fled from the Greek-speaking eastern Roman Empire into the Aramaic-speaking Persian Empire when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans.

The Early Christian Church used the Greek texts since Greek was a language of the Roman Empire at the time, and the language of the Greco-Roman Church (Aramaic was the language of Syriac Christianity, which used the Targums). In addition the Church Fathers tended to accept Philo’s account of the LXX’s miraculous and inspired origin.  Furthermore, the New Testament writers, when citing the Jewish scriptures or when quoting Jesus doing so, freely used the Greek translation, implying that the Apostles and their followers considered it reliable.

When Jerome undertook the revision of the Old Latin translations of the Septuagint, he checked the Septuagint against the Hebrew texts that were then available.  He came to believe that the Hebrew text better testified to Christ than the Septuagint He broke with church tradition and translated most of the Old Testament of his Vulgate from Hebrew rather than Greek. His choice was severely criticized by Augustine, his contemporary; a flood of still less moderate criticism came from those who regarded Jerome as a forger. But with the passage of time, acceptance of Jerome’s version gradually increased until it displaced the Old Latin translations of the Septuagint.

The Hebrew text diverges in some passages that Christians hold to prophesy Christ and the Eastern Orthodox Church still prefers to use the LXX as the basis for translating the Old Testament into other languages. The Eastern Orthodox also use LXX untranslated where Greek is the liturgical language, e.g. in the Orthodox Church of Constantinople, the Church of Greece and the Cypriot Orthodox Church. Many modern critical translations of the Old Testament, while using the Masoretic text as their basis, consult the Septuagint as well as other versions in an attempt to reconstruct the meaning of the Hebrew text whenever the latter is unclear, undeniably corrupt, or ambiguous.  (From Wikipedia)

Old Testament Quotes in the New Testament

The Old Testament is either directly quoted or alluded to over 300 times in the New Testament.  Jesus himself quotes from 24 different books of the Old Testament.  In general, the New Testament writers quote from the Septuagint (“LXX”) version of the Old Testament, as it was then in common use among the Jews.  However, the quotations quite often are not exact; this can be attributed either to the author using a different source Bible, or simply to the author paraphrasing the quotation.  (From Wikipedia)

This can lead to proof texting of the Old Testament scriptures to prove a point that may not really be proved with the correct translation or use of the verse.

In Part 4, the final part of this series, we will discuss how we, as LDS, should study the Old Testament.

The Books

You would think that for scriptures as old as the Old Testament is that everyone would agree on what books are included in the canon.  But that is certainly not the case. In the table shown below and mentioned in the last post, the Old Testament can be anywhere from 39 to 47 books.

In the Hebrew Bible, the TaNaKh, this anagram stands for the three divisions:

• Torah, the Law
• Nevi’im, the Prophets
• Ketuvim, The Writings

The Hebrew Bible contains 39 books and canonization occurred between 200 BCE and 200 CE. A popular position is that the Torah was canonized circa 400 BCE, the Prophets circa 200 BCE, and the Writings circa 100 CE.  (McDonald & Sanders, ed., The Canon Debate, page 4)

The order of the books are different than most Christian versions.  This table comes from Wikipedia, “Books of the Bible.”

1. ^ ^{a b c d e f} Names in brackets are the Septuagint names and are often used by the Orthodox Christians.
2. ^ ^{a b} Some Eastern Orthodox churches follow the Septuagint and the Hebrew bibles by considering the books of Ezra and Nehemiah as one book.
3. ^ ^{a b c} The Catholic and Orthodox Book of Esther includes 103 verses not in the Protestant Book of Esther.
4. ^ ^{a b c d} The Latin Vulgate, Douay-Rheims, and Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition place First and Second Maccabees after Malachi; other Catholic translations place them after Esther.
5. ^ ^{a b} Eastern Orthodox churches include Psalm 151, not present in all canons.
6. ^ The Book of Odes includes the Prayer of Manasseh. This book is not present in the Catholic or Protestant Old Testaments.
7. ^ ^{a b} New English Translation of the Septuagint
8. ^ ^{a b c} In Catholic Bibles, Baruch includes a sixth chapter called the Letter of Jeremiah. Baruch is not in the Protestant Bible or the Tanakh.
9. ^ Britannica 1911
10. ^ Eastern Orthodox Bibles have the books of Baruch and the Letter of Jeremiah separate.
11. ^ ^{a b c} In Catholic and Orthodox Bibles, Daniel includes three sections not included in Protestant Bibles. The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children are included between Daniel 3:23-24. Susanna is included as Daniel 13. Bel and the Dragon is included as Daniel 14. These are not in the Protestant Old Testament.

The extra books found in the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and Slavonic Bibles are known as the “Apocrypha,” a greek term meaning “having been hidden away.” These are books which did not necessarily make the cut when the Old Testament canon of scripture was determined and are considered by some as useful, but not necessarily divinely inspired. The books have gotten a bad reputation as the term, apocrypha became synonymous with false or unreliable rather than hidden away.

Some apocryphal books were included in the Septuagint with little distinction made between them and the rest of the Old Testament. Origen, Clement and others cited some apocryphal books as “scripture,” “divine scripture,” “inspired,” and the like. On the other hand, teachers connected with Palestine and familiar with the Hebrew canon excluded from the canon all of the Old Testament not found there. This view is reflected in the canon of Melito of Sardis, and in the prefaces and letters of Jerome.^[4] A third view was that the books were not as valuable as the canonical scriptures of the Hebrew collection, but were of value for moral uses, as introductory texts for new converts from paganism, and to be read in congregations. They were referred to as “ecclesiastical” works by Rufinus. (1911 Encyclopædia Britannica)

These are not the only extra-biblical Old Testament books around. The list includes: the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pseudepigrapha

The Dead Sea Scrolls

The Dead Sea scrolls consist of about 900 documents, including texts from the Hebrew Bible, discovered between 1947 and 1956 in eleven caves in and around the Qumran Wadi near the ruins of the ancient settlement of Khirbet Qumran, on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea.  The scrolls are thought to have been in the possession of the Essenes, a Jewish religious group who inhabited the west side of the Dead Sea area.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are traditionally divided into three groups: “Biblical” manuscripts (copies of texts from the Hebrew Bible), which comprise roughly 40% of the identified scrolls; “Apocryphal” or “Pseudepigraphical” manuscripts (known documents from the Second Temple Period like Enoch, Jubilees, Tobit, Sirach, non-canonical psalms, etc., that were not ultimately canonized in the Hebrew Bible), which comprise roughly 30% of the identified scrolls; and “Sectarian” manuscripts (previously unknown documents that speak to the rules and beliefs of a particular group or groups within greater Judaism) like the Community Rule, War Scroll, Pesher (Hebrew pesher פשר = “Commentary”) on Habakkuk, and the Rule of the Blessing, which comprise roughly 30% of the identified scrolls. (Abegg, Jr., Martin, Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English, San Francisco: Harper, 2002)

The Pseudepigrapha

The term Pseudepigrapha refers to numerous works of Jewish religious literature written from about 200 BC to 200 AD  Not all of these works are actually pseudepigraphical but include the following:

• 3 Maccabees
• 4 Maccabees
• Assumption of Moses
• Ethiopic Book of Enoch (1 Enoch)
• Slavonic Book of Enoch (2 Enoch)
• Book of Jubilees
• Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (3 Baruch)
• Letter of Aristeas
• Life of Adam and Eve
• Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah
• Psalms of Solomon
• Sibylline Oracles
• Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (2 Baruch)
• Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

LDS are not uncomfortable with the idea of extra-biblical texts as we have the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price as part of our canon of scriptures. And, the Book of Jasher, considered part of the pseudepigrapha, was popular amongst the LDS community for a long time.

Jewish Biblical scholars also have extra-biblical literature, The Talmud. While considered as commentary on the scriptures, it is studied by Jews as if it were scripture.  The Talmud, which reflects centuries of Rabbinic thought on the oral and written law, is extensive (hundreds of pages) and complex. There are even commentaries which help to explain the Rabbi’s thoughts reflected in the Talmud.  In other words, commentaries on the commentaries.  The fascinating thing about it is that is a running discussion and, in some cases, a running argument on  particular points of Jewish Law.  The Rabbi’s might agree with a comment by another Rabbi, or they might disagree. Or, they might agree, but expand on the answer given by another Rabbi.  This led to the famous joke that if there are two Jews having a discussion, you get three opinions.

Next time we’ll discuss the different translations, their relationship to the New Testament, and how they influenced the Old Testament quotes from the Savior in the Gospels.

Is that true?  Is the Old Testament “Old,” and thus not as relevant as other scriptures?

The answer of course is no.  These scriptures are important to us.

From the Old Testament Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual, Lesson 1,

“The Old Testament is an account of God’s dealings with his covenant people from the time of the Creation to a few hundred years before the Savior’s birth. The Old Testament provides powerful examples of faith and obedience.  It also shows the consequences of forgetting, disobeying, or opposing God.  Its prophecies bear witness of the Messiah’s birth, redeeming sacrifice, second coming, and millennial reign.”

Introduction

The Old Testament consists of a various number of books from 39 to 47, depending on which version you use. (We’ll cover this in detail in a subsequent posting).  The order varies as well.  “Old Testament” is somewhat of misnomer, the term “Old Testament” itself is credited to Melito of Sardis.^[1] The term “Old” is used to distinguish it from the “New” Testament, or the Old Covenant from the New Covenant given by Jesus.  Most scholars refer to the Old Testament as the “Hebrew Bible” or the Jewish Bible.  Jews refer to it simply as “The Holy Scriptures or TaNaKn.”

The books were written mainly in Biblical Hebrew with a few books in Biblical Aramaic.  According to traditional Jewish belief, the Hebrew Bible existed as an oral tradition for a long time, and it was forbidden to be put into written form.^[6] According to that tradition, the date on which permission was given to write down the Bible is considered one of mourning.^[6] Contemporary conservative scholars date the origin of the Hebrew Bible between the tenth and seventh centuries BCE,^[7] while most contemporary secular biblical scholars date its finalization in the Persian period (539 to 334 BCE).^[8] (From Wikipedia, “Hebrew Bible”)

While many Christians tend to downplay the relevance of the Old Testament compared to the New Testament, it is ironic that much of the fire and brimstone teachings of Christianity can be more closely linked to the harshness of how God dealt with his covenant people who couldn’t seem to stay on the straight and narrow path.  Jesus’ own teachings seem more gentle than those of the Old Testament.

So, are you looking forward to once again opening that huge book and studying it?  I, for one, am looking forward to teaching it this year and bringing some of my own perspectives to the lessons, given my background.

I faced my own personal dilemma after my Mother died in March of 2007. While she and my Dad did not disown me for joining the LDS Church, they were not happy about my decision. My Mother, in particular, made sure that she voiced her opinion strongly from time to time. She told me once that she was afraid I would give all the money I received from her estate to THAT Church. And she made it quite clear she was not interested in being Baptized a Mormon after she died. Even though I tried to explain the idea of having the right to choose to accept the ordinances performed for our deceased, she was still adamantly against it.

So, I always wondered what I would do after they were gone. Would I respect their wishes and not do their Temple Work or do it anyway?

I decided to go ahead and do the work.

Here was my rationale:

1. It is better to do as we are asked to do to seek after our dead and perform vicarious work on their behalf.
2. If I didn’t do it, who would? Maybe my children or their children? Could I count on that? At this stage of their lives, the answer is no. So who would do it?
3. They will have the choice to accept or reject the ordinances. This is according to our theology. I assume that my parent’s eternal perspective has changed on the other side of the veil.
4. What is the worst that could happen? Either they yell at me on the other side for not respecting their wishes, provided they even know I did it. Or, none of this true and it doesn’t matter anyway.

But, what is the best that could happen? That their perspective has changed so much, they embrace the Gospel and thank me for doing their work. And that we will be together as a family forever.

Seemed to me it is worth the risk to have it turn out for the best.

Besides, they’ve yelled at me before, I can take it.

As I read the scriptures, listen to conference talks, and other materials about the Church, I get the feeling sometimes that things can be a little vague.  Human nature seems to dictate that an absolute answer is always preferred over ambiguity and vagueness.

But in the religious realm, it is not to be.  Vagueness is defined as not clear in meaning or application or, indistinctly felt, perceived, understood, or recalled; hazy.

The fact that there are so many religions and religious denominations seems to confirm this idea. For instance, if there is one God, our Heavenly Father, why does He seem to manifest Himself so differently to different people, to different cultures, and at different times?

For example, In the LDS Church, we believe that Baptism is an essential ordnance to enter the kingdom of God and to progress toward eternal life and salvation.  And there are Christian denominations that echo that same idea.  However, there are just as many, maybe more, who, reading the same scriptures, deny the necessity of Baptism for salvation.  Vagueness occurs because the scriptures are not 100% clear on that point.  Within the LDS Church, the Prophet Joseph Smith did make it clear, in the Fourth Article of Faith, that Baptism is essential.

In another, more contemporary example, many conservative Christians and Jews, for that matter, look at scriptures in Leviticus to proclaim that Homosexual activity is wrong. (Leviticus 18:22, see also Romans 1:27, 29-31, 32) However, religious organizations and individuals more sympathetic toward the Gay Movement have interpreted those scriptures very differently and say that they do not even address the issue of homosexuality.  (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh5.htm) The scriptures do not come right out and address the issue so clearly it cannot be open to interpretation. Vagueness.

In Doctrine and Covenants Section 89, the Word of Wisdom verse 9, “hot drinks are not for the body or belly.” But what is a hot drink?  Anyone’s first read of that verse would lead them to conclude it was ANY drink that was HOT  That does not seem terribly vague.

But wait, there’s more!

In 1842 Hyrum Smith, Assistant President of the Church and also the Presiding Patriarch, provided an interpretation of the Word of Wisdom’s proscription of “hot drinks”:

“And again “hot drinks are not for the body, or belly;” there are many who wonder what this can mean; whether it refers to tea, or coffee, or not. I say it does refer to tea, and coffee.  (Times and Seasons, 1842-06-01, vol. 3, p. 800.

But it does not refer to hot chocolate, hot herbal tea, hot barley drinks, etc. But, many have also speculated as to why coffee and tea?  Could it be the caffeine? If so, that means cola drinks, or anything else that might have caffeine in it.  You mean like chocolate? Wait a minute! I thought hot chocolate was ok? What about Mountain Dew, its not a cola drink?  Here is a case where something seems pretty straightforward but has been made somewhat vague.

Here are a few other topics that have been vague at one time or another:

• Tithing: Net or Gross?
• New and Everlasting  Covenant of Marriage: Plurality of Wives or just Eternal marriage ( Sealing)
• Missouri Extermination Order: Kill them or just run them out of town?
• United Order: Voluntary or the Law of Consecration?
• Blacks and the Priesthood:  Doctrine, policy or  just plain prejudice?
• Many, many more

So why would Gospel Principles be Vague?

First, maybe they are not all that vague.  Maybe, you need to find the right source of information. If the scriptures seem vague, what have the Living Prophets said?  If that is vague, what does the Lord tell you when you pray about it or what does the Spirit testify to you about it?  Still nothing?  What are you willing t o take on faith alone?

Second, We do need to develop faith. “NOW faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”  (Hebrews 11:1). Some things have no immediate answer and must be taken on faith alone until a later time.

Thirdly, we are here on earth as a test.  Ultimately, we decide for ourselves the path we walk. Like the verse at the beginning of this post, if we did not have our agency to decide for ourselves and had to be told each and every little detail, we would not progress to reach the goal of living with Our Father in Heaven and His Son throughout eternity.

Sure, things can be a bit vague and uncertain at times.  But it is part of the great Plan of happiness for us to endure to the end.

So, the question at hand is how do you deal with the vagueness and ambiguity? Perhaps you think there is none. Feel free to list your vague Gospel Principles.

Many Mormons are very proud of their pioneer heritage as well they should be.  After the death of Joseph Smith, thousands of Mormons hit the dusty trail between the years of 1847 and 1869.  Ultimately, 70,000 would make the over 1000-mile journey from the Midwest to Salt Lake City and the surrounding area.  In addition to wagon trains and handcarts, 238 Saints made the journey by sea, a 24,000-mile trip aboard the ship, Brooklyn, from New York to Yerba Buena (present day San Francisco).

These Saints, came not only from Nauvoo, but from the eastern US and many countries of Europe as well. One can only wonder what they thought as they looked out over the wide-open spaces and thought, “We’re going how many miles?  In a wagon, on foot or pushing a handcart?”

But, they did because they believed.  Ultimately, they had faith.  They wanted to reach Zion.  Some turned back, deciding they were not up to the journey or possibly, didn’t believe enough, not unlike today.  There was hardship, disease and death, but the great majority of those who set out, made it.

I took my title from the famous speech, “Ich Bin Ein Berliner” (I am a Berliner) given by President John F. Kennedy in West Berlin on June 26, 1963.  He was showing the solidarity and support of the people of the United States for West Germany 22 months after the Soviet-supported Communist state of East Germany erected the Berlin Wall as a barrier to prevent movement of people between East and West.

Like many others who have joined the Church, I too, made a pioneering journey, from Judaism to Mormonism.  As the only members from our respective families, my wife and I left our religions to embrace what we believe is the true Church of Jesus Christ.  Much to our family’s dismay, I might add.

We are not alone as pioneers.  Millions have chosen to embrace the Gospel and join the Church.  I truly marvel at the fact so many from outside the North America continent can embrace what was an “American Church.” Such that now there are more members outside the United States than inside.  Not all who join stay.  But a great many do.

Are you a pioneer?  Do you have that pioneer spirit?

“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”  Joseph Smith —DHC 3:28-30

If Joseph Smith is, correct in his assertion that the fundamental principles of the Church are the testimonies and knowledge concerning Jesus Christ, His Life, His Mission, His Teachings, His Example and His Atonement and that ALL other things are only appendages, then it seems clear on what we should focus ourselves and our families — The Savior Jesus Christ.

Those testimonies are found in the scriptures, in the words of our modern day prophets and apostles, in the answers to our prayers and in the promptings of the Holy Ghost.

But, especially in the Bloggernacle, Jesus Christ and His Atonement seem to be the last thing anyone wants to discuss and consider.  We are much more interested in the appendages.

Appendages are important.

On our physical bodies, they play an important role.  Most of us wouldn’t want to live without them.  But, we can live without them and many do.

How neglectful have we become about the fundamental principles of our religion (never mind being LDS, how about just being a Christian?), that some, being so focused on the appendages, have lost the fundamental principles.  Or they have stopped hearing the testimonies of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ.

So, is/was Joseph correct about the fundamental principles of our religion?  Or have the appendages, at least as far as the Bloggernacle is concerned,  overwhelmed the message of the Restoration and of Jesus?

I was wondering who your heroes are these days?

We glorify celebrity and sports figures, who make millions of dollars with little or no contribution to society other than to provide fodder for the tabloids.  Some look up to business leaders but they sometimes turn out to be giant frauds, like Bernard Madoff who rip off people and tend to put themselves first instead of their companies and employees.

We have religious leaders who exemplify righteous principles, but we’ve seen just as many of those have issues as well with moral problems, money problems, abuse of power, etc. We can also look up to characters from the scriptures, but many believe those weren’t even real people.

Many of us had excellent parents and view them as our heroes and examples for our lives, but there are also many who suffered at the hands of their parents.

Maybe the concept of having heroes is out dated in our modern world?  What do you think?

Do you still have heroes?  Who are they and why?

We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, repentance; third, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Articles of Faith 1:4)

Another of the unique doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the gift of the Holy Ghost as our constant companion, received following our baptism and during our confirmation as a member of the Church.

Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. (Acts 8:17)

…The gift of the Holy Ghost is the right to have, whenever one is worthy, the companionship of the Holy Ghost.  More powerful than that which is available before baptism, it acts as a cleansing agent to purify a person and sanctify him from all sin.  (Bible Dictionary, Holy Ghost:Entry)

When we are close to the Holy Ghost, we can expect to receive personal revelation for ourselves and our family, special promptings to act, and confirmation of truth.  At times, when our personal worthiness is in question, we may feel far from the Holy Ghost and not receive the answers we seek.

But what happens to those who, through acts of sin, unbelief, or other reasons, distance themselves from the companionship of the Holy Ghost? After all, it is the very first commandment we are given after our baptism, to “Receive the Holy Ghost.”

And there were no gifts from the Lord, and the Holy Ghost did not come upon any, because of their wickedness and unbelief.”  (Mormon 1:14)

When the Spirit leaves:

• Can a person discern the things of God without the Holy Ghost as their guide?
• Do we lose our eternal perspective?
• Do we allow the things of lesser consequence to overshadow the things of greatest consequence?
• Do we feel a sense of loss from not having the Spirit with us constantly?
• Do we care?
• How do we get it back when we are troubled by doctrinal and historical issues?

Spirituality—being in tune with the Spirit of the Lord—is the greatest need of Latter-day Saints. We should strive for the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost all the days of our lives. When we have the Spirit, we will love to serve, we will love the Lord, and we will love those whom we serve. Spiritual-mindedness does not come without effort. We live in a very wicked world. We are surrounded with propaganda that evil is good and good is evil. False teachings abound that affect us. Almost everything that is wholesome, good, pure, uplifting, and strengthening is being challenged as never before.  One reason we are on this earth is to discern between truth and error. This discernment comes by the Holy Ghost, not just our intellectual faculties. (Ezra Taft Benson, Come unto Christ, p22)

And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. (Moroni 10:5)

“That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.” (D&C 101:78)

The entire topic of choice and free will did not originate with the LDS Church. For hundreds of years, philosophers and theologians have contemplated the idea of free will, both in a religious and a natural sense. It is not my intention to discuss these ideas, but if you are interested, you can start at Wikipedia on Free Will and Free Will in Theology . I wish to focus my attention to the LDS concept of agency and how we are affected by its use in our lives.

“Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.  All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.” (D&C 93:29-30)”

We are taught that there was a war in heaven before the world was.  That some chose to follow Satan and were cast out.  Those that chose to follow the plan of Our Heavenly Father and Jesus also chose to come to earth, assume a mortal body, and be subjected to the trials of this earth in the hope we would find the Gospel, live a life of obedience and sacrifice and gain our reward to return to live with them throughout eternity.  This simple lesson is taught in primary and by the missionaries to investigators.  But the power to choose and the possible ramifications of our choices are much more complex and difficult than a simple lesson would indicate.

Every choice we make has consequences associated with it.  And while it is assumed that choices are made between good and evil, sometimes choices have to be made between good and good.

“And I, the Lord God, commanded the man, saying: Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat,  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it, nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. “ (Moses 3:16-17)

When Adam and Eve were in the Garden of Eden, they were forced to make a choice between two seemingly good things.  That of being obedient to the Father and being fruitful and multiplying, thus creating the mortal human race.  Luckily for us, they choose the later.  But in doing so, they suffered the consequences of their act of obedience by introducing a number of bad things to the world such as death, sin, sickness, suffering, trials, etc.  Many good things also happened like happiness, joy, children, blessings, and the ability to choose.

What can we choose?

There are many basis areas when we have almost complete control of our choices.  We decide which way to go.

• Many Life Choices – Where to live, where to go to school, what kind of career to have, with whom to associate, who we marry (Gay folks notwithstanding for now), whether or not to have children, etc. Those sort of things.

• Our Morality – What kind of person will we be, law abiding, honest, trustworthy, loyal to others. Much of which is driven by:

• Our Religion and Faith – We can choose whether we will follow a set of religious principles or not.  We can choose which religion we want to belong to or identify with and we can choose to be active in that religion or not.  We can choose to follow the religion of our parents or we can go in a different direction entirely.  We can even choose if we want to believe in God at all or not.  I firmly believe that having faith is a choice reinforced by our experiences, both spiritual and temporal.  On the other hand, I can also see that not having faith or losing faith can be the result of the same thing. But, I think the key idea is the choice.  We can choose to believe in spite of the lack of experiences which reinforce our choice. I know this is hard, but as Paul said,

“faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1).

We can continue to hope those experiences will come.

• How we react – We can choose how to react to things around us.  In spite of the hand which we are dealt (see below), we can let the things we cannot control, control us, or we can choose to take control of our situation and make it better.  As a child, this is not always possible or we may not have a sufficient maturity level to fully comprehend it. As an adult, we can gain complete control over most of the circumstances and the ill effects of our life.  In some cases, it requires incredibly hard work, sometimes alone or with the help of others, God and our faith, but many people have overcome horrendous circumstances to go on to lead highly productive, happy lives.

What we can’t choose?

While we have this ability to control our choices for most of our lives, there are a few things we cannot choose or where we lose our ability to choose.

• The circumstances of our birth – As far as we know, we do not or cannot choose who our parents will be, the circumstances of our birth, such as where we are born, whether our parents are rich or born, whether they will be good parents, and whether we get to be brought up in the Gospel or not.  We cannot always control the health or condition of our physical bodies.  We may have chronic problems or physical limitations.  It appears we just have to deal with it one way or another.

I’ve always been somewhat bothered by the seeming randomness of it all, whether it is part of God’s plan or just luck, good or bad.  And if it is part of God’s plan, why some people never find the gospel in this life?  Isn’t that what we are supposed to do?  In other words, “Jimmy, you promised!”  But can he really deliver?  I know we are given trials in this life to help us improve, but some folks just seem to get a disproportionate share.

• The consequences of our own decisions – If we have the complete freedom to choose, we do not have the freedom to choose what happens as a result of many of our choices, good and bad.  For example, the economy.  We could have done everything right with regard to preparing for a “rainy day” and still suffer some effects of the bad economy we now face, like losing a job.  We could have mitigated the effects substantially by following the things we are taught at Church, like having a year’s supply, staying out of debt, saving our money, etc.  If we become addicted to drugs, alcohol or other harmful things, we lose the freedom to choose to do it or not do it without a lot of painful effort. If we choose to be dishonest or commit a crime, and get caught, we cannot control our punishment. If we stop following the commandments, turn our back on the church and leave it, we cannot control our eternal consequences. That is, if all we have learned is true. If not, then maybe we will be OK after all.

• The consequences of the decision of others – If God is truly watching over us, then the actions of others should be mitigated by what God has planned for us personally.  That is, IF that is the case.  But, if God allows the actions of others to affect our lives in spite of “the Plan,” then we are subject to other’s poor choices.  Such as we are driving down the road, minding out own business, following all traffic rules and we are hit and killed by another driver, who is not following the rules. That sort of thing happens every day.  Part of the Plan?  Perhaps so, but we had no choice in the matter.  I suppose we could have chosen to stay home and in bed that day. But, as my grandmother used to say, “Who knew?”

There would be some who might say, “well, if you are really in tune with the Holy Ghost, He would warn you that a bad thing might happen and to avoid that spot at that time.”  Yeah, right.  Yes, it could happen, it might happen, but sometimes does not.  Seemingly, good, God-fearing people die all the time under circumstances they did not or could not control.  Part of the Plan?  Maybe.  There are a million other examples I could cite.

As I stated in the beginning, I think choice is among the most important gifts God has given us. We can use it wisely or use it foolishly.  Our happiness on this earth and in the eternities seems to depend on the choices we make.

Do you think choice is that important?

Activity in the Church is loosely defined as attending Sacrament meeting once every three months. After that you are considered “less active,” which was changed a number of years again from “inactive.”  I guess “less” is better sounding than “in” which means not.  Which is technically what those members who never attend are: “not active”  It also takes into account those members who are partially active rather than fully active.

Anyway, a number of years ago, I lead a committee of Stake Council members to determine how we in the Stake could help Strengthen Families.  We were seeing a trend of dropping Church attendance, temple going, and tithe paying among the members.

One of the conclusions we arrived at is there is a façade of activity among some  members of the Church. That is, they appear to be active in the Church but are not fully committed.  This manifests itself by:

• Lack of a current temple recommend
• Not full tithe payers
• No Family Home Evenings
• No Family Scripture Study or prayer
• Not doing home or visiting teaching
• No bearing of testimony
• Turning down callings
• Not attending all Sunday Meetings (sitting in the halls)
• No participation in classes
• No participation in service projects
• Little to no food storage

Now, before you start to complain about my list, I am not suggesting that any of these items individually constitute this façade, but a combination of items might be an indication of the level of real activity.  On the other hand, I’ve learned from the Bloggernacle there are many partial or non-believers who still attend church for one reason or another, but mostly because of family.  But perhaps they hold no temple recommend or do not attend, do not pay tithing and have no calling to speak of.  This information was not available to us at that time we were studying this issue.

I’ve heard and read statistics that as little as 25% of all church members pay tithing and less than 15% have any food storage.  I can’t prove these stats, but that is what I’ve heard.  That would tend to back up my thesis.

We have a saying in my current word that is abbreviated by the initials “STP.”  It stands for Same Ten People.  I probably don’t have to explain that to most church members.

Since the overarching objective of the Church is to help people:

“Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.  And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot. “( Moroni 10:32 – 33)

It seems that everything else is secondary to that.

So am I off base here or is it true?  Is there a façade of activity among some Church members?  And what, if anything, do we do about it?

I’d like all the whining about the LDS Sacrament Meeting to stop.  I’d like to focus on how to make it a better and more meaningful weekly experience.

Among the chief complaints one hears about Sacrament meetings are the following:

• Sacrament meeting is boring
• The music is boring, not diverse enough
• The speakers are boring
• It is always the same
• It is too quiet, not enough emotion
• It is too loud, kids make too much noise
• The Speakers are unprepared.
• They just read conference talks
• There is too little focus on Christ, not enough discussion of Him
• We don’t start on time
• We don’t end on time
• Aaronic Priesthood members must wear white shirts and ties

What I have seen as a member of the congregation and from up on the stand:

• Members arrive late, some are chronic
• Loud conversations before start of meeting
• Not singing hymns
• Playing with cell phone, texting or whatever
• Preparing lessons
• Talking, especially during the Sacrament Service
• Reading other materials
• Eating and drinking
• Sleeping, no matter what time church starts
• Lack of attention, just not listening
• Distracted by caring for children, some avoidable, some not.
• Refusal to remove children from Chapel, no matter how loud and disruptive.

What I have also seen:

• Members arriving early, taking their seats, listening to prelude music
• Singing hymns with enthusiasm
• Actively participating in prayers, saying Amen
• Listening, paying attention
• Singing the Sacrament Hymn
• Appearing contemplative during the Sacrament Service
• Heads bowed, but not sleeping
• Reading Scriptures
• Not talking to others
• Listening to talks
• Taking notes

The Lord gave a revelation to Joseph Smith specifically regarding Sacrament meeting when he said,

Thou shalt offer a ^asacrifice unto the Lord thy God in ^brighteousness, even that of a broken heart and a ^ccontrite spirit. And that thou mayest more fully keep thyself ^aunspotted from the world, thou shalt go to the house of ^bprayer and offer up thy ^csacraments upon my ^dholy day; For verily this is a ^aday appointed unto you to rest from your labors, and to pay thy devotions unto the Most High; (Doctrine and Covenants 59:8 – 10)

The responsibility for a meaningful Sacrament Meeting experience rests with us as individual members. As we come prepared to partake of the Sacrament in remembrance of Our Savior Jesus Christ, offer up a broken heart and contrite spirit and seek to receive forgiveness and repentance for our sins, we can’t help but improve our own experience. In spite of the shortcomings of those who speak to us, in spite of the fact that topics may not be presented to us well, we need to remember that most everyone who gets an assignment to speak in Sacrament meeting WANTS to do a good job and uplift the members of the congregation.  We need to be chartable toward them.  If we are in the right frame of mind, we can surely receive at least a single bit of instruction or inspiration that we can make useful to us!

The Bishop and his counselors are responsible for assigning the topics to be spoken during Sacrament meeting and insuring the members are prepared to give a talk, which is Gospel and Christ-centered, no matter what the topic.  By its very nature, all Gospel topics should be tied back to the Savior at some point.

I think this quote from President Kimball says it all,

“We do not go to Sabbath meetings to be entertained or even solely to be instructed. We go to worship the Lord. It is an individual responsibility, and regardless of what is said from the pulpit, if one wishes to worship the Lord in spirit and truth, he may do so by attending his meetings, partaking of the sacrament, and contemplating the beauties of the gospel. If the service is a failure to you, you have failed. No one can worship for you” (“The Sabbath-A Delight,” Ensign, Jan. 1978, 4-5).

There is a story in the Church is may be Church lore or maybe not, but it goes somewhat like this,

A General Authority attended a Ward during a Sacrament Service. During the Sacrament Service he was offered the Sacrament, we refused it and it was passed to the next person.

A sister, observing this, approached the General Authority after the meeting,

“You, a General Authority,  not worthy to take the Sacrament?

“Dear Sister, I am sorry, but during the singing of the hymn, my mind wandered ever so slightly away from the Savior and as a result, I did not feel worthy to partake of the Sacrament.”

I hope that we can try to have a more meaningful Sacrament meeting rather than focus on the shortcomings of the meeting itself.  After all, the shortcomings are really ours.

And for heaven sake’s, stopping whining about it!

I  lived in San Jose as  member of the Church for 21 years. In that time, we did not experience a Ward split.  Quite the contrary, we witnessed a shrinking Church population in the Santa Clara Valley.  In 1984, We did have the creation of a new San Jose 31st Spanish Branch, but that was really a split off of a dependant Branch attached to our Ward. I even think there was a 32nd unit created as well. But that was the end of it. Since that time, we have seen two stakes dissolved and as well as more than 15 wards and branches. It has been a combination of movement out of the high cost Silicon Valley as well as significant inactivity.

Our current Ward on the other hand, has been split three times since 2003 and we’ve moved from one stake, The Colorado Springs North Stake to the Colorado Springs East Stake. This has occurred for two reasons, Growth in new population and flight from the southern parts of the city to the northern part of the city and county.

Anyway, this past Sunday saw the creation of a new ward out of two existing large wards and the calling of two new Bishops. The best part was that it was a complete surprise to most of us.  In fact, I had no idea that it would happen this past week.

We all knew it was coming.  We just broke ground on a new chapel east of us and with the expected completion around the end of the year, we all expected the split at that point.  So, needless to say, many of us were in shock. One of my Home Teachers was called as the Bishop of the new ward and my team teacher in Gospel Doctrine was called as a counselor in our Ward.

So, how are you supposed to react to this type of thing?  During the meetings, we heard both joy and sadness.   Joy, because of the continued growth in the Church in our area, but sadness because many of our associations will be diminished.  Sure, we can still associate with the members of the new ward, but the fact is, we will see them much less than we did before.  Many of those in leadership positions are not in our Ward anymore and so the new Bishopric must staff up our Ward again. And quickly.

Another interesting aspect is that our Ward is in the forest and the population is pretty sparse.  We still have some growth areas, but they are very few.  The new ward is in an  area that is growing like crazy and so we expect another split in the next 2 to 4 years. We go from being one of the largest wards in the Stake to one of the smallest.

What has been your experience with Ward and Stake Splits? I realize it is more common in Utah, Arizona and Idaho.  But it is pretty new thing for me to have 3 splits in 6 years.

Independence Temple

The site of the Independence Temple, or Temple Lot, is located southwest of the intersection of Lexington Street and River Boulevard in Independence, Missouri. On site is the headquarters of the Church of Christ. East and south of the Temple Lot are the Community of Christ (former Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) Temple and Auditorium, respectively. And southest of the Temple Lot on Walnut Street is the visitors’ center of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Also on Walnut are the Missouri Independence Mission office and the Independence Missouri Stake Center.

From the official founding of the Church in 1830 and throughout the next decade, Joseph Smith received several revelations that dealt with the location and building of a temple in Independence, Jackson County, Missouri. On 20 July 1831, the Lord said to Joseph, “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” (D&C 57:3).  Sidney Rigdon was commanded to consecrate and dedicate the spot (D&C 58:57).  Later, the Lord confirmed his command “that a house should be built unto me in the land of Zion, like unto the pattern which I have given you.”  The revelation further stated that the temple was to be built by “tithing and sacrifice.”  (D&C 97:10-12.) Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, T. Jeffery Cottle,  ”Window to the Past: A Photographic Panorama of Early Church History and the Doctrine and Covenants”

“On the third day of August, I proceeded to dedicate the spot for the Temple, a little west of Independence, and there were also present Sidney Rigdon, Edward Partridge, W. W. Phelps, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, Joseph Coe and Newel Knight. The 87th Psalm was read. The scene was solemn and impressive.” D. H. C., Vol. 1:199.

While excavating for the foundation of a temple in 1929, the Church of Christ discovered the northeast and southeast cornerstone markers. The Great Depression set in shortly thereafter, and the temple was never built, but the stones are now on display in the Church’s visitors’ center room.

The Saints were expelled from Jackson County in late 1834, before they could make any progress on the temple. Despite their best efforts, they were unable to return to reclaim their lands. After they settled in Nauvoo, Illinois, Joseph recorded another revelation rescinding the earlier commandment to build the Independence temple:

” Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings….  Therefore, for this cause have I accepted the offerings of those whom I commanded to build up a city and a house unto my name, in Jackson county, Missouri, and were hindered by their enemies, saith the Lord your God.  (D&C 124:49, 51)  http://en.fairmormon.org/Independence_temple_to_be_built_%22in_this_generation%22)

Prior to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, a magnificent edifice-the New Jerusalem Temple-will be erected on the location of the Temple Lot.

Far West Temple

Announcement:  26 April 1838
Groundbreaking:  3 July 1837
Site Dedication:  4 July 1838 by Brigham Young

The Far West Temple was the second temple commenced but never constructed by the early Saints in Missouri.  The Far West Temple site is located in Caldwell County, which was created specifically as a settlement for the Saints, who had been driven out of Jackson County several years earlier in 1833.  Far West was the county seat. See D&C 115.

“Let the city, Far West, be a holy and consecrated land unto me; and it shall be called most holy, for the ground upon which thou standest is holy. Therefore, I command you to build a house unto me, for the gathering together of my saints, that they may worship me.”  (D&C 115:7-8)

The cornerstones were laid for the Far West Temple on July 4, 1838, in the following order: southeast by the Stake presidency, southwest by the Elder’s quorum presidency, northwest by the Bishop, and northeast by the Teacher’s quorum presidency. At the cornerstone laying for the Far West Temple, President Sidney Rigdon gave his famous Independence Day oration.  The speech’s passionate declarations fueled tension between the Saints and the citizens of Missouri, eventually culminating in the issuance of Governor Lilburn W. Boggs’ extermination order on October 27, 1838.

Despite the great risk of danger, five apostles-accompanied by several others-returned to the Far West Temple site just after midnight on the morning of April 26, 1839, in fulfillment of prophecy. A large stone was rolled on the southeast cornerstone as recommencement of work on the foundation, and the apostles left to prepare for their overseas missions.

The Far West Temple site was reacquired by the LDS Church in 1909 under the direction of Joseph F. Smith.

Adam-ondi-Ahman Temple

Site Dedication:  October 1838 by Brigham Young

The beautiful site of Adam-ondi-Ahman lies at a bend in the Grand River in northern Missouri, about 70 miles north of Kansas City. On the highest elevation of Spring Hill, 124 feet above Grand River, a temple block was dedicated. No cornerstones were laid or temple constructed, however, as just days later, the Saints were ordered to leave the settlement. The Church has since acquired the site and much of the surrounding area, which is leased to local farmers.

The Adam-ondi-Ahman Temple was the third temple planned but never constructed by the early Saints in Missouri. The name Adam-ondi-Ahman is an English rendition of a phrase from the pure Adamic language, which could possibly mean “Adam in the presence of God.”The valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman was revealed to Joseph Smith to be the place where Adam blessed his posterity after being driven from the Garden of Eden.The first settlers of Adam-ondi-Ahman arrived in February 1838. By November 1838, the Saints had been delivered an ultimatum to leave Daviess County within 10 days.

On June 11, 1838, Joseph Smith gave Spring Hill the name of Adam-ondi-Ahman.  Some evidence suggests that a public square-not a temple block-was dedicated in October 1838 at Adam-ondi-Ahman.

Adam-ondi-Ahman is the site of a future grand council where Jesus Christ will meet with His stewards of all dispensations and receive back the keys of the kingdom in preparation for His Second Coming. Only those called to the meeting will know of its occurence.

Samoa Temple

Announcement:  15 October 1977
Suspended:  2 April 1980

Steady growth of Church membership in the Pacific islands prompted the 1977 First Presidency announcement of a regional temple to serve the 50,000 saints scattered across the islands of Samoa, Tonga, French Polynesia (Tahiti), and Fiji. At the time, members had to cross the Pacific Ocean for hundreds of miles to attend services in the Hamilton New Zealand Temple. The Tahitian saints, who lived the farthest from the temple, devotedly traveled 2,500 miles to receive temple blessings.

A groundbreaking ceremony was anticipated to take place in late 1978 with completion of the temple in 1980.

The specific site chosen for the Samoa Temple was in Malaeimi Valley on Tutila Island near the village of Pago Pago, American Samoa, adjacent to a newly completed stake center. Its location on a bus-serviced road from the international airport made it easily accessible to the many members who would be traveling to the temple by air. The picturesque setting at the base of a lush natural hill-visible from the ocean-is covered with beautiful foliage and palms trees.

Church architect Emil B. Fetzer said, “We expect [the temple] to be one of the finest, if not the finest, building on the island as far as workmanship, design and materials are concerned.” Plans called for a 20,000-square-foot temple, which would house a baptistry, a 100-seat ordinance room, four sealing rooms, and a circular Celestial Room featuring stained glass (visible from the front of the temple) and crowned by a round roof and single spire. The grounds would be extensively landscaped and feature a water fountain and reflecting pool.

On April 2, 1980, a landmark announcement by the First Presidency of plans for seven new temples for seven different nations were accompanied by a location and design change for the Samoa Temple.  At a press conference, President Spencer W. Kimball said, “The Pago Pago location was selected on the basis of convenience for air travelers from other islands. Since there will be two other temples in the South Pacific islands, the Samoa site was altered to be more convenient to Samoan members. Its design will also conform to those included in this announcement.”  With additional announcements for Nuku’alofa, Tonga and Papeete, Tahiti, the location of the Samoa Temple was moved from Pago Pago, American Samoa, to Apia, Samoa. The design and size were altered to conform to a new 12,500-square-foot standard design. The location change placed the temple on the island where the vast majority of Samoan members reside.

Hartford Connecticut Temple

Announcement:  3 October 1992
Suspended:  30 September 1995

During the Saturday afternoon session of General Conference on October 3, 1992, President Gordon B. Hinckley, First Counselor in the First Presidency, announced plans for a regional temple to be built in Hartford, Connecticut, to serve members in the New York and New England areas of the United States. Plans were also announced for the Hong Kong China Temple to serve a large region of Southeastern Asia and a second temple for Utah County to relieve the overburdened Provo Utah Temple-later identified as the Mount Timpanogos Utah Temple.

Three years after the announcement, plans for the Hartford Connecticut Temple were replaced. President Gordon B. Hinckley explained in the priesthood session of General Conference, “After working for years to acquire a suitable site in the Hartford area, during which time the Church has grown appreciably in areas to the north and south, we have determined that we will not at this time build a temple in the immediate area of Hartford.” Plans were then announced for temples in Boston, Massachusetts, and White Plains, New York. “In other words,” he said, “there will be two [temples] to serve the needs of the people where originally it was planned that one would do. We have sites in both of these new locations.”

To the members of Hartford who had joyed in the announcement of this temple, Pres. Hinckley said, “We apologize to our faithful Saints in the Hartford area. We know you will be disappointed in this announcement. You know that we, and your local officers, have spent countless hours searching for a suitable location that would handle the needs of the Saints in New York and New England. While we deeply regret disappointing the people in the Hartford area, we are satisfied that we have been led to the present decision, and that temples will be located in such areas that our Saints in the Hartford area will not have to drive unreasonable distances.”

Harrison New York Temple

Announcement:  30 September 1995
Suspended:  Mid-2000s, following the dedication of the Manhattan New York Temple (2004)

On September 30, 1995, during the priesthood session of General Conference, President Gordon B. Hinckley announced that plans for a regional temple in Hartford, Connecticut, which would serve the New York and New England areas of the United States, had been replaced with plans for two temples for that region on sites in Boston, Massachusetts, and White Plains, New York-later designated Harrison, New York. “In other words,” said Pres. Hinckley, “there will be two [temples] to serve the needs of the people where originally it was planned that one would do.”

On March 8, 1996, the Church purchased a beautifully wooded 24-acre site for the temple at the highly accessible intersection of Interstate 287 and Hutchinson River Parkway. The location of the site in Harrison was reflected in a name change made during a major renaming of many of the Church’s temples to a uniform guideline in October 1999, making the White Plains New York Temple the Harrison New York Temple.

The residents of Harrison and the Town Planning Board were very much opposed to the Church building its Temple in their town. As a result, the Church scaled back plans for 89,000 Sq foot building to a 56,000 Sq Ft. in an effort to appease certain elements in the town. They reduced the height of the steeple from 159 ft to 115 ft. and finally to 44 feet. They applied for a variance from the town, which had a 30 ft limit. That variance was denied. The Church elected to pursue a lawsuit, accusing the town of infringing on freedom of religion and assembly.

The spirit of compromise filled members of the Harrison Town Board, who unanimously voted on April 30, 2002, to approve a proposed settlement with the Church, when it became clear that the town would likely lose in court and spend millions of dollars if legal action were pursued. The agreement resulted in numerous additional concessions by the Church including reducing the building from 56,000 square feet to 28,400 square feet, dropping the number of seats from 200 to 100, lowering the height of the building from 44.7 feet to 34 feet and steeple from 115 feet to 105 feet, trimming the number of parking spaces from 198 to 135, paying for any damage to Kenilworth Road caused by construction, and refraining from building anything else on the property for 15 years after the temple opens.

In August 2002, the Church announced its plans to build the Manhattan New York Temple inside an existing Church-owned building. Though the seven-year dispute in Harrison contributed to the decision, significant membership growth in the city was emphasized, as explained by Stake President Brent Belnap: “Growth in the five boroughs has been so great, that the logic of having a temple within easy access to public transportation in the heart of the city makes far more eminent sense.”

By 2006, the Harrison New York Temple was removed from the Church’s official list of announced temples. The decision to build a temple on this site would constitute a new announcement.

Paris France Temple

Proposed:  4 June 1998 by Gordon B. Hinckley

During a European tour to dedicate the Preston England Temple, President Gordon B. Hinckley met with about 2,400 members from two Paris stakes and three outlying districts. In his remarks, he noted, “When I came here after the war, there were so few members of the Church, and now there are 30,000 of you.”  He continued, “I don’t want to build up your hopes, but the time has come when you deserve to have a temple among you, and we’ll look for a place to build one.  I don’t know how long it will take to find a suitable site. I invite every one of you, my brethren and sisters, to plead with the Lord individually in your prayers to lead us to a property in this great city, or its environs, where we can build a house of the Lord so that you won’t have to travel five hours to Frankfurt or six hours to Zollikofen.  Please unite your prayers with ours, and the time will come, and I hope that it will be quick in coming, when we can construct somewhere in this area a house of the Lord, a sacred temple, into which you can go and do that work which is found only in the temples of the Lord.”

In May 2004, President Hinckley returned to Paris, shortly after the dedication of the Copenhagen Denmark Temple.  He met with French members on May 28 in a hotel convention hall on the property of Euro Disney.  Remarking on the upcoming dedication of the Manhattan New York Temple, President Hinckley expressed, “I wish I could announce that we could have a temple here, but we do not have a suitable place yet, in my judgment, to build it. And so, we will continue to look. I don’t know when it will be built, but I am confident that we will have a temple for the French-speaking people of the Church sometime in the future.”  Continuing he said, “You are worthy of the richest blessings of the Church. You are worthy of every blessing which this Church has to offer.  And there is no blessing greater than the blessing of the house of the Lord. And so, my brothers and sisters, I ask you to be patient for a time. I know it is a long way to Frankfurt where you go.  I hope that you will continue to go there, but sometime in the future a beautiful house of the Lord will grace this land.”

As the April 2006 General Conference approached, hopes rose that the Paris France Temple would be announced when French media disclosed the Church’s interest in purchasing a huge tract of land outside Versailles-about one-third of the small city of Villepreux-reportedly for a temple. A church spokesman confirmed the Church was working with the property owners, but he said that the use of the property had not been determined and that temple locations were announced by the First Presidency. The summer before, President Hinckley had been considering a parcel of land in Saint-Cloud, a suburb of Paris, but attention had now turned to the Villepreux property. Moulin Rouge owners, the Clerico family, were also the owners of the land. Of the three interested parties-an Arab emirate, a Russian, and the Mormons-the mayor of Villepreux said he preferred the Mormons for two reasons: morality and quality of investment. Never has there been any concern about public order with church members, he said.3 No temple announcement was made, however, and in the end, the Church did not succeed in acquiring the property.

Southwest Salt Lake Valley Temple

Proposed:  1 October 2005 by Gordon B. Hinckley

During the opening session of the October 2005 General Conference, President Gordon B. Hinckley announced the construction of a temple in South Jordan, Utah, later named the Oquirrh Mountain Utah Temple.  With this announcement, President Hinckley indicated that another temple site had been acquired in the southwest part of the Salt Lake Valley, which would be announced later once membership growth in the valley required it.

Last time, I did a lengthy post on Nepotism in the Church, which you can find here.  This is an update for this year so far.  As you can see, the list is pretty short.  I haven’t had a chance to go back and do more research on the appointments other than General Authorities, Temple Presidents and Mission Presidents.  Biographical information is hard to come by for Area Authorities and Stake Presidents.

One thing is clear; the church is getting much more diverse in appointments for Mission Presidents and Temple Presidents.  While there are still a number of Mission P residents coming out of Utah and other church strongholds, local/regional callings are on the rise.

As far as Temple Presidents, with the large number of Temples in operations, local Temple Presidents are now the norm.  Except for the “big” Temples in various areas, Utah, Hawaii, and Washington D.C where emeritus General Authorities or released 2nd Quorum of 70 members are called.

And while you don’t see a significant number of relatives being called to the General Authorities, long time Church employees or other “well-connected” members are getting the nod.  But this has probably always been true as President Hinckley was a long time Church employee prior to his call to the General Authorities.

BACKGROUND

After the Israelites were instructed by the Lord to prepare for the final plague that would free them from slavery in Egypt and allow their return to the land of their inheritance, the Lord told them to observe the Passover “for an ordinance … forever” (Exodus 12:24).

We know this requirement ended with the atonement of Jesus Christ, which ended the Mosaic law and all its practices. Jewish people throughout the world continue to observe the Passover each year in remembrance of the escape from Egypt.

In actuality, the Passover celebration, which is eight days in length, consists of two feasts-the Feast of the Passover and the Feast of the Unleavened Bread.  The Feast of the Passover occurs on the first night of the Passover celebration in commemoration of the sacrifice of the paschal lamb and the angel of death “passing over” the houses of Israel. The remainder of the seven days is the Feast of the Unleavened Bread, which commemorates the Israelite’s freedom from bondage.  Because true observance of the Feast of the Passover requires the actual sacrifice of a paschal lamb, Jews do not actually celebrate the Passover.  Sacrifices are no longer permitted due to the final destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70.  In fact, Jews refrain from eating any roasted meat during their Passover Seder in order “to avoid even the impression that they are partaking of an ‘imitation’” of the sacrifice (Leo Trepp, The Complete Book of Jewish Observance [New York: Simon and Shuster, 1980], pp. 178-79).

THE PASSOVER SEDER

On the fourteenth day of the month of Nisan (formally Abib) of the lunar-based Jewish calendar, Jews throughout the world celebrate the beginning of the eight-day Passover celebration with a service called a Seder, which in Hebrew means “order.”  The celebration is observed in the home rather than in the synagogue and is a retelling of the story of the Israelite oppression and deliverance from Egypt.  A book called the Haggadah (“the Telling”) is used along with symbolic foods to illustrate the story. The celebration culminates with eating the Passover meal and the afikomen (dessert).  Jesus and his disciples ate a Passover meal as the Last Supper.

KEY SYMBOLS OF THE PASSOVER

The Lamb

“In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb.. , . “Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year….

“And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening” (Exodus 12:3, 5-6).

In the Book, Christ In the Passover, Ceil and Moishe Rosen  point out that “the family had to watch  it [the lamb] carefully for four days before the Passover to make sure it was healthy and  perfect in every way…. It must have won the affection of the entire household” (Chicago: Moody Press, 1978], pp. 25-26).

Killing the lamb truly became a sacrifice.  The price that had to be paid foreshadowed the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.  The scriptures refer to Jesus as the Lamb of God over forty times.  Just as Israel was saved by the blood of the paschal lamb, we are saved by the blood of Jesus Christ, “our passover [who was] sacrificed for us” (1 Corinthians 5:7).  It is important to point out the following parallels between the paschal lamb and the life of Christ:

1.   Both were the firstborn, without blemish (see Exodus 12:5).

2.   Both were to have no broken bones; the paschal lamb was to be prepared whole (see Exodus 12:46).

3.   Both the paschal lamb’s and Christ’s blood were to be used as a token and sign of redemption (see Exodus 12: 13).

4.   Both the paschal lamb’s and Christ’s blood was spilled; the blood of the paschal lamb flowed into the bason (see Exodus 12:22).

At the Seder, an unbroken, roasted shankbone now represents the lamb and its sacrifice.

The Unleavened Bread (Matzah)

Matzah symbolizes the haste in which the Israelites left Egypt; they did not have time to wait for their bread dough to rise.  Leaven, referred to in the scriptures and by Church leaders as both a good symbol (as in the parable of the leaven in Matthew 13:33) and a symbol for sin (as in Matthew 16:6), is used to increase the mass of bread dough prior to baking.  In Hebrew, the word matzah means sweet.  The Hebrew word for leavened bread is chomatz, which also means sour or bitter.  The same leavening agents that make bread rise can also spoil it if they ferment too long.  Thus, the Apostle Paul said, “Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened….

“Therefore let us keep the feast, not with the old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Corinthians 5:7-8).

As part of their preparation for the Passover, Jews remove all the leaven (bread and its ingredients) from their homes, they neither eat nor have leavened items in their homes for the entire eight-day period (see Exodus 12:19).

At the beginning of the modem Seder, three pieces of matzah are wrapped in a cloth and set aside for use during the ceremony.  Jews have a number of different interpretations of what the three matzot (plural form) represent.  Some say the matzot symbolize the three divisions of Judaism-priests, Levites, and Israelites-united as one.  Others say they represent the three great patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  We may see allusions to the three personages of the Godhead: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.  This last interpretation is compelling as we see how these three matzot are used.

After the first cup of wine and the washing of the hands (see John 13:4-5), the middle of the three matzot (the Son) is broken into two pieces, a large piece and a smaller one.  The large piece, called the afikomen (the dessert), is wrapped in a napkin and hidden in the room for later use, after the meal is consumed, the children search the room for the missing afikomen. When the children find the afikomen, the leader of the Seder must pay a ransom to the child who found it.  After the leader pays the ransom, the afikomen can be eaten by all.  It is the last thing eaten at the Seder.  At this point in the Last Supper, Jesus instituted the sacrament.  Jesus and his disciples ate the afikomen, which represented his body, and drank the third cup of wine, the cup of redemption, which represented his blood (see Luke 22:19-20).

The Door

In Exodus 12:22, the Lord, through Moses, commanded the Israelites to mark their doors with the blood of the paschal lamb and to stay inside the entire night: “And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop [an herb], and dip it in the blood that is in the bason [a ditch running alongside the house], and strike the lintel [top] and the two side posts with the blood that is in the bason; and none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning.”

The action of marking the door from bottom to top and from side to side is symbolic of the sign of the cross on which Jesus would be crucified.  The bloody spots also point to the wounds in Jesus’ head, hands, feet, and side, as well as the drops of blood the Lord would shed in Gethsemane (see Rosen, Christ in the Passover, pp. 30-32).

The door through which the Israelites were told not to pass represents their path to redemption from bondage following the night of terror.  The door can be seen to represent Jesus himself:  “I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture” (John 10:9).

Elijah the Prophet

To represent their ongoing hope for the coming of the Messiah, Jews await the arrival of the prophet Elijah on Passover night.  All families set a place at their tables for him and near the end of the Seder, they pause to open their doors in hopes that he will enter.

Doctrine and Covenants 110: 13-16 chronicles the return of the prophet Elijah and his appearance to the Prophet Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland Temple on 3 April 1836.  It is interesting to note that that date was during the time of the Jewish Passover.

Other Symbols and Their Meaning

Other foods traditionally eaten during the modern seder as well as their significance are listed below:

• Bitter herbs remind us of the bitterness of slavery or the bitterness of sin in our lives.
• Roasted eggs represent the second offering, known as the “festival or pilgrim offering.” The egg may also represent new life or the resurrection.
• Haroset is a mixture of apples, dates, nuts, and grapes that represents the mortar used with bricks to build the Egyptian cities.
• Greens dipped in salt water (to represent tears) symbolize the arrival of spring or the newness of life out of bondage.

The rich symbolism of the first Passover and the Jewish observance can be used to teach about the Lord’s use of types and symbols, particularly in the Old Testament, and to help better understand the scriptures.

Nephi taught: “Behold, my soul delighteth in proving unto my people the truth of the coming of Christ; for, for this end hath the law of Moses been given; and all things which have been given of God from the beginning of the world, unto man, are the typifying of him” (2 Nephi l1:4). All things point to Jesus Christ, his coming, his life and mission, and his sacrifice that enables us to fulfill our Heavenly Father’s plan.

One of the great things is the ability to communicate with a wide range of people well in excess of our normal circles of friends, relatives and acquaintances.  For members of the Church, it is chance to exchange ideas and thoughts with a wide range of church members, ex-members and non-members.

The so-called “Bloggernacle,” has in many ways turned into the Church’s unofficial complaint department. The Church itself does not have a complaint department, either official or unofficial.  In fact, many would say that not only does it not accept complaints; it discourages them and some leaders  complain about complainers.

President Gordon B. Hinckley has said: “I am not asking that all criticism be silenced. Growth comes of correction. Strength comes of repentance. Wise is the man who can acknowledge mistakes pointed out by others and change his course.

“What I am suggesting is that each of us turn from the negativism that so permeates our society and look for the remarkable good among those with whom we associate, that we speak of one another’s virtues more than we speak of one another’s faults.” (Ensign, Apr. 1986, pp. 3-4.)

Another  aspect of blogging is the ability to be anonymous, if one chooses.  Under the cloak of anonymity, one can write practically anything one wants with less worry that someone will discover who he or she really is.  And many avail themselves of that opportunity.

In fact, we have some people who post here under different screen names and actually argue with themselves on some topics. I can’t figure that one out.  Shades of Sybil, I guess.

Some of the more common complains one reads about the Church are:

1.       The Church is boring, out of touch and too old fashion

2.       The Church is too restrictive and discriminates against people

3.       The Church is too conservative on some social issues and should be more in tune with societal reality

4.       The Church is phony

5.       The Church is rich and will not spend its money or tell anyone how much it has

6.       The Church is lying about its history, won’t apologize for perceived wrongdoing nor admit its past errors.

7.       The Church and its leaders refuse to listen to its members, especially me! (Meaning the person complaining).

The list is endless.  In many cases, these complaints come from upset or disaffected members, or people who have left the Church or in the process of leaving.  It comes from folks who often hide behind their screen name. In some cases, for good reasons.

All of us can find things about the Church, its leaders and its practices that we don’t like.  But, one of things I notice is that the complainers often take over every Church-themed blog, as they have to point out why the blogger is wrong, the Church is wrong and they are right.  Their hardheartedness, resentfulness and bitterness is obvious and painful to read.

Mormon Matters strives to be open to all points of view on Mormon topics and we do not censor comments like some sites. But really, can’t we have a reasonable conversation about topics without nasty complaining about the Church and its leaders.  We can disagree and we can do it respectfully.

let’s give it a try.

Today, February 3, 2009 is the 1-year anniversary of the calling of President Thomas S. Monson as the 16th President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  What has happened in the Church during that period?  Has there been any major changes, events, revelations?

 LDS Church News has a specific page devoted to the first year of President Monson’s leadership as President of the Church. For that reason, I invite you to look through it as I will not repeat what was written. Also, the Salt Lake Tribune has an article by Peggy Fletcher Stack entitled, “LDS leader’s first year: Observers say Monson barely budged from the Hinckley plan“

In summary, President Monson dedicated 5 temples, announced 10 new Temples, presided over two General Conferences, and spoke in an number of other meetings. But, no new policies were established, no major revelations were received and the growth of the Church is steady.

However, the one of the most controversial things the Church as ever gotten involved with occurred on his watch; the fight in California over Proposition 8.  To some, it was a stunning encroachment on civil liberties and a wrong-headed involvement of the Church in political affairs. To others, it was nothing more than the Church defending traditional marriage and engaging in a coalition with other like-minded organizations.  The fact the Church seemed better organized, its people more engaged with time and money is beside the point.

I personally will not forget the address President Monson gave on Sunday Morning during April Conference. His first official address (he spoke in the Priesthood session) as President. While on one hand it was vintage Monson, there was, for me, a detectable difference. He was now the Lord’s Prophet on the earth.  And he can wiggle his ears too! 

I have books written by and about the Prophets and General Authorities, Histories of the Church, Church Units and the building of the Kingdom in various geographies. Books about Temples and Temple Building.  Books which attempt to explain Gospel doctrine and principles, even untrue doctrine and books which are critical of the Church.  I have various versions and translations of the Scriptures, books that comment or explain scripture and many, many more. One of my friends once commented, “Why do you have all these books, you are never going to read them all.” Which is turning out to be true, but I have referred to many of them at one time or another. I like the feel of a real book in my hand so I often do research online and then read from the actual book itself.

Sometimes it seems that I spend a lot of time in my books and not as much time in the Scriptures.

President Harold B Lee said this:

“We have been prone in the last while to be more concerned about reading commentaries about the scriptures. But there is nothing quite so vital as taking those scriptures in our hands and reading them. [T]here is something that’s more electric, more spiritual, something that is more deeply meaningful when I read from the scriptures themselves. There is nothing so vital, so necessary today, as to ingrain in your children a love for the scriptures themselves.” (Sunday School General Conference, 6 October 1972)

I have often thought about this and wonder if we have way too many books about the Church and Church topics. That those thousands of books distract us from the books we should be reading on a frequent basis-the Scriptures.

Ironically, General Authorities and Church Scholars are major contributors to the plethora of books on the market. Even though the market for LDS books is rather small, I bet it is still big business.

And really, after the tenth or eleventh biography of Joseph Smith is written, do we really need yet another one? Just how much more Book of Mormon geography theories and explanation can we stand?

Now, I have gotten a great deal of insight from reading some of these books and gotten ideas which did truly enlighten me. But could I have gotten that with an earnest reading of the Scriptures under the influence of the Holy Ghost?

What do you think?