It’s not that clear. Surprised?  I didn’t think so.

It depends on how you interpret what has been taught on the subject by the General Authorities, what the lesson manual actually say, how your local leaders interpret all of it and what the Spirit tells you to do. It also depends on whether you follow the examples of the GAs themselves when they are called upon to teach the Church in General Conference and other meetings. Oh, and what the scriptures say.

What General Authorities Say

The most oft quoted passage found in some of the lesson manuals themselves is one from Elder M. Russell Ballard:

“Teachers would be well advised to study carefully the scriptures and their manuals before reaching out for supplemental materials. Far too many teachers seem to stray from the approved curriculum materials without fully reviewing them. If teachers feel a need to use some good supplemental resources beyond the scriptures and manuals in presenting a lesson, they should first consider the use of the Church magazines” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1983, 93; or Ensign, May 1983, 68).

Now, as I read this passage, I read that it is important to consider the scriptures and lesson manuals first and study them BEFORE reaching out for extra materials and, if you do wish to use supplemental materials, church magazines if the first place to look. Good advice, really.

I could not find any specific comments by General Authorities that said directly to always use only the scriptures and the lesson materials and “Church-approved sources.” Instead, I found quotes such as this:

“Because we need the Holy Ghost, we must be cautious and careful not to go beyond teaching true doctrine. The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of Truth. His confirmation is invited by our avoiding speculation or personal interpretation. That can be hard to do. You love the person you are trying to influence. He or she may have ignored the doctrine they have been taught. It is tempting to try something new or sensational. But we invite the Holy Ghost as our companion when we are careful to teach only true doctrine. One of the surest ways to avoid even getting near false doctrine is to choose to be simple in our teaching. Safety is gained by that simplicity, and little is lost.” Henry B. Eyring, “The Power of Teaching Doctrine,” Ensign, May 1999, 73

“Teaching by the Spirit is the Lord’s way. How do we do this? First, we must keep the commandments, especially the commandment to keep our thoughts and actions clean. Second, we must prepare. Third, we must desire to be led and be willing to be led by the Spirit.”  Dallin H. Oaks, “Teaching and Learning by the Spirit,” Liahona, May 1999, 15

The following, taught by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland in the Worldwide  Leadership Broadcast in 2007 (Jeffrey R. Holland, “Teaching and Learning in the Church,” Liahona, Jun 2007, 56–73) on Teaching summarizes what the Brethren really teach about Teaching in the Church:

The Gift of Teaching

1. Ask, seek, and knock spiritually.

2. Teach from the scriptures.

3. Teach by and with the Spirit.

4. Help the learner assume responsibility for learning.

5. Testify.

What the Lesson Manuals Say

The introductions in the Church lesson manuals are not consistent in the area of what materials to use. They all say basically the same thing as the 5 points above. But here are some specific passages from some of them on the subject of extra materials:

“Be judicious in your use of commentaries and other nonscriptural sources of information. Class members should be taught to seek knowledge and inspiration from the scriptures and the words of the latter-day prophets. “Helps for the Teacher,” Old Testament Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual, v” Same as in the New Testament manual

“This manual is a tool to help you teach the doctrines of the gospel from the scriptures. It has been written for youth and adult Gospel Doctrine classes and is to be used every four years. Additional references and commentaries should not be necessary to teach the lessons.” “Helps for the Teacher,” Book of Mormon Gospel Doctrine Teacher’s Manual, (1999),v

“It is not necessary or recommended that members purchase additional commentaries or reference texts to support the material in the text. Members are encouraged to turn to the scriptures that have been suggested for further study of the doctrine. “Introduction,” Teachings of Presidents of the Church: John Taylor, v” and the other “Teachings of Presidents” books.

And, finally, in the only manual to specifically prohibit the use of any outside materials other than Church magazines, we find this:

“If you have been called to teach a quorum or class using this book, do not substitute outside materials, however interesting they may be. Stay true to the scriptures and the words in the book. As appropriate, use personal experiences and articles from Church magazines to supplement the lessons.” “Introduction,” Gospel Principles, (2009), 1–3″

But even this only says do not substitute, not “never use.” The lessons in the Gospel Principles manual are very short, but in general, I would agree that a discussion of basic gospel principles probably does not need additional sources.

How our Local Leaders Interpret It

You are going to get a wide range of guidance on this issue. All the way from, “only teach from the manuals, scriptures and church magazines” to “we trust you to follow the Spirit and do what is right.” And everything in between.

What the Spirit Tells You to Do

In all the materials, a key component to being a successful teacher is to pray, seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost and Follow the Spirit in your teaching. Seems to me that is good advice and one cannot go wrong but adhering to this principle. It may not always get you out of a jam with a local leader, but ultimately, if we are true to this principle, we can feel comfortable with ourselves and what we’ve decided to do.

Examples of the GAs When They Teach

It is not unusual for General Authorities to use extra materials when they teach church members. In my mind, this is a good example to follow.  While they mainly quote from the scriptures and latter-day prophets, they also use outside materials occasionally. President Monson is fond of quoting from Broadway shows, for example. And the Brethren frequently quote C.S. Lewis, a prominent non-LDS Christian writer. And they will also slip in a scripture verse used from a translation other than the King James Version. But, you will not hear them quoting from speculative sources. This can also be our guide in the use of outside materials.

What the Scriptures Say

“Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say.” (Exodus 4:12)

“And thou shalt ^teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.” (Deuteronomy 6:7)

“And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and ^preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and ^healing all manner of ^sickness and all manner of disease among the people” (Matthew 4:23)

“For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.” (Hebrews 5:12)

“Seek not to declare my word, but first seek to obtain my word, and then shall your tongue be loosed; then, if you desire, you shall have my spirit and my word, yea, the power of God unto the convincing of men. (Doctrine and Covenants 11:21)

Conclusion

My conclusion is this. We are to pray, seek the Spirit and prepare using the scriptures and the materials we are given. If we feel it necessary to use a quote or a commentary from another source in order to enhance the lesson, we should use it. Our desire is to help the student more fully understand the lesson being taught. If we feel we can accomplish that with another piece of material, all the better.  Not to go overboard with the extra materials, but to enhance the discussion.

argumentum ad hominem.

Now, what makes it a non-sequitur (see the link for a definition) is the absurdity of the phrase itself.

How can someone’s opinion be wrong?

It cannot be, for each is entitled to his or her opinion. Now, an opinion can be based on incorrect, outdated or incomplete information, but in and of itself, an opinion cannot be wrong.

Take for example, recent discussions here on Mormon Matters. There are certain topics that engender (an ironic use of the word, I suppose) heated discussions. Homosexuality and Same Sex Marriage (SSM) are at the top of the list.

With regard to permitting SSM, if you are against it, you are labeled a bigot, if you are for it (and a member of the LDS Church), you are borderline apostate and if you practice it, you are labeled a deviant. All the while the conversation states that people are entitled to their opinion and free to do, say and think what they choose.

But not really. Not if you read the comments and the discussions that transpire.

In many cases, the unspoken phrase, “your opinion is wrong” permeates the comments.  Again, the opinion may be based on religious, societal, biological or even incorrect information or views.  But, it is just that, an opinion.

Some opinions carry more weight than others.  A court “opinion” may carry the weight of law. An opinion of an ecclesiastical authority may result in Church discipline and the opinion of a teacher may result in a particular grade.  In some cases, opinions count for almost nothing, like the countless, endless discussions you hear on TV and radio talk shows. And, pretty much for most of the discussions here.

So how many times have you evoked the phrase, “your opinion is wrong” in the course of your discussions?”

BTW, if you disagree with anything I’ve said in this post, yes, you guess it, “your opinion is wrong.”

And as a second thought, what of all the doctrine taught by Paul? Did he have the authority to declare Church doctrine?

Peter’s death is not recorded in the New Testament and any information is not terribly reliable.  He is thought to have died in Rome and is buried at the Vatican.  According to the Catholic Church, the Pope that follows Peter as the leader is Linus, The Bishop of Rome, who may or may not be the person mentioned 2 Timothy 4:21. However, no credible evidence exists that the Office of Bishop of Rome has anything to do with the Holy Apostleship.  It is therefore, unclear, who, if anyone succeed Peters as the Head of the Church with the Keys of the Priesthood.

The Apostle Paul was certainly among the most prolific New Testament writers with 13 of the epistles attributed to him included in the canon of the New Testament. We also know that he was a “second generation” Apostle, having had a vision of the Savior, but not having ever been in His earthly presence.

So Christ’s teachings Paul received were basically transmitted second hand from the Apostles who knew Christ personally.

In Paul’s writings, he declared doctrine on these important issues:

a.      Men and Women must be redeemed from the fall.

b.      Justification by Faith, no longer following the Law of Moses

c.       Salvation by Grace, through the Atonement of Christ

d.      We become new creatures in Christ, our nature changed.

e.      Gifts of the Spirit

f.        Jesus Christ transcends all things

And many others.

The question is this:

Was Paul’s teaching established doctrine taught by Christ and/or authorized by the Chief Apostle after Christ’s death, or was he proclaiming new doctrine, never before taught?  And if he was doing the latter, did he possess the authority to do so?

The Christian world, including the LDS, rely very, very heavily of the writings of Paul for much of its doctrinal justification, so it is important to know whether Paul was acting under authority or just preaching his own ideas.

What do you think?

In some cases, they may be one and the same, but likely, they are different.

In my case, my all-time favorite was the Stake Director of Public Relations. I only held the calling for a short time because we moved out of state.

I looked at it as a two-fold adventure. One was to do subtle missionary work by promoting the activities of the Church in our area.  The other was to raise the visibility of the Church in our area and demonstrate our willingness to be a positive part of the community.

In my short time, we held a community event featuring the local Opera Company, participated as volunteers at the annual jazz festival, placed several articles in the newspapers and promoted, on a region-wide basis, the showing of the Sacred Stone PBS special that played on our local PBS station.

As part of the Stake’s 50th anniversary, I created a logo and wrote 52 weekly blurbs for the ward newsletters, highlighting a particular aspect of the Stake history.  That was incredibly interesting to learn about the Stake history. As you can tell, I really enjoyed that calling as I was able to utilize some of the skills I learned at work for the Church.

My most difficult calling had to be as Elder’s Quorum President. It is one of those in the Ward that has a tremendous amount of responsibility, second only to the Bishop and on par with the Relief Society President. Here you have the Keys of the Priesthood, responsibility for roughly half the ward and get very little respect.  You not only try to manage the Elders in the Ward, motivating them to do their home teaching, family responsibilities and other things in the Ward, but you are also the ward moving company and go to “heavy-lifting” group.  You attend countless meeting and time away from family.

Now don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed that calling too as we saw progress in improving the home teaching and seeing lives changing for the better, but it is a most difficult one to juggle all the activities, family and job.

So, what have been you favorites and most difficult? And why?

Depending on your faith tradition and your own level of observance, the Sabbath day can represent anything from complete abstention from anything resembling work, interpreted as work or could cause one to perform work, to absolutely nothing out of the ordinary at all.

Some faiths observe their Sabbath on Saturday, the traditional seventh day of the week, in keeping with the Lord’s schedule of creation, even though He probably didn’t use a Julian calendar.  Others have transferred the Sabbath to Sunday, in honor of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, even though, it is not clear of this is the correct “third day.”  And still others have determined the actual day doesn’t matter, especially if you happen to be a star in professional American Football.

In the LDS Church, this observance generally takes the form of attendance at church meetings, no shopping, and no recreational activities.  Pretty much after that, one is allowed to exercise their agency to determine appropriate Sabbath observance. Staying in Church dress all day, no TV, no contact with the outside world are some of the prohibitions some families observe. We are told that visiting family, the sick and homebound, studying scriptures, resting (in moderation, of course) and attending firesides are very appropriate activities. Eating is also allowed, excepting on Fast Sunday, where we abstain from two meals or for 24 hours, again depending on interpretation.

However, if you have certain Church callings, you may, in fact, work harder on Sunday than you might the rest of the week. Early morning meetings, more meetings, visits, planning, more meetings might cause you to be away from home the entire day, even missing meals with your family.  For those folks, the Sabbath is not the “Day of Rest” we’ve all heard about, it is quite the opposite.

As we wish to emulate our Heavenly Father, striving to be like Him, this is what He did after the six days of creation.

And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.  And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. (Genesis 2:2 – 3)

Hope you have a great Sunday and don’t work too hard!

“…Since that time [the First Vision] the heavens have not been closed. Revelation continues to this day through each of His chosen prophets. Joseph was to be the one to help restore the true gospel of Jesus Christ.”

I do believe and accept the Church is receiving inspired counsel from on high. Not just the President, but at all levels down to families and individuals. However, it got me thinking, “where have all the revelations gone.”

In the early days of the Church (between 1823 and 1843), about 130 Sections of the Doctrine & Covenants were given to Joseph Smith as revelations from the Lord. After that time, only 4 more have been added as canonized revelations.  The Prophet Joseph received significantly more revelations that have not been officially canonized and appear in various places.

On the other hand, the RLDS Church (now the Community of Christ) has continually added to their Doctrine and Covenants since it was organized in 1860 and has 164 Sections. I know that there are others in the works as well.

That is not to say there is not revelation given to the President and Prophet of the LDS Church. I can point to a few examples I believe were revealed to the President of the Church by the Lord. For example, the plan to design and build small Temples put in place by President Hinckley, the creation of the Perpetual Education Fund, the move to the block meeting schedule, the major changes in the Temple ceremony in 1990, etc. I think these were the result of revelation from the Lord.

But, I wonder sometimes why we do not have further sections added to the D&C as canonized scripture or that some of these changes are not brought before the membership of the Church for their common consent.

So, just what might constitute additions to the Doctrine and Covenants which would be voted on by the Church membership?

Some have suggested the “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” might be a candidate. I always thought President Ezra Taft Benson’s talk “Beware of Pride” might be considered. I even formatted it on my computer as a page of scripture to see what it might look like.

So what would get your vote?  Or do you have an explanation why we do not have more canonized revelations since we are supposed to have a living canon and we have a living prophet?

I admire those who have faith.

I admire those who have faith to believe

I admire those who have faith in things hoped for, but not seen.

I admire those who have faith in the face of  opposition and ridicule

I admire those who have faith to stand up for what they believe is right.

I admire those who have faith in something that on the surface seems impossible.

I admire those who have faith in a story they read about and prayed about to know if it is true.

I admire those who have faith in something that happened in a faraway place, but still have the faith to believe.

I admire those who have the faith and the courage of their conviction to determine what isn’t working for them and to walk away.

I admire those who have the faith to look their family, loved ones and friends in the eye and tell them it isn’t what they want.

I admire those who have the faith to tell their family, loved ones and friends that it is what they want and need.

I admire those who have the faith to figure out what is really important and what is not.

I admire those who have the faith to fully embrace what they profess and live it.

I admire those who have faith to tell others about  they believe and why.

I admire those who have faith not to push it on them.

I admire those who have faith in themselves

I admire those who have faith in the Savior.

I admire those who have faith

I admire faith.

The LDS Church issued the following statement:

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regrets today’s decision.  California voters have twice been given the opportunity to vote on the definition of marriage in their state and both times have determined that marriage should be recognized as only between a man and a woman. We agree.  Marriage between a man and a woman is the bedrock of society.

“We recognize that this decision represents only the opening of a vigorous debate in the courts over the rights of the people to define and protect this most fundamental institution—marriage.

“There is no doubt that today’s ruling will add to the marriage debate in this country, and we urge people on all sides of this issue to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different opinion.”  (LDS Church Website)

There are some interesting parts of the ruling which goes into the State’s interest in marriage as a societal institution and a portion that notes “Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation.” And, in a rather fascinating conclusion, the Judge writes, “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.”

So there you have it.  While this is but a first step toward a ruling by the US Supreme Court, I wonder what will happen?  With the current make-up of the Court, there is no forgone conclusion that this ruling will be upheld on appeal.

Frankly, I thought the opponents of Proposition 8 made a much better case than the proponents. So, the Pro-8 people ought better get their act together, if they think they have a chance on appeal. If the defense in this case was the best they can do, they should just pack it in now. it was just terrible.

Whether California resumes the issuance of marriage licenses to gay couples is also still up in the air as they are proceeding with more caution this time than last.

I am beginning to think that SSM (same sex marriage) is going to happen whether the LDS Church, other Churches and opponents like it or not. It is already legal in a few states and, in my mind, it is only a matter of time.  Whether opposed or not, folks will just have to get used to it.

The question is; two-fold:

1. What is, if any, the slippery slope this will lead to?  Polygamy and polyandry? Churches forced to recognize and perform same-sex marriages in their churches and temples? Other odd combinations of coupling?
2. What will be the reaction of the LDS Church and other Churches to the ultimate end of marriage just between a man and a woman? Another revelation?

It’s not that I disagree with everything she wrote, it is the implications of some of her points I have a problem with.  And, in a point I think is extremely critical to discuss: Is the meeting itself dull or the people who attend it making it dull for themselves?

So, rather than a point by point rebuttal, I offer up a few of my own observations.

We now live in an over-stimulated society. First, there were those of us who grew up with Television. We could sit and watch the box for long periods of time. But TV didn’t take the place of reading books and newspapers, playing outside and doing other activities. Second, came the MTV generation. Music became visual and news went 24 hours a day. This began the gradual decline of other sedentary activities such as reading, playing board games, puzzles and just sitting.  Parents heard more and more from their children, “I’m bored.” Outside activities were also beginning to wane and obese children and adults are now more common.

Then, we ushered in the Internet, cell phones, video games, and VCRs. This just compounded the problems I noted above. Unsuspecting parents were turning their children and themselves into couch potatoes and anything less than flashing lights and extreme movement was just plain dull.  And, finally, we are now at the Text/Twitter generation, where anything less than instantaneous everything is slow. Where folks, especially young people cannot be away from their mobile device for a second less they miss an important “k” or some other cryptic message. In fact, most sleep with their devices and the thought of turning it off for any period of time, like a 70 minute church meeting is unheard of.

We expect to be entertained 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. In fact, many Church Services have become more like a show than a worship service. Even the Catholic Church has modified its mass to try to accommodate this trend. And many so-called mega-churches, loud bands, modern music, loud preachers and a loud congregation have been the norm for the folks who even bother to go. And they dress as though they are going to see Miley Cyrus rather than worship God and Jesus. The idea is we’d rather have them here at Church, such as it is, then sitting at home just drinking beer and watching football on Sundays.

The LDS Church has not succumbed to these trends and its worship service, the Sacrament Meeting has largely remained unchanged for many years. In Ms. Riess’ assertion that “we no longer expect spiritual manifestations,” she confuses a massive outpouring of the Spirit like that experienced at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple with the manner in which the Prophet Joseph always taught about how we generally commune and hear from God, by and through the still small voice.  She seems to assert that Latter-day Saints outside the US are having dramatic manifestations of the spirit while American Saints do not. Yet, I have attended a number of Sacrament meetings outside the US and it always seemed like a normal Sacrament Meeting to me.  No angels appeared, one writhed on the floor, spoke in a strange language or danced with snakes while I was there.

Yet, I have heard members say and I have often felt the presence of the Spirit at countless Sacrament Meetings, so I am not sure what she is talking about when she says, “we don’t truly expect God to show up” at our meetings. It is one of those things that people often pray for at the beginning and end of our meetings.

It is incredibly important to know why we are there at those meetings. We are at Sacrament Meeting to worship our Heavenly Father and His Son and partake of the Sacrament. That’s it.  That is why we are there. The talks and business conducted are secondary to that purpose. So, I probably agree with Ms. Riess that that purpose needs to be reinforced with members, as do the purpose and manner of talks as well.

For the most part, I love the music of Zion. Ms. Riess thinks it is “funereal.” And, it can be. But I also notice that many people in the congregation cannot be bothered to sing the hymns. They chat, stare off into space or have to deal with fussy children (a legitimate excuse, in my book).  With more people singing, the music would be better.

The final point I’d like to address are the talks.  She says, “Our talks suck.” Again, it is a matter of perspective. We know that most of our folks are NOT professional public speakers. They are moms and dads, many of whom have other full time jobs and responsibilities. So, they sometimes struggle to find the time to properly prepare talks for Sunday. That is no excuse. For the once in a while opportunity to teach the congregation, more time and effort could be made, for sure. But, we need to cut these folks some slack. Even so-called professional clergy can be just as bad and dull as any LDS member giving a talk. These are our Brother and Sisters. I think we can forgive them their speaking inadequacies and learn to hear the message rather than the delivery of the messenger.

In conclusion, any meeting or activity that is not well understood can be perceived as dull and boring. If I took many of you to a Jewish Sabbath day service, with its three-hour rote liturgy, all spoken in Hebrew, you might think that is dull, not having a clue what is going on, what is being said and the purposes behind it. Most Jewish services have little music, no screaming or yelling and the entertainment value is low. But, the devotion, respect and worship are there.

And that is the same way I feel about Our LDS Sacrament Service.

Like the clean-shaven face, the white shirt has come to symbolize the oppressive nature of the LDS Church to some members and, in many cases, former members. In particular, some women claim to be stifled by the strong patriarchal structure of the Church. In fact, because of their own dispositions, probably are.  I would venture a guess that most active church members do not feel this way.

Firstly, the white dress shirt for men is as much a convenience as anything. When wearing a suit or jacket, the white shirt goes with anything, almost any tie and reduces the need for color matching. Men, in general are more inclined this way. Most would rather not be bothered worrying about whether a certain tie goes with a certain shirt.  For women, this may be a different story. I know for me, I have to ask my wife if a certain shirt and tie combination look OK, when I wear a colored dress shirt. Unless, of course, it was already decided in advance. 

But, secondly, and perhaps more importantly, I have come to see the white dress shirt at Church as an important symbol that can be incorporated into my Sunday worship.  Elder Russell M. Nelson gave what was for me, the most reasonable explanation for the wearing of the white dress shirt I have heard.

In the 2003 Worldwide Leadership Training, he said this while speaking of the Aaronic Priesthood administration of the Sacrament:

“White shirts not only look nice, but they are a gentle reminder of other sacred rites such as Baptismal and Temple Ordnances at which white clothing is also worn.”

I like this idea. In fact, it was a wonderful revelation to me on how simple things can be connected together to form a chain connecting us to the Savior. Sure, it is a same subtle thing, but, it was a reasonable explanation for the rationale of the white shirt. Not required, per se, but a “gentle reminder.” And, I don’t always wear a white shirt on Sundays, but most of the time I do, for this reason.

Early in my church career, so to speak, I was Deacon’s Quorum Advisor. I saw how the colored shirt could also be seen as a subtle sign of rebellion.  When a Deacon didn’t want to pass the sacrament on Sunday, he would usually do one of two things. Either arrive to the chapel late after the meeting started (whether his family was there or not), or wear a colored dress shirt. I have seen the other members of the Aaronic Priesthood pull this trick as well. Perhaps it was the only clean shirt he had? After a while, you see a pattern. I also see this was some older brethren as well who tend to be “reluctant servants….”

One of my friends, who almost always wears colored shirts on Sundays recently started wearing white shirts as his son is now serving a mission.  When I asked him why he did that, he just said, “It seemed appropriate to me while he is out in the mission field.”  I thought that was a nice gesture honoring his son’s service to the Lord.

This week, my wife and I took a short road trip while my youngest son was at Boy Scout Camp.  We went into Wyoming and South Dakota, visiting the Mormon Handcart Visitor’s Center, Devil’s Tower, Mount Rushmore and the Crazy Horse Memorial.

Each place was impressive and awe-inspiring.

Mormon Handcart Visitor’s Center

This Center is not on the beaten track, so to speak. You really have to want to visit there. It is about 50 miles north of Rawlins, Wyoming, out on the Mormon Trail.  In 1997, the Church was able to purchase the property in front of Martin’s Cove and lease the Cove area from the US Bureau of Land Management. They have incorporated the purchased area with the lease area to create an impressive exhibit.

The majority of visitors are Church youth who “do the trek” each year. This is an experience where they pull handcarts around the property while learning about what the Handcart Pioneers particularly the fifth and sixth companies, The Martin and Willie, endured during their journeys. As you may know, the Martin and Willie Companies left the Midwest late and were caught in severe weather and had to be rescued. But not before number of them died from the ordeal.  The Center expects about 50,000 Trekkers this year and already have 27,000 signed up for next year.

After visiting the Visitor’s Center to hear the story, we set out on the trail to Martin’s Cove.  Because of my knee problem, I got a ride part of the way there and back, but still walked about 2 miles total. It is a beautiful walk but made easier in summer because it wasn’t in a foot and half of snow and 10 degrees with a wind chill like the Martin Company experienced.

Entering the Cove area is somewhat a reverent experience. When you realize what those people suffered, it makes it a very humbling experience as well.  Granted, it wasn’t the same as the experience I had in the Sacred Grove, but still very special.  I really could not imagine how much the people suffered there, but I also understand that many lessons were learned as a result.  And as far as I know, not a single person who suffered there ever regretted their experience. Some of the dead are also buried there in unmarked, unidentified graves.

The Other Places

We were also thrilled to be able to visit the other sites, Devil’s Tower, Mount Rushmore and The Crazy Horse Memorial. Each is special in its own way and made a great impression upon me.  For very different reasons than the Martin’s Cove visit, but still a great impression. A creation of nature, a creation of man and a memorial to a people who were in this part of the world long before the rest of us are important to recognize.  Particularly at Mount Rushmore and Crazy Horse, there is recognition that a sacrifice was made. Not only by those depicted, but by those who built it and are in the process of building it.

What’s interesting is that the leveraging of designs has really been going on since the 1950s. Prior to that, each building was designed and built from the ground up.  Looking at the Temples, one can see a similarity in each era of Temple building.

Temples

For example, the design of the Kirtland, Nauvoo and St. George Temples are similar, even if the interiors had a totally different configuration.

Similar Designs Examples

1. Logan, Manti
2. London, Hamilton, NZ, Bern, Los Angeles
3. Ogden, Provo (For now)
4. Tokyo, Seattle, Jordan River
5. Sao Paulo, Atlanta, Santiago, Tonga, Samoa (original), Tahiti, Sydney, Denver
6. Boise, Dallas, Chicago, Manila, Taipei, Guatemala City, Johannesburg, Stockholm, Seoul, Lima, Buenos Aries, Frankfurt
7. Small Temple Designs
8. Etc.

There, have of course, been some unique ones along the way:

Salt Lake, Oakland, Washington DC, Mexico City, San Diego, to name a few.

Meeting houses and Stake Centers

In the early days of the Church and in many parts of the world still, existing buildings were and are re-purposed for use as meetinghouses. In some cases, buildings are just rented for Sunday use. As the Church became established, starting in Utah and surrounding states, LDS Church buildings were built to match the specific use for the facility. Very ornate Tabernacles were the center of a Mormon town.

Here are a few examples:

Paris, ID ,  Provo , Box Elder (Brigham City) , Kaysville

As time moved on, standard designs began to become the norm.  As far back as 1950s, many meetinghouses and Stake Centers were based on the same design, with an occasional unique one.

1950’s

1960’s

1970’s

1980’s

1990s, 2000s

The 1990s brought the “California Plan,” a 42,000 sq foot 2-story building designed to hold an entire stake within it.  There are two of everything, Chapels, Primary, Relief Society rooms. Eight bishops and clerks offices and a complete set of Stake offices. Most of the buildings were and are not fully utilized except for short periods of time while other buildings were renovated. Take it from my personal experience, you’ve never experienced this kind of organized chaos when you have four wards in the building at once,  4 in the morning and 4 in the afternoon.

So, what do you think?  I’ve heard that they are even tearing down some of the older, unique buildings to put up more efficient, newer designs. Are we losing the character of our buildings by having the same designs? Or, is it easier to find a church building? I’ve always been able to spot our buildings by the spires out front.

Are you in a vintage building or a cookie cutter building? Which are your favorites?

1. 1. Why the Church building is called a Meetinghouse and the Stake Center used to be called a Stake House?
   2. Why our weekly Church Service is called a Sacrament Meeting with a Sacrament Service within it?
   3. Why we need to take the Sacrament on a weekly basis except for Stake and General Conference weekends?
   4. That we understand “Deacon, Teacher and Priest” pretty well, but what’s up with “Beehive, MIAmaid and Laurel?
   5. Why we have Sunday School lessons that are 20 years old with very minor updates along the way?
   6. Why we always thank Heavenly Father for Moisture, not rain, snow or flooding?
   7. Why some people ask to “bless the hands” that prepared the food, but not the rest of the person?
   8. If a non-white shirt and facial hair will keep men out of the Celestial Kingdom?
   9. If “we believe the Bible to be the Word of God so far as it is translated correctly,” why there has been no work done by the Church on a “correct” translation?
   10. Why we call parties and receptions held on Sunday a “fireside”?

What do you wonder?  Be nice….. and cute at least.

Latter-day Saints do not profess a belief in the infallibility of their leaders. President James E. Faust wrote this, “We make no claim of individual infallibility or perfection as the prophets, seers, and revelators. (James E. Faust, “Continuing Revelation,” Ensign, Aug 1996, 2).  And while the Church does not express that the leaders themselves are infallible like the Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility, there is an expectation they will lead us in the right direction according to the mind and will of the Lord and in harmony with the Scriptures.

President Erza Taft Benson wrote, “The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.” (Ezra Taft Benson, “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet,” Tambuli, Jun 1981, 1). This was not a new concept originating with President, then Elder Benson. It has been taught since the days of Joseph Smith.

But, how do we know when we need to heed the words of the Prophet and when it is simply good advice and counsel.  Just when is a prophet acting as such?

The simple answer is that he is acting as a Prophet when moved upon by the Holy Ghost. “And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.” (Doctrine and Covenants 68:4)

However, how do WE know?  Again, the simple answer is in the same way. The Holy Ghost must testify to us of the truthfulness of the words spoken. Sounds simple enough?  It’s not.

For some of us, we struggle with this concept and its application. In some cases, we simply do not have the faith to believe. In other cases, we have not trained ourselves to hear that testimony. Perhaps in other cases, it just does not come. Maybe, it IS just good advice? Or maybe, it’s bad advice?

We are required to pray and ask for a confirmation of the truthfulness of the statements of the Prophets to us.  “But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right. “(Doctrine and Covenants Section 9:8).

Frankly, I’ve never had a burning in the bosom except for heartburn, but I also recognize that that expression is a metaphor for the feeling I do get when I’ve made that step or feel that I am under the influence of the Holy Ghost.

Some members do not need to make that step and receive confirmation. Perhaps, they receive an instantaneous witness of the truth. Or, perhaps they are acting as the President Brigham Young warned,

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not” (Discourses of Brigham Young, sel. John A. Widtsoe [1941], 135).

And yet, while we have many members of the Church who would blindly follow their leaders without inquiring of God for themselves, they are also more willing to overlook individual foibles of the same leaders, past and present.

The polygamy practices of Joseph Smith, the past racist statements of some Church Leaders, and the inconsistent telling of Church History, to name a few, do not bother them.  They trust the explanation of the leaders and the Church.

On the other hand, there are those in the Church who are really bothered by those things, and seem to have a hard time reconciling the actions of those leaders with their prophetic mantle. In other words, if those leaders are so in tune with the Lord, they should have known better than to do and say those things?  Infallible?

Could it be that those members actually hold them to a higher standard than the rank and file member?

President Wilford Woodruff and others taught that the Lord would never let the Prophet lead the Church astray. I believe that. I also believe the members of the Church would also not permit it.

The Prophet is not infallible and we do not hold to that idea. He is a man, like every other man, imperfect and capable of error.  We love him and sustain him and recognize his authority to counsel and instruct us, lead us and guide us.

We do not follow blindly, but ask for confirmation of the truthfulness of his words. We sometimes struggle with following that counsel, but hopefully, we are better off for it.

Follow the Prophet

In some cases, a Greek/Latin pronunciation is used, in others, Middle English.

Here are some examples.

It seems the furthest one away from the original is EVE. Her Hebrew name is Chavah (yes, like Fiddler on the Roof) and it means “Giving Life.” Because she is the “Mother of all living.” (Gen 3:20). Some have said that Eve was chosen because it is close to EVIL.” And early Christian belief is that the fall brought evil into this world and it was Eve’s fault. And we, as Latter-Day Saints know, nothing could be farther from the truth.

The rest seem nothing more than differences in transliteration from one language to another. However, the other set of names that has always amused me is Elijah and Elisha. People always seem to mix them up because in English pronunciation the names are similar, yet in Hebrew, it is very easy to tell them apart.  Eliyahoo versus Elisha.

In the past two weeks, someone very close to me was released from a calling of much responsibility in our Ward. She had served very well  for about 3 ½ years. While it is a very trying calling at times, she was neither ready nor looking to be released. She had more to do.  But, she was not unhappy either. It seems, and I certainly have seen this before, she was OK with it. This comes in from knowing that she did her best and tried hard to be helpful to many people in the Ward, particularly the sisters. And, even though she was not called to a new position…yet.

It also seems that many of us have different emotions when being released from our callings. I suspect it depends on the calling itself. Please respond to the poll below. And please feel free to add your comments to this question:

[poll id="180"]

“For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.” (2 Nephi 25:23)

The key to this scripture verse are in two distinct phrases:

“for we know that it is by grace that we are saved” and,

“after all we can do.”

“By grace we are saved” – We are saved from eternal death, brought about by the fall of Adam because of the atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. We receive this gift without condition, we cannot earn it and it is given to every person who ever existed or will exist on this earth.

However, then comes a tricky phrase:

“after all we can do.” – This would seem to indicate that the Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ comes after the “do.” The footnote in the LDS Bible for “do” sends us to the Topical Guide section “Good Works.” This might lead one to the conclusion while reading this scripture literally, that you “work your way to heaven.”  That grace is earned after good works. This is a common charge by those critical of the doctrines of the LDS Church.

So just what does “all we can do” mean?

Here is my take on it.

I do not believe that good works can fully justify us. That is, unless we bring to the Lord what He asked for, the sacrifice of a “broken heart and a contrite spirit.”

“The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.” (Psalms 34:18)

“And behold, I have given you the law and the commandments of my Father, that ye shall believe in me, and that ye shall repent of your sins, and come unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit.  …” (3 Nephi 12:19)

“Thou shalt offer a sacrifice unto the Lord thy God in righteousness, even that of a broken heart and a contrite spirit.” (Doctrine and Covenants 59:8)

Someone who truly repented of his/her sins and tries to live the example of the Savior will be motivated to do good works as the Savior did. In doing good works will be a desire to more fully emulate the Savior, but not as a proof point about how well the person performs all the works of the gospel. In the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican (Luke 18), the Pharisee thought himself very justified and worthy before the Lord because of all the things of the law that he performed, while the Lord justified the Publican because of his humility.

It speaks to the idea that works:

1. be motivated for the right reasons
2. be inspired by our desire to serve the Lord
3. not be done to seek the praise of others
4. does not replace the Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ
5. be combined with a true “broken heart and contrite spirit.”

So, I am saying that, “all we can do” is offer “the sacrifice of a broken heart and contrite spirit” and the Lord provides the rest.

There are also those distinctive scripture totes that immediately identify one as a Latter-day Saint. In most other churches they carry one book, the Bible, so often do not need a scripture tote to manage their scriptures. But we have either two books, a Bible and a Triple Combination (Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price), or one large quad, containing all four books of scriptures (five, if you are really picky). Our scriptures come in many sizes and styles, from the small that no one over 40 can read, to the large print edition quad that takes a wheelbarrow or luggage cart to move around.

Anyway, times have changed. Gone are the white boxes and now we have canvas totes, in all styles and varieties!  Usually natural canvas color that can be embroidered (Relief Society Enrichment night project) with names or familiar Church mottos like Choose the Right (CTR), Families Can Be Forever, etc. Rainbows are a big favorite as well.

So, just what is in those things?  Lesson materials, scriptures, food for the kiddies?

Lest I forget, the perennial diaper bag, which then sometimes makes the Sisters look like a pack mules with the diaper bag, tote bag and purse slung over each shoulder while the husband and kids have their little scripture totes to carry. My wife, the Relief Society President carries a blue, plastic woven basket tote that must weigh 50 pounds! I try to carry it for her or get my son to do it.

I usually just have my handy green, super deluxe scripture tote unless I am teaching and need my backpack and projector. Then I take on the pack mule sort of appearance.

So, what is in your tote?

Oh, and by the way, those guys with the briefcases, they still carry them.

In the LDS Church, we are asked to do a lot of things. Performances, if you will.  Daily prayer, multiple times a day, over meals, with spouse, family, personal and in our heart at all times; Daily scripture study, with family, spouse and personal; weekly Family Home Evening;  Monthly Home/ Visiting Teaching; Regular Temple Attendance (at least once a month) and Family History Work; Pay tithes and offerings (10% of increase plus Fast Offerings and other contributions); attend our meetings, Sunday, weekday and other; Accept and perform callings given to us by the Bishop or Stake President; Acquire, keep, use and rotate a 1 year supply of food, 3 day emergency kit, supply of funds for emergencies; Strictly observe the Word of Wisdom: perform acts of services for others, meals for the sick, moving families in and out of the ward, yard work, repair work, community service, etc.;  Attend a yearly Tithing Settlement with the Bishop and a bi-yearly Temple Recommend Interview. And more.

These performances are meant to assist us in becoming more like our Savior and Heavenly Father. There is a spiritual meaning and intention behind each of these acts that should be carefully considered as we are doing them. These acts are not an end to themselves, but the means to an end. In most cases, they are recommended, strongly recommended and with a recommended frequency, but the regularity of performance is really a personal choice.

I get concerned both for myself and others that we may fall into the trap the Pharisees found themselves in. That the performances themselves begin to overshadow their meaning and the true intent. I fear that going through the motions becomes more important than real intent of the act itself.

For example, the purpose of Home Teaching is to “watch over the members of the Church, home teachers visit their assigned families at least once each month to teach and strengthen them. Home teachers establish a relationship of trust with these families so that the families can call upon them in times of need.” (LDS Church Website). But, if that relationship of trust is never formed because the Home Teachers do not take the time to really get to know the family and each of its members, does it really matter than they show up once a month? I realize it is a reported statistic, but what it purpose of the report? To prove we have gone through the motions?

Another example. Regular Temple Attendance. Most members of the Church (80%) are blessed to have a temple within 200 miles of their homes.  This means that regular attendance is more possible than ever before. The days of saving up for a lifetime to attend once and receive Temple ordnances for you and your family are rapidly coming to an end. Though, it is probably still true for some.  We only need to attend once for ourselves. The other times we go have a benefit to us and a service performed for others. We get to experience the serenity of the Temple environs, learn more of the meaning of the ordinances and provide a service for those who have passed from this life without receiving temple ordinances. But, if in striving to attend once a month as directed, we rush, do not fully pay attention and just go through the motions, are we really doing as we are asked to do? Maybe once a month isn’t possible or the right frequency for us?

Here are two stories from my Jewish experience.

Years ago, one of my great uncles was traveling in Africa (Ethiopia, I believe) and, as a very observant Jew, wanted to attend synagogue for the Sabbath. After the service, a man came up to him and, observing that my uncle had a pen in his shirt pocket, spat on him and accused him of defiling the Sabbath by carrying a pen in his pocket. Carrying a pen would be forbidden because one might be tempted to write with it on the Sabbath and that is considered work.

My family and I attended a large family reunion at a famous Jewish resort in the “borscht belt” of the Catskill Mountains of New York. This resort had seen its better days but was world famous in its heyday. I must admit there were more different types of Jews there than I had ever seen, from the most observant Hasidim with their black suits and peyos (side curls) to others in shorts and t-shirts. I imagine my family was the only Mormons there.

On Friday night, at the start of the Sabbath, one of the two elevators was set to automatic so that one need not push any buttons for it to operate. In other words, the doors open, you get in, the doors close and the elevator goes to the next floor. The doors open, people get in and out, the doors close and proceeds to the next floor. It allowed the people to ride the elevator without doing any work (pushing the buttons).

Well my uncle got into the non-automatic elevator with two young ladies. They asked him to push the button for floor 2 because they got into the wrong elevator. They told him they could not push the buttons themselves. He said to them that the scriptures say that they should not work nor should they make anyone else work (See Exodus 20:10).  The two young ladies looked at him with a rather quizzical look. They did not understand what he was saying.  He then pushed the button for their floor.

So, I worry that we, as a Church might be getting a little too carried away with the performances (the checklist as we have discussed recently) we are asked to do without the thought of the spiritual significance of what we do.

In some cases, if a 1 year supply is good, a 3 year supply is better. If the Word of Wisdom means abstaining from coffee and black tea, then abstaining from any caffeine, “hot” drink or chocolate is better. If going to the Temple once a month is good, going every week is better.

The regularity of these things is really a personal choice and should be aligned with all the other things we are doing in our life and should be based on our own spiritual growth and development. After all, the objective is to become like Jesus and Our Heavenly Father,  become the best person we can, serve others and return to live with them in the eternities, not rack up a bunch of impressive statistics.

Just to re-explain, I check the 2010 Church Almanac and Church News for this information.  I have just been looking at General Authorities, Temple and Mission President because their bio information is available. As I post this, I will get other information from knowledgeable, “in the know” folks on other leaders.

One other thing I wondered is how many LDS “Celebrities” get high level calls like this?  I note this because Bruce Summerhays, a professional Golfer was just called as a Mission President and Gifford Nielsen, a former BYU star Quarterback was called to be an Area Authority 70.  I also recall that Dale Murphy, star Baseball player for the Atlanta Braves was a Bishop and a Mission President.

So as you look at the list for this year, the trend away from nepotism continues with a lot of leaders called from the areas they will serve in.  But, BYU professors, high ranking Church and CES emplyees and “well known” Church people continue to get calls.  many Temple Presidents are former GAs, mainly from the 2nd Quorum of 70 or emeritus GAs.

I was also thinking of doing a survey of professions since we now have more corporate types becoming GAs. What do you think about that idea?

2010 Nepotism Update

]]> http://mormonmatters.org/2010/05/07/nepotism-in-the-church-2010-update/feed/ 17 http://mormonmatters.org/2010/04/13/giving-back-his-name/ http://mormonmatters.org/2010/04/13/giving-back-his-name/#comments Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:41:20 +0000 Jeff Spector http://mormonmatters.org/?p=10497 “Have they not read the scriptures, which say ye must take upon you the name of Christ, which is my name? For by this name shall ye be called at the last day; And whoso taketh upon him my name, and endureth to the end, the same shall be saved at the last day.” (3 Nephi 27:5-6)

At baptism, we covenant to take upon ourselves the name of Jesus Christ.  Taking the name of Jesus Christ means you “always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them.” (D&C 20:77; Moro. 4:3.) If we are truly born again, we become His Sons and His Daughters and taking upon His name has even more significance. (Mosiah 27:25)

This is a universal Christian principle, not exclusive to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Apostle Paul wrote “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Gal 3:27) Peter reinforced the idea that “neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)

And while the Church teaches that salvation and exaltation come in and through the Lord’s true church, even the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, one can make the case that taking on the name of Jesus Christ and belonging to the LDS Church can be independent of one another. You will not find that taught in the Church, but certainly, there are many, many non-LDS Christians who are deeply committed to the Savior, follow His example and keep His commandments as best they can.

So, what of those who reject His Gospel, whether as members of LDS Church or not? While most Christian denominations believe in the principle of “once saved, always saved,” the LDS Church does not teach this principle.  Through sin, unbelief or rejection, one can lose their place in heaven.

So, for those who have left the Church, forsaken the covenants made at Baptism and through partaking of the sacrament, have they, in fact, given back His name?

And, does it matter?

BIG, GIANT DISCLAIMER: This is very GENERAL. It is not meant to apply to everyone. Some areas may be different for an individual. I am willing to discuss where you think I might have gotten it wrong, but please realize the GENERAL nature of it all.

First a few paragraphs of explanation.

The LDS faith is a relatively young (180 years old) religion and is governed from a very centralized structure. Judaism, on the other hand, is much older (anywhere from 6000 to 3500 years, depending on who you ask and what you consider the start of Judaism).  Since the destruction of the Temple, it is very decentralized and there are only a few groups with any kind of centralized structure.

I divided the tables along the different groups of Judaism and overlaid Mormons to it. So definitions of the various groupings are in order.

Judaism

Orthodox – The strictest of the Jewish divisions. They are divided into three distinct groups:  Modern Orthodox Judaism and Haredi Judaism, and Hasidic sects. Also important in those divisions is where the Jews are Ashkenazic (mainly from Northern and Eastern Europe) or Sephardic (from Southern Europe, Africa and the Middle East). They follow different Rabbis and different interpretation of the Law. They are the most conservative of the Jewish groups and believe they follow the laws as given anciently. Women are held in a traditional role and do not openly participate in the worship services or have any role as a worship leaders. Priesthood, while largely ceremonial plays a role in worship services

Conservative – This group represents the largest group of Jews and the name can be deceiving.  It does not imply conservatism as applied to politics, but it is an effort to “conserve” Jewish tradition through modernization of its teachings and practices. Begun in Germany in the 1850s, it strives to apply modern principles but traditional in practice.  More liberal than Orthodox, it has no central leadership or specific declaration of belief. It would rather be known as Masorti or Traditional Judaism because of the confusion over the name conservative. Women have a much larger role in this movement and are allowed to be Rabbis, Cantors and perform all the rites of the faith the same as men. Priesthood, while also ceremonial, plays a role in Worship services

Reform – Traces its origins to the early 20^th century in Europe and the US. It is the most liberal wing of the faith and values autonomy, modernity and universalism. The reform movement in Judaism challenged many traditionalist Jewish doctrines, adapted or eliminated practices, and introduced its own theological and communal innovations. It was the first group to offer full participation to women in its leadership and religious worship. Priesthood usually plays no role in worship services.  Orthodox Jews do not even recognize the movement as being Jewish.

Mormonism

Conservative – Those Mormons who fully embrace the faith, its teachings, practices and traditions. They may adhere to traditions which might not have real scripture basis and have a very strict interpretation of Sabbath practices, scripture study and prayer.  They follow the words of the leaders as closely as possible. There may be little to no questioning of doctrines and practices. They try to do everything possible to lives the Gospel fully as they understand it. Very active.

Middle of the Road – Fully embraces the faith, its teachings, practices and cultural traditions. May question certain traditions as relevant in modern times and might be flexible on Sabbath adherence such as TV viewing, clothing (not wearing Sunday clothes all day). They might have a lot of questions about gospel doctrine and past practices but general manage to have a strong testimony. Active in Church and callings.

Liberal – These folks might embrace the gospel fully but with big questions about certain beliefs. They might also reject certain doctrine as being not fully explainable or in line with scripture or history. They question the words of leaders and apply those things which they understand have real value to their lives. They might reject some “advice” or teachings.  Most liberal Mormons still attend some or all Church meetings, but do not always find satisfaction in the meeting content or the lessons. The gamut ranges from active to very less active. Less sure of the one true nature of the LDS Church. Might be known as New Order, Cafeteria or Buffet Mormons.

I will occasionally listen to her either over the Internet while I am working or in the car.  Her politics are way more conservative than mine, which I dislike, but generally, I think she gives pretty good advice.  Sometimes, she can be short with some people and her listening skills are occasionally not very good.

She was raised in a Jewish-Catholic household, which according to her was not very nice. Later in life, she converted to Orthodox Judaism and would often dispense advice from that perspective.  Jewish people would call her up and ask specific advice around religious matters and she would sometimes consult her Rabbi for answers. In 2003, she announced she was no longer a practicing Orthodox Jew.

One of the things I notice is that a lot of Mormons call her up to seek advice on a variety of topics. I am probably sensitized to the language used, but I can almost always tell when members call her. They drop those words like Bishop, temple, mission, family, Utah, priesthood, calling, Church or other key words most of us would recognize. I have the feeling she gets a lot of calls from Utah.

She is generally favorable toward religion and pretty against interfaith marriage. Here is a link to a story told about advice she gave to a young man, disaffected from the Church, but feeling pressure to serve a mission. Her answer may surprise you.

She is very supportive of the Church and I have heard her both praise the Church and its members and defend it against derogatory comments made during a call.  Here is a link to a blog she wrote in praise of the Church’s welfare program.  Members have contributed to her charities with blankets and quilts during a drive she sponsored.

Any thoughts?

Definition

self-absorbed: /ˌself.əbˈzɔːbd//-ˈzɔːrbd/ adj usually disapproving . Only interested in yourself and your own activities (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/)

I don’t know what it is, society, the culture, the sign of the times, whatever. But people seem much more self-absorbed these days. Now, I think all of us are a bit self-absorbed at times, but there are definite degrees of self-absorption (and not in a Sponge Bob sort of way).

I rate the degrees as follows:

Extremely Self-Absorbed:  This would be movie, TV and music stars (Reality TV personalities rate very extreme), Athletes (mainly professional), Politicians, High level business leaders, etc. Some obvious examples might be Paris Hilton, The Kardasian Sisters, Colin Farrell, Jamie Foxx, all NBA basketball players, Sean Combs, most Hip-Hop Stars, Rush Limbaugh, GLENN BECK, all political ideologues ( like the Tea Party movement), almost every Politician on the face of the planet, etc. You get the idea. Some individuals of these types might not be, but they are the rare exception. There are also, of course, “regular” folks who also fall into this category. The Extremely Self-Absorbed know they are, believe they deserve to be and, wouldn’t want it any other way.

They have their own websites; update it regularly with their exploits, their thoughts, answers to critics, and all manner of detail about their personal lives. They hold to the adage that no attention is bad as long as they spell the name right.

In a religious sense, many extremely self-absorbed types (who claim to be religious) believe that God is somehow directly and personally responsible for their success. For example, at a recent Grammy award show, many award winners would start off their speeches thanking God. Which would be OK, except you wonder if God really supports a singer who is homophobic, misogynist, racist and just plain foul? And that God would care who wins a Grammy, Oscar, Tony or any other award such as that. Those award shows are the direct evidence of an extremely self-absorbed industry and people.

Normally Self-Absorbed – Most people fall into this category.  We all have a “feel sorry for me moment,” Over worry about our appearance, what kind of an impression we might make, how we feel physically at any given time, etc.  This is all within the bounds of normal, in my view so long as it is not continuous. A warning sign might be if someone asks you, “How Are You,” you spend the next 20 minutes actually telling them without finding out how they are and listening for the answer.

Religiously, you are, of course, concerned with your own eternal progression and salvation (since we are all responsible for ourselves first), but are also very willing to extend yourselves in the service of others. Not for the glory of it, but for the joy of serving and helping others.

And lastly, we come to what I call:

Dangerously Self-Absorbed – These folks are dangerous because they are self-absorbed, do not know it, and thus can’t help themselves. Some might call it insecurity, but these dangerously self-absorbed do not typically consider others.  They are so wrapped up in their own lives, their own problems, their superior knowledge and experience, and their everything, that they cannot or do not care about others that much.

Any conversation with those folks inevitably turns to themselves. “How are you, they might ask.”  But as soon as you give an answer, it is a launching pad for how they are, either good or bad. If you feel bad, they feel worse, if you feel good, they’ve never felt better. If you have family problems, theirs are or were worse and on and on. It is always a competition.

This group tends to use social networking to an extreme. They document their every thought, action and circumstance on “Facebook,” as an example. They use it as a sort of a journal, except that everyone can read it.

How do dangerously self-absorbed people manifest themselves in Church?  They are the ones who openly aspire to a calling, usually a higher calling, and the one who can do the “job” better than the person called to do it.  In Sunday School, they don’t just have the answer, they have the lecture about the answer.

In testimony meeting, these folks are usually always up to give their testimony, which is seldom a real testimony but a “Blessing-amony,”  (“The Lord truly blessed us with a great house, five wonderful kids, all served missions, married in the Temple and 25 grandchildren…”). Or an “Update-amony,”  “Robbie is in jail again for selling drugs, please pray for him.” Just two common examples.

I sometimes think that some of those who have issues with the Church in the manner of doctrine, leadership, both general and local, history and such, also have this problem. While I am sure that many struggle with it, there are many who almost seem proud over their disaffection. I often wonder if those members who leave the faith really think of their spouse and family and the big picture rather than their own desires.  Again, for some, I am sure it is pure agony to find themselves on the outside looking in, yet for some, it is a proud moment and the effect on others is just a mere consequence.

The prophets have warned us against becoming too self-absorbed.  The Book of Mormon documents time after time where the people became too prideful and forgot the Lord.  President Benson, in his excellent address on Pride said this:

“Most of us think of pride as self-centeredness, conceit, boastfulness, arrogance, or haughtiness. All of these are elements of the sin, but the heart, or core, is still missing.

The central feature of pride is enmity—enmity toward God and enmity toward our fellowmen. Enmity means “hatred toward, hostility to, or a state of opposition.” It is the power by which Satan wishes to reign over us.

…Our enmity toward God takes on many labels, such as rebellion, hard-heartedness, stiff-neckedness, unrepentant, puffed up, easily offended, and sign seekers. The proud wish God would agree with them. They aren’t interested in changing their opinions to agree with God’s.

Another major portion of this very prevalent sin of pride is enmity toward our fellowmen. We are tempted daily to elevate ourselves above others and diminish them. (See Hel. 6:17; D&C 58:41.)” (Ezra Taft Benson, “Beware of Pride,” Ensign, May 1989, 4)

We all have a bit of this self-absorbed attitude in us and it is a constant battle to overcome it. Some do it quite successfully and for the rest of us, we work it on a daily basis.  For others, they are oblivious to it and need to work harder. For those who are worldly and proud, while they are never hopeless, it will be a tough road to travel to humility.

One answer to this problem is service to others. To lose yourselves in the service of others is to find peace and happiness outside of ourselves. It is hard to be self-absorbed when you are serving others.

The Savior gives the answer quite simply:

He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. (Matthew 10:39)

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.