Philosophers have been debating what is good and what is not for centuries. Many people find that it’s more complicated than just being kind, and several complex religions have arisen with the attempt to understand the difference between good and evil. While every person’s journey is different, being good has a lot to do with discovering yourself and your role in the world. (reference)

As we explore this idea of being “good,” we deal with very tough fundamental issues; we find ourselves needing to reconcile the harsh blade of the good/bad dichotomy with the realities of  individual circumstances and personal relativism.

Some secular commentators accuse religious adherents of lacking a moral core as evidenced by their insistence on cataloging commandments in order to know what is right and what is wrong.

Some religious proponents, on the other hand, accuse the non-religious of likewise being immoral (or amoral) by virtue of the fact that they live in ethical anarchy, where right and wrong is dictated by that moment’s whim, or a conveniently self-selected school of thought.

Here are three lists that build on each other, each of which can be used in one context or another to define what a “good person” is.

List A

A secular person who values virtue might define a “good person” as someone who:

• Loves their family
• Looks out for their neighbors
• Donates to charity
• Volunteers their time
• Puts in an honest day’s work

List B

A religious person (let’s say a Mormon) might understand being a “good person” as someone who:

• Goes to church
• Reads the scriptures
• Prays daily
• Uses clean language
• Serves others
• Keeps the commandments, especially:
• The word of wisdom
• The law of chastity

List C

A more dogmatic Mormon might reserve the “good person” title for someone who:

• Has received the ordinances of the gospel
• Keeps gospel covenants
• Served an honorable full-time mission
• Was sealed in the Temple
• Is actively replenishing the earth in the covenant
• Magnifies church callings
• Endures to the end

There are, of course, many traditional Mormons who will agree that participation within Mormonism (or any religious establishment, for that matter) is not required for being a “good person.”

There are also many non-religious or ex-religious people who espouse “being a good person” as an alternative to following any given structured religious system or set of commandments.

There is ample doctrinal support to suggest that we are all “bad people” (or “enemies to God“) and are fully reliant upon God’s goodness to be saved.  Several Christian ministries have gone about convincing passers-by that they are bad people (largely based on the one-strike-and-you’re-out principle) and must accept God into their life to have any hope of heaven.

The more I think about it, it seems that defining a “good person” is more complicated that most would like to admit.  From “doing whatever you feel is right” to “obeying commandments with exactness,” to neither or both, at the end of the day, each person must evaluate his or her convictions, values, and circumstances, and decide for themselves how they will be good.  Despite all our best efforts, we all have some “bad person” in us.  Is there really such a thing as a “good person?”  Is there such a thing as a “bad person?”  Is there room for lukewarm?  Considering polar opposite ideals in the face of dynamic reality is often unsettling.  Does the term “good person” mean anything at all?

Discussion Questions

• What does being a “good person” mean to you?
• Can you do everything on lists B and C and still be a “bad person”?
• If list A is sufficient for being a “good person,” is there any value in lists B and C?
• Can saying you’re a “good person” just be a rationalization for being disobedient?
• Which implications of morality or ethics are of greatest importance in a secular setting?
• When eternal consequences are not considered, does the importance of “being good” increase, decrease, or stay the same?
• When day-to-day consequences are not considered, does the importance of “being good” increase, decrease, or stay the same?

Each filmmaker who undertakes telling his story by dramatic medium is faced with the challenge of finding a suitable actor to play the part of the prophet; to cast Joseph Smith.

Many actors have played the part of Joseph, some more convincingly than others.  I’ve compiled a photographic list of many of these actors, so their semblance can be compared side-by-side.  This list is by no means comprehensive, but rather merely reflects my limited abilities to acquire screen shots of the productions in question.

Note: Due to the practice of generally leaving church productions uncredited, some of these actors have not been identified by name.  If you know any of this missing information, please share.

Young Joseph

	Stewart Petersen Film(s) [1976] The First Vision
	Name Unknown Film(s) [1999] Seminary / Sunday School Video Presentations
	Dustin Harding Film(s) [2003] The Book of Mormon Movie [2004] The Restoration DVD [2005] Praise to the Man
	Nick Whitaker Film(s) [2005] Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration

Adult Joseph

	Vincent Price Film(s) [1940] Brigham Young
	Name Unknown Film(s) [1968] The Three Witnesses
	Greg Sperry Film(s) [1982] Restoration of the Priesthood
	Mark Deakins Film(s) [1988] The Heavens are Open Note: Mark Deakins also played the part of Jesus Christ in The Lamb of God.
	Tim Gail (thanks Justin!) Film(s) [1990] Legacy
	Name Unknown Film(s) [1993] Mountain of the Lord
	Scott McMillan Film(s) [1994] Rockwell
	Name Unknown Film(s) [1999] Seminary / Sunday School Video Presentations
	Nathan Mitchell Film(s) [2004] The Restoration [2005] Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration [2008] Emma Smith: My Story
	Jonathan Scarfe Film(s) [2004] The Work and the Glory [2005] The Work and the Glory II: American Zion [2006] The Work and the Glory III: A House Divided
	Dean Cain Film(s) [2006] September Dawn

Some other noteworthy actors who’s image was not available include:

• Mark Peckham
  [1999] American Prophet: The Story of Joseph Smith
• Richard Dutcher
  [1997] Eliza and I
• Richard Moll
  [1977] Brigham
  [1983] Savage Journey
• David Westberg
  [1974] The Lost Manuscript
• Joel Bishop
  [1997] Fourth Witness: The Mary Whitmer Story

Of special interest, rumor had it that Val Kilmer was slated to play Joseph in Richard Dutcher’s planned production of the the Joseph Smith story.  It never happened, but Val might still be up for the part should someone else give him the chance…

So what do you think about these actors?  Do you have any favorites?  Any you can’t stand?  What makes a ‘good’ Joseph Smith?  What ruins it?  Discuss.

A website (http://californiaysa.org/) has been set up to coordinate the efforts of this conference. An entire section is dedicated to providing resource for those wishing to reach out, and includes scriptures, conference talks and other resources (link) My current ward (San Francisco YSA) has been actively participating in the pre-conference activities and initiatives, and the Ward Mission Committee is spearheading the outreach efforts. I have found myself in certain positions in which I have been able to reach out to some less-active individuals and others who easily could have slipped through the cracks unnoticed.

We have already begun to see some fruits of these outreach efforts. Each Sunday it seems like some new faces sprout up, often announcing that they are returning to Church participation after some time of inactivity. These people are greeted with warm smiles and encouraging words, and a collective sense of progress and unity is felt.

Lost Sheep

The principle of reaching out to the lost sheep and fostering a welcoming and inclusive environment seems to be increasingly emphasized by the Church leadership. In Elder Wirthlin’s second to last General Conference address, he gave a sermon entitled “Concern for the One,” in which he said:

“Some are lost because they are different. They feel as though they don’t belong. Perhaps because they are different, they find themselves slipping away from the flock. They may look, act, think, and speak differently than those around them and that sometimes causes them to assume they don’t fit in. They conclude that they are not needed.

Tied to this misconception is the erroneous belief that all members of the Church should look, talk, and be alike. The Lord did not people the earth with a vibrant orchestra of personalities only to value the piccolos of the world. Every instrument is precious and adds to the complex beauty of the symphony. All of Heavenly Father’s children are different in some degree, yet each has his own beautiful sound that adds depth and richness to the whole.”

The examples that are usually given about those who feel excluded because being different often involve people with disabilities or handicaps, language or cultural barriers, difficult economic circumstances, or other spiritually benign issues. Members are encouraged to look past such issues, and see these people as children of our Heavenly Father, and fellow citizens in the household of God.

But what of those whose issues or differences are of a more spiritually compromising nature?

Welcoming the Sinners

Among those who are newly returning to the ward are some whose appearance, grooming, language, or comments make it clear that their opinions, views, behavior or lifestyles are not in accordance with certain teachings of the church. Elder Wirthlin pointed out that those in these circumstances often find their way out of the church:

“Some, after making mistakes, stray from the fold. This is unfortunate. Do you not know that the Church is a place for imperfect people to gather together—even with all their mortal frailties—and become better? Every Sunday in every meetinghouse throughout the world, we find mortal, imperfect men, women, and children who meet together in brotherhood and charity, striving to become better people, to learn of the Spirit, and to lend encouragement and support to others. I am not aware of any sign on the door of our meetinghouses that reads ‘Restricted Entrance—Perfect People Only.’”

He makes a very clear case that even sinners—especially sinners—have a place in the Church and are welcome to come partake of the goodness of God with the Saints. An interesting dynamic is emerging in the ward in that the “core” members are making efforts to bring one and all back into the church, but are at the same time at a loss of how to react or interact with those who’s spiritual struggles are more outwardly apparent.

I am very interested to see how things will play out. One of the realities of reactivating members is that old habits or lifestyle elements don’t evaporate the instant that they start attending meetings again. I expect the ward the continue to grow more colorful, and to me, at least, that is a good thing. I try to make a point to have church be an environment where people can work through their spiritual issues without feeling that they are being judged or pressured to leave.

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God”

King Benjamin reminded even the most righteous members:

I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another—I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants. (Mosiah 2:21)

Acknowledging our own frailties and our dependence upon Christ and our need for redemption is crucial to developing the attitude that will enable us to become effective keepers of our brothers.  While no member that I know of makes the claim of perfection, I sometimes hear references to avoiding “big sins” versus “little sins,” and there being some sort of spectrum in between. (The idea of sin valuation is an issue worthy of its own post…)

It’s easy to identify extremes on this spectrum, with a little sin like exaggerating a good story on the ‘mild’ end, and premeditated serial mass murder on the more heinous end. But implicit within this ranking of sins is the threshold that determines if one is “good enough” or “bad enough” to merit some blessing or consequence. The subconscious judgement—even self-judgement—that sometimes occurs in church is related to the placement of this threshold. To a point, it is invevitable human nature to make these kinds of judgements, even when it is not malicious. But I believe there is great value in learning how to see beyond that, and consider people for how much they are valued in the eye of God. Jesus Christ, who is the ultimate Judge, commanded:

“Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.”

No More Strangers

I don’t have the solutions to all the world’s ills, and I can’t force anyone to live a life that they don’t choose. But I do know the charge and the responsibility that has been given to me, especially in terms of reaching out to those who are in particular need of the Savior’s loving, healing touch. I look forward to this conference, and have high hopes for the effect it will have on the landscape of the Church. I truly hope that we can foster an inclusive attitude, and extend the offer to any and all who will receive it, to be “no more strangers,” but “fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God.”

1. called or designated thus

2. incorrectly called or styled thus

Two definitions: one is fairly generic, the other carries with a challenge towards an allegation.

The word ‘so-called’ appears reasonably frequently in church publications, and grammatically, it almost invariably appears before a noun or a noun clause. With a little wildcard searching, we can get a sample of what official church sources qualify with ‘so-called’.

Here’s a short list of some of my findings. The left column contains the noun or noun clause, and the right column identifies the source and context.

Some of the results are innocuous and meaningless, but I’m sure you’ll note some that are a bit more emotionally or politically charged.

I’m going to refrain from providing any analysis to my findings. I’m much more interesting in seeing how you will react to this list. Any surprises? Do these terms, which the Church identifies as “called or designated thus” or “incorrectly called or styled thus” tell us anything about our teachings that we don’t already know? If so what? If not, does this list shed any light on anything?

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

Euphemism:

1. the substitution of a mild, indirect, or vague expression for one thought to be offensive, harsh, or blunt.

I’m not going to talk about gosh‘s, geez‘s,  holy cows, flips or fetches.  Rather, I’d like to discuss a prevalent tendency among Latter-day Saints to shy away from direct and even scriptural terms for appropriately referring to deity and instead use what has become a somewhat unique LDS vernacular.  Let me begin to illustrate with a story.

Jesus or Savior?

On my mission in Korea, one of our standard tricks of the trade was to offer English lessons in conjunction with the missionary lessons.  When possible, we would make our English lessons gospel-centered.  On one occasion, we decided to study the lyrics of English hymns with our investigators, so they could both get some legitimate reading comprehension as well as an enlightening message.  The first hymn we studied was “I Know That My Redeemer Lives.”  We brought a recording of the hymn, and our investigator downloaded the lyrics off the internet.  But he hadn’t gotten them from lds.org/music, but rather had found them on some online Christian library.  I knew that many of our LDS hymns were borrowed from pre-existing sources, so I didn’t think to much of it.

We started going through the song line by line, looking up words as needed, and discussing meaning.  At length, we got to the fourth verse, where we were expecting to find the familiar line:

“He lives, my Savior, still the same.”

But that’s not what the line said.  What it actually said was:

“He lives, my Jesus, still the same.”  (see source)

Now Jesus, of course, is the Savior, so the meaning remains unchanged.  But it was blatantly apparent that in the process of including this song in the LDS hymn book, the word “Jesus” was changed to “Savior.”

On our way out of the appointment, I mentioned this change to my companion.  He noted that “my Savior still the same” is more comfortable to say and hear; “my Jesus, still the same” seems awkward and jarring to LDS ears.  I could relate fully with what he was saying.  But I couldn’t help but wonder why that was.  Suddenly, a scripture from the Book of Mormon came to mind.  2 Nephi 33:6

“I glory in plainness; I glory in truth; I glory in my Jesus, for he hath redeemed my soul from hell.”

There it was, staring right at me.  The very wording that was removed from the hymn to make it LDS friendly is used freely by Nephi, a prophet unique to Latter-day theology, and recorded in the Book of Mormon, a volume of scripture from the Restoration.  Nephi is 100% full-blooded LDS.  Why could he say “my Jesus,” but including it in a hymn would be inappropriate?

The Missing Verse

Another hymn we studied was “Did You Think To Pray,” another Christian cross-over.  I was surprised to find that an entire verse was omitted from the LDS version.  The missing verse reads:

When you met with great temptation,
Did you think to pray?
By His dying love and merit,
Did you claim the Holy Spirit
As your guide and stay? (see source)

I was moved by the poignancy of the message.  Yet I saw why it got the axe:  “His dying love and merit” are not green-lit terms in LDS Sunday School.  Even “Holy Spirit,” while borderline, is more readily replaced with “Holy Ghost” or simply “Spirit.”  Our Book of Mormon patriarch Lehi, however, unabashedly uses very similar language when speaking to Jacob in 2 Nephi 2:8:

“…save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit.”

I am fully cognizant of the discomfort that comes from using protestant-branded language in LDS settings.  But I wish I knew where this discomfort originated from.  It is clear to me that it certainly is not as a result of consulting the scriptures.

A Real Life Example

Again on my mission, a mission-wide Chritmas conference was coming up, and each zone was charged with coming up with a skit or musical number to perform.  Our zone leader, a well-meaning but perhaps culturally out-of-touch native Korean (who spoke decent English) faxed each companionship the sheet music to his proposed musical number.  He had taken the sheet music to “Santa Claus in Coming to Town,” whited out the lyrics, and replaced it with “God and Jesus Christ are Coming to Town.”

Needless to say, the plans quickly changed as soon as he was advised that such a number would be at best insensitive, and at worst heresy.  A replacement performance was planned, and the incident was by and large forgotten.

I did, however, overhear a casual conversation between an Elder and a Sister, the Elder asked “did you get that fax too?”  the Sister replied “oh, yeah, the ‘Heavenly Father and the Savior are Coming to Town’? I got it.”

Her word replacements stuck out like a sore thumb.  It was clear that she was uncomfortable saying “God” and “Jesus Christ,” and felt that euphemizing it with “Heavenly Father” and “the Savior” was more appropriate.

Possible Origins of the Phenomena

How did the kosher LDS lexicon develop?  I know that the early church had a strong theological rivalry with sectarians and evangelicals (I would argue more so than now).

Mormon missionaries sent to the South would challenge the ideas of salvation by grace and any semblance of trinitarianism despite quintessential LDS teachings that in some ways support those ideas.  More recently however, these teachings have been emphasized increasingly by folks like Robert Millet and Stephen E. Robinson, but seem absent from the pulse of the Church’s adolescence.

With an “us against them” agenda against the sectarians, it would seem natural that a church would distance itself from what its rivals hold most dear.  Thus, Evangelicals would downplay authority, revelation, and ordinances, while Mormons would downplay grace, oneness of God, intent/heart, and favor a just, dignified and majestic view of Christ over a compassionate merciful and shepherdly view of Jesus.  This of course, despite the fact that the holy texts of both sides contain ample support for almost every view held by their opponent.  In any case, these kinds of rivalrous doctrinal dynamics most certainly would spill over into contemporary language usage.  That’s one theory anyway.

Conclusions and Lingering Thoughts

It has been my experience that in LDS settings, “Jesus” is almost only used when referring to him in his earthly ministry (ie. “Jesus went to Capernaum.”)  “Christ” seems to be used in theological phrases (ie “Christ will reign for a thousand years.”) “The Savior” seems to be used in personal references (ie. “The Savior made it possible for me to return to Heavenly Father.”)  And “Jesus Christ” is used in more rote phrases (ie “God and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith”, or “in the name of Jesus Christ Amen.”)

Interchanging those terms in the various contexts yields jarring results.  And throwing in “The Redeemer”, “Emmanuel,” or “the Anointed One” produce equal levels of awkwardness, despite their semantic equivalance.  Can anyone shed light as to why?  And is this a good thing / bad thing / or does it even matter at all?  What’s your take on gospel euphemisms?

“The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.” (D&C 93:36)

This oft-quoted verse is known well by most members of the church, and is even BYU’s motto. But despite the verse’s clear definition, concept of “glory” still seems fairly abstract, and is often difficult to conceptualize in a manner that is relevant to us.

Understanding Glory

The association of “glory” with “light” seems to be the easiest first step towards understanding.  For much of western history, artists have depicted heavenly figures with halos, to display their glory.  These halos were usually light colored discs behind the subject’s head, symbolizing light, and then evolved into the floating loop we see on modern caricatures of angels.  Scriptural accounts of heavenly apparitions also indicate the presence of actual brightness and light in association with glory.  This seems fully reasonable, given the addendum “in other words, light and truth.”

But the second part—the “truth”—along with the original definition of “intelligence” is not as easily visualized, or even conceptualized, for that matter.  Nevertheless, the word “glory” continues to be used without inhibition when describing diety, angels, or the life hereafter.

We all have our own unique mental images of what the next life is like.  Many members refer to this scripture to formulate their concept of what the celestial world has in store:

“And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy.” (D&C 130:2, emphasis added)

With that in mind, the imagination constructs a world that is just like the one we live in now: residences, lives, family, friends, where everyone interacts with one another the same way that we do now on earth.  The only difference? We’re “coupled with eternal glory.” What does that mean? Hmmm… We glow in the dark?

Intelligence

If we think about this a bit further, I believe we will be led to a different conclusion.  Glory, which this last scripture indicates is the only distinguishing feature between this world and the next, is more than just emitting light; it is intelligence.

So does that mean that everyone glows in the dark and is a whole lot smarter too?  Intelligence does indeed mean a capacity to logically think, but I believe in this case, it is meant to be parsed the way it is in the acronym “CIA,” meaning that intelligence is essentially information—data—that is consciously received and comprehended by an external agent.  This idea seems to be articulated in D&C 88:49: “The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not;” The idea is that “light” is information, and when it is comprehended, it becomes, in conjunction with its receiver, “intelligence,” which is the glory of God.

This relates to our discussion of the nature of the afterlife in that we will be “coupled with eternal glory,” (read intelligence) “which glory we do not now enjoy.”  Reading it this way, it seems that the exalted society will process and manage information(intelligence) in a way that is much different than the way we do here.

The Information Age

At this point, one may say “and the rest, we’ll figure out later!” and shelve the issue with the other “mysteries of eternity.” However, there may be a few ways that we can start to wrap our brains around this concept of intelligence, especially when understood in terms of information.

As we span through the epochs of the human saga, we find the stone age, the bronze age, and a number of other ages that lead us to the industrial age.  A far distant textbook might very well classify the round year 2000 as the beginning of a new age:  the information age.

Given our understanding that “intelligence” in the spiritual sense is “information” coupled with “comprehension,” it should be clear that analyzing the mechanics of what defines our “information age” might shed some interesting light on our understanding of this “glory” that we will enjoy in the hereafter.

We now live in an age where information is processed in a way that has never previously been possible.  The internet, e-mail, wireless networks, blackberries, iphones, blogs, wikis, social networks; all these things are engines that enable the transfer, storage, and processing of data, information, and intelligence.  We may be able to use these technologies as a conceptual model for our spiritual understanding of intelligence.

Implications of Omniscience

Let’s step back for a moment and review the concept of information/intelligence/knowledge as it relates to deity.  Jacob exclaimed:

“O how great the holiness of our God! For he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it.” (2 Nephi 9:20)

Omniscience is a fundamental attribute that we associate with God.  And in this case, it is important to remember that “God” refers not simply to Heavenly Father, but to the collective whole of the Godhead, who each are omniscient.  I noted the implications of this in a previous post on the trinity.  Quoting myself:

“If we truly accept that God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are in fact all-knowing, that would mean that one could not think a thought without the others instantly knowing it.  One could not acquire or process any piece of information without the others doing the same.”

The idea of synchronized minds is admittedly uncomfortable; it undermines our innate sense of individuality and privacy.  However, unless we impose a watered-down definition of “omniscience,” it is inescapable.  And as it relates directly to intelligence, it can be classified as fundamental to God’s glory.

“And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him.”  (D&C 84: 38, emphasis added)

The promise to those who attain exaltation unavoidably includes receiving this glory, of which omniscience—and all that it implies—is a part.

Following this train of thought, our concept of the afterlife morphs into something increasingly unimaginable—the previous “all’s the same except we glow in dark” model quickly falls by the wayside.

Data Networks

This brings us back to the concept of the information age, and how it might help us make heads and tails of this.  Anyone who has used the internet (this means you) knows the basics of how a network works.  One computer terminal is connected to another, which is connected to another (or several ) and information can be transferred from one terminal to the next.

There are many kinds of networks: decentralized (peer-to-peer) centralized (hub-spoke) and various combinations in between, altered by reconfiguring the placement and the network load of various nodes.

When properly configured, information created or collected by one node can almost instantly be accessed by all other nodes on the network. (Think about your facebook newsfeed.) Your phone, home computer, work computer, and iPod can all be “omniscient” with regards to your email account: given they are all syncronized.  Additionally, certain processing tasks can be broken down and distributed across the network, allowing multiple nodes to be working in concert on essentially a different part of the same thing.    (Tangentially, this model of distributed computing has proved to be incredibly effective at providing the output and performance of a “supercomputer” at a fraction of the cost and technology.)  So in terms of “knowing” and “doing,” a data network provides a framework in which the processing of intelligence can be performed in unprecedented ways.

Gospel Networks

“Come unto me” is the call from the Savior, inviting one and all to partake of his salvation.  How is this done?  The Sunday school answer gives us “Faith, Repentance, Baptism, and the Gift of the Holy Ghost.”  All this can be encapsulated in the concept of a covenant.  A covenant, in the gospel sense, is a connection—a relationship, or a partnership—that creates an avenue of one kind or another between the involved parties.

“And this is my gospel—repentance and baptism by water, and then cometh the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, even the Comforter, which showeth all things, and teacheth the peaceable things of the kingdom.” (D&C 39:6)

The gift of the Holy Ghost—the preliminary result of the covenant—acts as a conduit of intelligence, becoming a connection to enlightenment and knowledge.  Continued adherence to the gospel covenant yields a continuation of this flow of illumination;  christlike attributes are inherited and developed, and spiritual growth is ongoing.  As multiple people establish this connection with Christ, and enjoy its effects, they come to be more and more like one another (as they all become more like Christ).  This seems to be a valid part of the plan of salvation.  Jesus prayed:

“And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.” (John 17: 22)

Again, the crucial element in forming a spiritual link is a covenant.  Christ becomes the central node, and mankind may attach themselves to him to become heirs of salvation—heirs of his glory.

The Temple and the Sealing Power

The symbolism associated with covenants seems to clearly confirm this.  One of the ways that temple covenants are symbolized is by a literal connection between two parties.  Once this connection is validated, the agent gains access to that which symbolizes celestial glory.   While there are a number of symbolic steps involved in the process, the true question asked when moving from one phase of existence to the next is “are you connected to Christ?”  If the answer is yes, the transfer of glory is initiated.

One of the temple’s primary purposes is essentially to create a massive social network throughout all phases of humanity.  Husbands covenant with wives; children are born in that covenant; deceased persons enter into covenants vicariously, families are sealed together via covenants, and, at the center of all these lateral covenants, is Christ, the central figure, to which all persons covenant with.

Joseph Smith speaks of a “welding together of dispensations” that is part of process of being “made perfect.” (D&C 128: 18)  The ordinances of gospel, especially in terms of how they relate to connections with God and to connections with others, attest to the fact that our salvation— our access to God’s glory—is founded on the network model.

Data Applications

The application of the principles behind gospel networks is ever present in the data world.  For a terminal to have any use, or to fulfill any of its potential, it must be connected to other nodes; in many cases, the central node.

Data transfers are initiated by network self-identification (providing a name,) and are negotiated by going through the proper ports, using the proper protocols, and presenting the correct encryption tokens.  When the connection is validated, the transfer begins, and the receiving node progressively becomes endowed with the data (information, intelligence, glory) that the sending node offers.

When multiples nodes, all working in concert using the same protocols, ports, and encryption tokens (read celestial law)  the individual nodes become far more useful and powerful than if they were standing alone.

The Celestial World

This new insight should cause us to rework our concept of the afterlife.  The Mormon doctrine of post-millennial earth offers some relevant hints that may help shape our vision:

“This earth, in its sanctified and immortal state, will be made like unto crystal and will be a Urim and Thummim to the inhabitants who dwell thereon, whereby all things pertaining to an inferior kingdom, or all kingdoms of a lower order, will be manifest to those who dwell on it; and this earth will be Christ’s.” (D&C 130:9)

Unfortunately, we’re not told much about what a giant earth-sized Urim and Thummim is (except the abstract “light and perfection”) but thankfully, Brother Brigham comes to the rescue with a more detailed explanation:

“This earth, when it becomes purified and sanctified, or celestialized, will become like a sea of glass; and a person, by looking into it, can know things past, present, and to come; though none but celestialized beings can enjoy this privilege. They will look into the earth, and the things they desire to know will be exhibited to them, the same as the face is seen by looking into a mirror.” (Journal of Discourses, 9:87.)

It still seems pretty cryptic, but thinking about it in terms of data transfer protocols and security, with the additional perspective about covenants and the celestial law, we might approach a closer level of understanding.  Also, the scripture stated that the celestialized earth belongs to Christ; and the description that Brigham Young gives indicated that this celestial earth is the central node through which celestial being access their glory.

Conclusions

Let’s review the scripture from earlier:

“And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy.” (D&C 130:2)

Even with an expanded understanding of what might be meant by “coupled with eternal glory,” I don’t know that we’re any closer to coming up with a more accurate concrete concept of the exalted afterlife.  One thing is for sure, though, it somehow involves intelligence.

Will we all have synchronized minds?  Will the law of consecration expand into communal thoughts and concerns?  Will we simply morph in a new-age-ish Universal Mind?  How will we avoid being drones on a cloud-computing network?  Will there be such things as privacy? What will become of oral and written communication?  How will we define individuality?  How does the quaint model of “families can be together forever” fit in?

And then there’s the concept of time.  Let’s save that one for another day.  The bottom line is, the hereafter is still fairly unimaginable; although I do feel safe in dismissing the “same as it is here except we glow in the dark” notion.  Until we get an better understanding, I do think that data networks do provide a relevant model that can help us understand the effects of networked intelligence, and the gospel implications that stem therefrom.

And speaking of enlightenment through the network of the glory of God, I find comfort in the Lord’s words:

“The day shall come when you shall comprehend even God, being quickened in him and by him.” (D&C 88: 49)

The story of the ten lepers starts with:

And it came to pass, as he went to Jerusalem, that he passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee. And as he entered into a certain village, there met him ten men that were lepers, which stood afar off: And they lifted up their voices, and said, “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us.”

Jesus gives them a very specific commandment:

“And when he saw them, he said unto them, Go show yourselves unto the priests.”

The cleansing miracle occurs on their way to the priests:

“And it came to pass, that, as they went, they were cleansed.”

The rest of the story is more familiar.  The one leper turns back, falls at Jesus’ feet, and gives thanks.  He is heralded as the exemplar of the story, and the remaining 9 are berated as slothful and loathsome ingrates.

But what is usually overlooked is this:  Given Jesus’ command to “Go shew yourselves unto the priests,” the unthankful nine were obedient with exactness, and the thankful one was not.  He, for better or for worse, got distracted from his goal of fulfilling the Lord’s commandments to completion.

Now, this is perhaps an unfair characterization of the lepers, but it does illustrate an interesting situation.  The answer to Jesus’ rhetorical question, “Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine?” is in fact “The nine are showing themselves unto the priests, as commanded.”

At the other end, when the nine arrive at the priests, couldn’t the priests rightfully say, “Were there not ten commanded to come show themselves? But where is the one?”

The implications of this paradox could provide fuel for some healthy discussions.  When we break down the story symbolically, we infer that Christ is the healer, men are the afflicted, and Christ’s healing power is inextricably connected to his role as law-giver.

From there, we could come up with a number of varied interpretations of the other elements and actions.  Is going to the priests a “work”?  Is being cleansed “salvation”?  Is gratitude “grace”?  Is obedience “faith”?

And what do gospel laws point to?  We learn elsewhere that the laws point to Christ.  And the priesthood is the means by which men represent God on earth—meaning the priests point to Christ.  Perhaps the one leper was after-all in compliance with the command to “show [him]self unto the priests” when he fell at Jesus’ feet.  And what of the obedient nine?  Were they not healed/”saved” just as much as the one? Is this a lower-law/higher-law issue? I am I looking way too deep into all of this?

What do you think?

I fear that this straw-man description of the trinity does it great injustice.  The traditional concept of the Trinity, as understood by mainstream Christianity, can be expressed in this diagram:

On first sight, someone might scoff, noting both the “is” and “is not” jutting from and between each member of the Godhead, and see that as an irreconcilable contradiction.  What I find interesting about this diagram, however, is the fact that essentially, a fourth unit is created: the central “God,” which represents all three.

We usually use the term “God” to refer to “God the Father”/Elohim, but do we as Mormons have any terms that irrespectively refer to all/any three?  It turns out we do.  Consider the four following statements that could plausibly be heard at the pulpit on any given Sunday:

1. “I prayed, and asked the Lord to help me.”
2. “I’m so grateful for the Lord’s sacrifice for all of us.”
3. “The Lord comforted me in my time of need.”
4. “I know that the Lord loves each and every one of us.”

Each of these fairly generic LDS-friendly sentences uses the term “Lord,” but in each instance refers to someone different: #1 refers to Heavenly Father, #2 refers to Jesus Christ, #3 refers to the Holy Ghost, and #4 refers to their collective whole.

Now let’s look back at our Trinity diagram.  Replace the central “God,” with “the Lord,” and as far as I can tell, it is congruent with the LDS usage of the word, as I just demonstrated.  So what does this mean?

First, I think it’s important to note the unique elements of LDS beliefs.  The corporal and physically separate nature of the Father and Son, and the unembodied spiritual, yet also distinct nature of the Holy Ghost are fundamental tenants of LDS theology, and these beliefs are by-and-large not shared with our mainstream Christian neighbors.

But let’s not forget that even their Trinity diagram includes “is not”s separating each figure.  As Mormons, this essentially fits within our doctrine that they are separate and distinct.

In considering the “is”s, we enter a realm where mainstream Christians feel as ease, and Mormons begin to feel squeamish.  But should we?  Besides the fact that, to us, they are all “the Lord,” do we have any other basis to embrace their oneness?  The scriptures, yes, even the scriptures of the Restoration, would confirm this with a resounding “YES!”

When Jesus visited the Nephites, he told them:

“And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.” (3 Nephi 11: 27)

And to Joseph Smith, the Lord was even more emphatic:

“…the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of the Father and of the Son; Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen. (D&C 20:27-28)

Suppose two people, Tim and Tom, engage in a business venture, and decide to create a corporation to do so.  They call their corporation “T&T Widgets Inc.”  The corporation becomes an independent legal entity.  Tim was one entity, Tom was an another, and a third, virtual entity was created to represent them both: the corporation.  When “T&T Widgets” sends a message to a customer, its a “letter.”  When Tim sends a message to Tom, its a “memo.” The corporation has rights, has a name, can engage in business transactions, can participate in legal affairs, all as a single entity.  In terms of practical reality, Tim, Tom, or both, are engaging in the actual check writing, paper signing, and legal testifying, but whether it is Tim or Tom, it makes no difference, so long as they are acting in the name of the corporation, not themselves.

It’s true that the scriptures and prophets don’t always use the clearest of language when describing one member of the Godhead as opposed to another.  Abinadi told his listeners:

“Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father. Amen.”

“Eternal Father” is not usually the term we use to refer to Jesus Christ.  But how off-base is that?  Abinadi seemed comfortable enough using it.

Some powerful insight about this comes from the Gospel of John, chapter 14.

Jesus tells Philip that “no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. ” (v6-7)

Philip, anxious to finally come to know and see this “Father” of which Jesus spoke, said:

“Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us.” (v8)

Jesus responds by poignantly describing his relationship and role as a revelator of the Father:

“Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me.” (v9-11)

In his own words, it is impossible to see Jesus, and not see the Father.  I believe this is to be understood not in context of seeing their physical beings, but in knowing them.  It is impossible to know, believe and love Jesus without knowing, believing, and loving God—because they are one.  Jesus is the perfect representation of the Father, and exhibits his attributes in every imaginable way.  Their oneness goes far beyond simply having the same mission statement.

Even in reference to the physical nature of their resurrected bodies, Joseph Smith said that he “saw two glorious personages, who exactly resembled each other in their features or likeness,” (1840 account, emphasis added.)  While the physical distinctness of the two is a clear message from the first vision, even Joseph Smith felt it appropriate to, in a different account, report his vision of the two by simply saying: “I saw the Lord.” (1832 account)

I have found that the scriptures and words of the prophets, particularly those which have direct references to God, find increased beauty and simplicity when both the concepts of distinct beings as well as a unified single virtual entity are taken into account.  Quandaries over “who’s speaking” in the scriptures are quickly resolved; there’s no need to loose sleep over why Jesus is sometimes called “God himself,” no need to provide apologetics for scriptures teaching that they are one, and we might grasp a more reasonable understanding of how God is understood (or maybe misunderstood) in other religious circles.

Most importantly, I think the greatest take-home lesson is that we can deepen our relationship with deity by realizing that any interaction with one member of the Godhead (praying, feeling the Spirit, reading the words of Christ) spans through the awareness and care of the other two as well.

Optional reading assignment: “The Grandeur of God,” by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland

I took a fairly typical course: I lived in the dorms (Deseret Towers) as a freshman, took two years off for a mission, came back, got serious about a Major program, and finished it up in 3 additional years (plus some spring and summer classes.)

Overall, I am very pleased with my BYU experience, and look upon it in overwhelmingly positive light.  If I may, I’d like to highlight a few of the outstanding parts.

• Freshman dorm life was a blast. Unfortunately, academics occasionally took a backseat that year, but the episodes I experienced with my dorm-mates are truly priceless, and they lead to the formation of some very lasting friendships.
• The mission-prep resources are unparalleled. For a kid getting ready to go on a mission, there are few better environments that the BYU freshman community.  Not only are there classes, firesides, etc, but the fact that you are in it with others who are also preparing leads to a great setting to get excited about and prepared for entering the MTC.
• Student employment opportunities. Upon my return from my mission, I was a resident assistant in the dorms.  That proved to be a fantastic experience, and I was very happy to be able to share my mission insights with those yet preparing.  After that job, I was employed by the International Studies center to be their webmaster.  That proved to be very valuable in helping me apply the material from my academic programs into a real world settings (computer programming, database administration, etc)  These employment opportunities were also gateways into meeting faculty, getting my name out, etc.
• Off-Campus Environment. While perhaps a bit more rough around the edges, there was a plenitude of events, locations, and other resources off-campus to enjoy a good time.  Some of the off-campus apartments were nicer than others, but on a weekend night, there were never shortages of pools/hot tubs, rec rooms, or sport courts to help have something to do.
• Mormon “Celebrities” on Campus. In addition to an Apostle visit to campus each semester, there were opportunities to run into semi-recognizable names on Campus.  I more than once ran into Lloyd Newel (think Music and the Spoken Word,) and even met Dan C. Peterson in the back of a lecture hall, and was able to have a nice 20 minute chat with him.  My New Testament class teacher was Stephen E. Robinson (“Believing Christ”) who I greatly admire.
• Robust Academic Programs. Most of my course work was at the Marriott School of Management, which consistently receives high marks nationally.  I was often overwhelmed by the homework and exams, but I never felt cheated or short changed when it came to the quality of the business school’s academics.
• Affordability. When compared to other university programs nationally, BYU rates are a huge bargain.  Thank tithing subsidies for that.
• A Wholesome Environment. Don’t be fooled, you can find pretty much anything at BYU.  Yes that may shock you, but its true.  However, for those seeking a wholesome and straight-laced lifestyle, BYU is certainly a haven for that.  While everyone does develop their own sense and path of spirituality, BYU does provide a sustaining environment for those more or less within mainstream orthodoxy.

I must say however, there were a few times when I was quite significantly irked at certain elements of the BYU system.  Without ranting too extensively, let me elaborate:

• The facial hair thing. This topic has been discussed ad-nauseum, so please, refrain from commenting profusely about this, but I have to say I was rather annoyed when I was turned away at the cafeteria for having 24 hours worth of scruff.
• Parking. This is a problem almost anywhere many people congregate, but the students really got the short end of the stick on this one.  The faculty get the premium spots, and the students get the lots that require 15 minute walks to campus.  Hmm… who’s the customer here again?  I ended up just walking, carpooling, busing, or biking most of the time.  This was one battle I did not feel like fighting.
• Image Paranoia. Keenly aware of its ambassador status for the Church, BYU is dead set on projecting the “Garden of Eden” image to the world.  My positions as BYU employee let me in on a few ins and outs of PR control, and I was disheartened to learn of a few administrative moves involving hush-money and cover-stories for the sake of saving face.  Also, while permitted/tolerated, student protests were met with high levels of disapproval from on high, and the tight lipped responses from BYU administrators regarding the relevant issues seemed a bit jarring.  (Remember the Dick Cheney graduation incident?)
• The dating scene myth. Its true that many couples meet and marry at BYU.  But I had been misled into believing that the girls are all righteous fair maidens with visions of eternal marriage dancing through their heads.  That bubble burst fairly early on, but I still never got quite the picture of how things were really supposed to work.  I did my fair share of dating, make no mistake, but let me tell you, it’s not what they say it is.  I’m still single.

I really could go on for much longer, about the good, and the not-so-good.  But let me say again, I am please to call myself a BYU grad, I enjoyed my experience, and I am very grateful for the career and employment paths that it has opened for me.  After all, that’s really why I went to college.

I know that BYU isn’t for everyone.  I had several close friends who never could hit a stride in the BYU universe, and became casualities of the system.  I like to remind people that BYU attendance is NOT a requirement for salvation, and many members of the church get by just fine without ever having set foot in Provo.

For me, I was a close enough match to the “target audience” that I got through the experience without a sour taste in my mouth.  Again, I look back on the past 6 years (minus 2 mission years) with satisfaction and accomplishment.

So for you fellow BYU alumns, how does your experience contrast to mine?  For non-alumns, how do my comments square up to your concept of what BYU is like for a student?  Or just feel free to throw out any comments about BYU in general.

What’s even more interesting, is the he was invited to speak in the following general conference, and was introduced and highlighted by President Hinckley. There have been many accomplished LDS athletes since 1984, but we certainly don’t see them rubbing shoulders with GA’s in general conference in this day and age! In fact, there’s a fresh crop of 18 LDS Olympians in China right now. (see here) Will we see any of them at any formal church functions?

For your viewing pleasure, I’ve unearthed some video footage of these events. (Click here) My, how times have changed—in my lifetime, too…and I’m the youngest one here!

I spent my childhood growing up in Europe, and I attended a nice little ward in francophone Belgium. In French, there are two 2nd person pronouns, “tu,” and “vous,” the first used singularly to those with whom you are well acquainted or are similar in age or younger than you; the second is used plurally (think “ya’ll”) or singularly to those with whom you are not well acquainted or who are clearly in a superior social position (boss, teacher, etc.)

With “vous” being the pronoun associated with respect, one would naturally assume that it would be the preferred pronoun to use in prayer, but that is not the case. “Tu” is the proper pronoun to speak to God with, the rationale being that it denotes closeness and familiarity.

The paradox stuck out like a sore thumb for me. In English, I was supposed to pray using words that were distant and reverential, yet in French I was supposed to pray using the same words I used with my schoolyard buddies.

Much later, I came across the New International Version of the Bible. I was aware that it didn’t use “thee” or “thou”, and the introduction explains:

As for the traditional pronouns “thou” “thee” and “thine” in reference to the Deity, the translators judged that to use these archaisms, along with the old verb forms such as “doest”, “wouldest” and “hadst” would violate accuracy in translation. Neither Hebrew, Aramaic nor Greek uses special pronouns for the persons of the Godhead.

From my readings of Shakespeare, I knew that “thee” and “thou” were part of the vernacular of the Elizabethan age. “You,” “Your,” and “Ye” were also part of the common man’s vocabulary (and also appear in our scriptures) but they referred to a plural second person (again, “ya’ll”). So thou/thee was singular, you/ye was plural. As Christianity was defining itself as a monotheistic faith, it would seem entirely appropriate that they would use the singular pronoun in reference to God.

Flash forward to our modern times, and the words aren’t used the same way. You/your has come be to used for either singular OR plural second person, and thee/thou (and “ye” for that matter) has been phased out completely. Conversely, in French, “vous” was originally exclusively a reference to a plural second person, now has come to be used either for plural or a respectful singular. Thus is would make sense that “tu” was the traditional prayer pronoun: it was the one congruent with monotheism.

The grammar of our scriptures is a relic of ages long gone, yet modern readings of old texts tend to project the biases of the modern settings into how the text is interpreted: We note that Jesus never uses “you” when speaking to his father, and we follow suit. Thus, through time, the words “thee” and “thou” morph into a elements that have far different lexical impact than they did originally.

This isn’t a bad thing, words change all the time. Now, “thee” and “thou” have indeed come to signify a sense of dignity, properness, and respect, and, that being in line with the attitudes we wish to have when praying, they are appropriate to use in our modern setting.

Dallin H. Oaks eloquently confirmed this, when in his 1993 talk entitled “The Language of Prayer,” he said:

“In our day the English words thee, thou, thy, and thine are suitable for the language of prayer, not because of how they were used anciently but because they are currently obsolete in common English discourse. Being unused in everyday communications, they are now available as a distinctive form of address in English, appropriate to symbolize respect, closeness, and reverence for the one being addressed.”

Aware of the historical disconnect and the archaic translation, I was very refreshed to hear from a General Authority that we do not use “thee/thou” because we’re following some scriptural precedent or historical example, but rather because that is how our current and modern interpretation of these old words has defined them.

I recently took a humanities class (at BYU) where we read “Confessions of Augustine,” an important piece of the Early Roman Christian era. In it, Augustine begins each chapter with a prayer. The pronouns in the prayer were all translated as “you” and “your.” One student in the class raised his hand and asked the professor how Augustine could have the audacity to be so disrespectful in his prayers, and why couldn’t he use “thee” and “thou” like he’s supposed to. I couldn’t help but roll my eyes. I wish I could have quoted another segment of Dallin H. Oaks’ talk, where he said:

“We should also remember that our position on special prayer language in English is based on modern revelations and the teachings and examples of modern prophets. It is not part of the teachings known and accepted by our brothers and sisters of other Christian and Jewish faiths. When leaders or members of other churches or synagogues phrase their prayers in the familiar forms of you or your, this does not signify a lack of reverence or respect in their belief and practice but only a preference for the more modern language. Significantly, this modern language is frequently the language used in the scriptural translations with which they are most familiar.”

So, I’m fine with one and all using “thee” and “thou” in prayers, as long as we understand and acknowledge why it is we do it. For newer members or children who can’t quite get it, I’m sure God won’t invalidate their prayers if they say “you.” And as for me, if the “thees” and “thous” get tiresome, I can always just pray in French.

“Judge not, that ye be not judged.”

Jesus follows up this remark with:

“For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”

The attentive latter-day saint will look in the footnotes, and remark that the Joseph Smith Translation renders these verses as:

“Now these are the words which Jesus taught his disciples that they should say unto the people. Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged: but judge righteous judgment.”

So what may have been originally taken as license to adopt an “anything goes” policy suddenly is bounded with the provision of “righteous.”

But what does this really mean?  I think that many feel that it means to judge something if it isn’t righteous, or judge someone if they are not righteous.  But is this the intent of the commandment?

Humanity’s ability to distiguish right from wrong is in essence the ability to judge.  It is a prerequisite to anyone’s capacity to develop any moral values.  In this sense, judging is absolutely crucial our spiritual development, and indispensible in our personal lives.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks, himself having a background in law, gave some important insights about judgment and judging in the August 1999 Ensign.  He distinguishes “final” from “intermediate” judgments in saying that:

“There are two kinds of judging: final judgments, which we are forbidden to make, and intermediate judgments, which we are directed to make, but upon righteous principles.”

The idea that judgments are to be based on “righteous” principles is not unique to the JST or the Brethren.  The King James Bible recounts Jesus’ words as:

“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” (John 7:24)

As we try to determine what is meant by “righteous judgement,” this verse shows that it is reasonable to assume that it involves looking past “appearance,” or what/how things/people may seem to be.

Whenever people of divergent ideological persuasions get together to exchange ideas, to debate,  or simply to spar, there seems to be a good deal of judging going on.  How much of this is righteous judgment?  How much of it is—for lack of a better term—”wicked” judgment?

To what level is love and compassion compatible with judgement?  Can “righteous judgement” be expressed to someone you vehemently disagree with or disapprove of without being condemnetory or self righteous?

The Hymn “Lord I Would Follow Thee” (#220) contains the poignant line:

“Who am I to judge another, when I walk imperfectly?”

The humility implied in those words is truly admirable, but should we also be wary of giving carte-blanche to influences that we may believe are evil, hurtful, or otherwise detrimental?

I’d be very interested to get your thoughts regarding this idea of “righteous judgement”, particularly as to how it applies to our interactions with others in diverse or even divisive settings and environments.

The first and most obvious thing is the corporeal depiction of God.  The ethereal and bodiless nature of God had long since been accepted as true Catholic Doctrine since the council of Nicaea, yet Michelangelo shows us a physical bearded man surrounded by children.  While Mormon doctrine does suggest divine attributes that transcend the bounds of physical and biological scopes, a fundamental tenant of the faith is that God possesses a physical and resurrected body.  Also, in the “Creation of Adam” panel, we see a woman under God’s left arm, who we very well may assume is Eve, “on deck” to be created herself.  The way this is presented strongly implies the concept of a pre-existence; that Eve existed in a non-earthly state before her physical creation.

Several scholars have noted that the shape of the cloth behind God and his entourage is a very accurate silhouette of the human brain.  Mormons might easily draw the connection, “the Glory of God is Intelligence (D&C 93: 36),” an idea that certainly would not fare well with the Catholic church of the era. (Galileo?)

Going backwards one panel, we can examine the creation of the universe.  God the Father is prominently featured commanding the elements to organize, perhaps in a “Let there be light” moment.  Joining him on his right is a young child, who is very likely a depiction of the antemortal Christ.  If this is true, then Michelangelo is telling us that Christ had a collaborative role in the creation.  This idea finds support in Mormon teachings (as well as Biblical support) but does not jive well with many doctrinal proposals of Catholicism and Protestant Christianity, who conjecture that spirits are created at conception, and have no premortal existence.

If we look closely at the face depicted between God and Christ, it seems that the painting job is not finished.  There seems to be no top of the head, and facial detail is in large part lacking.  It has however, been suggested that this face is the same face as Adam’s:

If this is true, most temple going Mormons should immediately catch the significance of having God, Jesus and Adam, a.k.a. Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael, jointly involved in the creative process.

If we look at the wall, where the magnificent “Last Judgment” scene is, we see a depiction of the bodily resurrection:

Mormons would typically be comfortable with the way the resurrection is shown here, but I can image that a few Catholics and evangelicals might be squeamish.

I suppose this doesn’t prove anything, really.  Michelangelo never made any prophetic claims, so no corroborative conclusions could be made if his version of these events match up with those of prophets who were informed through revelation.  However, it does make one wonder, if Michelangelo was really a product of his time and culture, where did he get these ideas from?  It would seem quite unlikely that he got them from the Pope, but who knows, the Pope may have been more independently inspired than we give him credit for!  Or perhaps Michelangelo himself was tuned in to a spiritual frequency that gave him some kind of inspiration  and enlightenment.

To be fair, there is much depicted in the Sistine Chapel that is completely at odds with Mormon teachings, like angels with wings, etc.  In fact, Michelangelo felt compelled to use his last ceiling panel to feature “The Drunkenness of Noah,” a very unflattering and embarrassing episode in a prophet’s life, the likes of which most Mormons would rather just keep buried in the dusty unread pages of the Old Testament.

No matter what, most people will agree that the art of the Sistine Chapel has untold cultural and historical value.  It stands at a testament to the strength of the European Church of the time, and illustrates the power and timeless nature of the Biblical narrative.  And given the way that many of the stories are portrayed, Mormons should be able to get added enjoyment from it.

]]> http://mormonmatters.org/2008/06/29/michelangelo-and-mormonism/feed/ 18 http://mormonmatters.org/2008/05/18/the-book-of-mormon-for-our-day/ http://mormonmatters.org/2008/05/18/the-book-of-mormon-for-our-day/#comments Sun, 18 May 2008 07:41:51 +0000 KC Kern http://mormonmatters.org/?p=512 Ezra Taft Benson taught that “the Book of Mormon … was written for our day. The Nephites never had the book; neither did the Lamanites of ancient times. It was meant for us. … Each of the major writers of the Book of Mormon testified that he wrote for future generations. … If they saw our day and chose those things which would be of greatest worth to us, is not that how we should study the Book of Mormon? We should constantly ask ourselves, ‘Why did the Lord inspire Mormon (or Moroni or Alma) to include that in his record? What lesson can I learn from that to help me live in this day and age?’ ” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1986, 5; or Ensign, Nov. 1986, 6).

This statement is usually interpreted quite liberally among church members; for example, an account of Nephite and Lamanite wars is teaching us to be nice to our neighbors. A lengthy discussion of plates and records teaches us to write in our journals. The story of converts being tossed into fires along with the scriptures teaches us how thankful we should be for the gospel.

These interpretations may suit the learning needs of a deacon’s quorum, but surely there is a more substantial interpretation that lays out in more direct terms just how the Book of Mormon is “for our day.”

Mormon tells us that not even 1/100th of the Nephite saga could be included in his record. Yet he was inspired to include what he did. Why? Moroni tells us:

“Behold, the Lord hath shown unto me great and marvelous things concerning that which must shortly come, at that day when these things shall come forth among you. Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing.” (Mormon 8:34–35)

I recently came across an interpretation of the Book of Mormon that sets forth the Book of Mormon narrative as a model or paradigm for the latter-days— i.e. the time from the beginning of the restoration until the end of the world.

Before I present the parallels of our time and the events of the Book of Mormon, I should first point that, as Bruce masterfully demonstrated in a previous post, the human mind can find patters in virtually anything.

By presenting this, I am in no mean trying to find chiasmus in “Green Eggs and Ham,” and I fully acknowledge that such an interpretation may be wholly unfounded and tenuous.

That said, the following exposition contains some very uncanny parallels that I feel are deserving of some attention. Some are more convincing than others, but I’ll let you be the judge. Sorry it’s so long, but hopefully it will be worth it.

So, here it is—the Book of Mormon, and Our Day:

It seems reasonable to assume that our current time is analogous with that time found in mid-Helaman. If this model is at all reliable, we might look to what comes next in an attempt to forecast the future. Let’s see what’s ahead:

• The increase of the Church among the Lamanites (Helaman 6)
  • The Church, much like the business world, has its eyes on China and India. Missionaries are already in India, and who knows what’s behind the floodgates of China’s doors.
• Increased Gadianton Activity (Helaman 6)
  • Political assassinations, corruption, intrigue…every political conspiracy theorists’ worst fears come true.
• Samuel the Lamanite (Helaman 13-16)
  • A prophetic voice independent of the ecclesiastical hierarchy among the Nephites (Nephi was prophet) Most of the Nephites reject him (Even though his message is NOT at odd’s with Nephi’s teachings), and they will not hear his words. Will latter-day saints have ears to hear a voice of prophecy from anywhere but temple square? Or will we resort to throwing stones and shooting arrows?
• Slippery Treasures (Helaman 13)
  • Samuel warns that their riches will become “slippery.” I can only imagine this is analogous to fiat money, to the federal reserve’s money printing splurges, to the credit crisis, inflation, … could Samuel have been… Ron Paul???
• Gadianton Demise (3 Nephi 2-4)
  • After a great showdown where the Nephites abandoned their lands and centralized in Zarahemla (gathering of Israel?) the Gadianton robbers find themselves powerless. Their new leader, Zemnarihah is defeated at the Nephite leadership of Lachoneus
• Societal Disintegration (3 Nephi 7)
  • Despite the Nephite success, it isn’t long before societal decay takes its toll. The nations essentially disassemble, and the society devolves into a loose collection of tribal factions. Given the current state of political turmoil in certain areas of the world, this scenario seems increasingly likely.
• Jacob the Anti Christ
  • Jacob, a factional leader, rises to power, and “had given his voice against the prophets who testified of Jesus.” (3 Nephi 7:9) He doesn’t wreak too much havoc, but does recruit a good number of people, and escapes to the land northward with them. Is this a foreshadowing of the long prophesied Antichrist of the last days?
• Cataclysmic Destruction (3 Nephi 8 )
  • The last days are said to be full of terrible natural disasters.
• The Coming of Christ (3 Nephi 11)
  • At the zenith of all prophesies concerning the last days lies the foretelling of the Second Coming of Christ.
• Zionist Utopia (4 Nephi)
  • Following the visit of Christ, the world lives in millennial bliss. Satan is bound, societal distinctions dissolve, and the law of consecration is lived in its fullness.
• Burning the Vineyard for the last time. (Mormon, Moroni)
  • After a “short season” of wickedness once again poisoning the society, the civilizations are swept off the face of the earth, and Moroni signs off with nothing more than a reference to the afterlife:
    • “I soon go to rest in the paradise of God, until my spirit and body shall again reunite, and I am brought forth triumphant through the air, to meet you before the pleasing bar of the great Jehovah, the Eternal Judge of both quick and dead. Amen.”

So what do you all think? Is this nothing more than a scriptural inkblot test? Or is there some substance to both the retrospective and the prospective parallelism found in this analysis? If nothing else, does it give you a better gauge to determine how much longer to you have to “procrastinate the day of your repentance?”

But anyone who has actually bothered to read D&C 89 will know that the Word of Wisdom was given “not by commandment or constraint”, but as just what it claims to be—“a word of wisdom.” September 9, 1851 is usually cited as the day that it became a commandment, when Brigham Young declared it binding on the saints. What seems to have slipped the general membership’s body of conventional knowledge, however, is that the Word of Wisdom did not attain its status as the indispensable, orthodoxy-defining regulation that we now know it as until many decades later, under Heber J. Grant.

And this is where we see an interesting cross section in the Venn diagram of Church history and United States history. The student of the US Constitution should recall that the 18th Amendment to the constitution nationally outlawed “intoxicating liquors” in 1919. It was two years later, in 1921, that Heber J. Grant added strict Word of Wisdom compliance to the lineup of temple recommend questions.

Now, let me deviate just a bit and tell a little story; I promise I’ll come full circle with this train of thought.

One of my hobbies through the years has been amateur video production/filmmaking. Two years ago, a friend and I decided to enter a local Provo short film festival. This was no ordinary film festival though; this was a 48 hour film festival. Participants (teams) would attend a kick-off meeting, where they would be assigned a film style (science fiction, spy movie, kids show, etc) and a scripted line that they would be required to include in their film. Then, the timer would start, and 48 hours later, the teams would reconvene and be required to submit their finished product. The films could be no longer than 8 minutes, and had to be completed from start to finish in 48 hours.

So my friend and I attended the kick-off meeting, and we drew our required scripted line from a hat: “Last time I did that, I ended up naked in Mexico.” I rolled my eyes at the selection. Next, we drew our film style: “Film Noir.” Film Noir? What on earth is that? After a little googling, we learned that it was the Dick Tracy / Casablanca high-contrast black and white style that often told a grim tale of cops and robbers that usually had a morbid ending. Also, the stories told in Film Noir often took place in the time frame of the 1920s or 1930s.

We put our thinking caps on, and remembered that those years encompassed the Prohibition Era, where the mafia profiteered off of bootlegging, and the criminal underworld of the US was in its luxurious golden age.

Further research led us to discover that the 21st Amendment to the Constitution, which repealed prohibition, was ratified in 1933, and the state that cast the deciding vote in ratifying this amendment was—of all states—Utah.

With our filmmaking task in mind, we immediately saw the framework for a great story that would have particular relevance to a Utah audience, and fit perfectly in the in Film Noir genre. Considering the Heber J. Grant influence in the state at the time, one can only wonder what the political force was that led Utah to vote against prohibition. And that’s the story we set out to tell.

However, this is where we decided to diverge from history or reality in general, and just have some fun. We let our imaginations loose, and concocted a story about a Utah mob boss named “Slim Giovanni” (a la Al Capone) who was the ring leader of Utah bootlegging, and a corporate kingpin with massive political clout. A private eye detective sets out to go undercover into the mob, with the intent of breaking up the bootlegging ring, and dismantling Slim Giovanni’s political machine. A shady love interest and a series of double crosses leads the detective through a path of deception and betrayal, to his ultimate failure. The Utah bootleggers prevail, and the 21st Amendment is ratified.

So in the allotted 48 hours, we scribbled out a script, rounded up some friends and residents of the dorms as our cast, pulled together some makeshift costumes, scouted out locations, filmed the scenes, edited them, and produced the finished product.

Now, for your viewing pleasure, and in a shameless instance of self promotion and of tooting my own horn, I present to you Bootlegged: The Untold Story of the 21st Amendment.

Now, this of course should not be taken seriously, or seen as anything more than an attempt at historical fiction. But I do find it interesting to think back on the eras of the past, and think about those Mormons who viewed their faith, and even defined their orthodoxy, in ways very different than we do now.

“This is the Place” state park in Salt Lake exhibits a room full of pioneer bar-tending tools and artifacts, the Hotel Utah had a tavern, and there are many instances earlier church leaders using now-forbidden substances—facts that are very uncomfortable when perceived through a 21st century LDS perspective, but when all things are duly considered, are really of little consequence.

So that begs the question, what practices or behaviors do we now consider commonplace that will be embarrassing, appalling, or otherwise disconcerting to 22nd century Mormons?

Ben Stein however, finds himself in a unique category. From what I gather, he is Jewish, but he is not pushing any religious agenda nor is he sponsored by or endorsing any Christian group or creationist museum. In fact, what I see as most significant about his endeavor transcends the creation/evolution debate entirely: he is dealing with the issue of academic integrity and authoritative suppression of information.

In an age where the increased accessibility of information is playing a more and more significant role in people’s religious experiences, there is a growing tendency to resist and resent the suppression or manipulation of relevant information, especially when that suppression happens on an authoritative level. What Ben Stein is attempting to expose is that the tables are now turned, and its the secular camp that is now guilty of making the conclusions first, and cherry picking the evidence next.

Please take a moment and watch the trailer for the film:

Here are also some links to other media appearances Ben has made:

• Interview with Bill O’ Reiley (Short)
• Interview with RC Sproul (Long)

What I find most admirable is that he openly admits that he may be completely wrong in his views on intelligent design, and even goes as far as to laud Darwin’s theory as brilliant for its time (referring to the O’ Reiley clip).  But more than pushing just another theory, he is sticking up for those who have been ostracized, alienated, ridiculed, or otherwise “expelled,” for challenging the established orthodoxy that darwinism has attained in the scientific community.  He apparently has a large body of evidence that demonstrates that scientists who question darwinism, or explore/expose the uncomfortable gaps and holes in the theory are summarily discredited and written off as scientific apostates, as it were, who no longer have a place in the scientific community.

In this situation, the parallels to institutional religion should be fairly obvious. The great irony, of course, is that now its the religionists who have a growing case against the academics in terms of closed mindedness, denial, defensiveness, silencing, and suppression.

What can we learn from all this?  If we are exceptionally confident in the correctness of our own world views, do we welcome or shun differing views?

After soundly defeating the priests of Baal, the Bible tells us that Elijah captures all the priests, and murders each one of them—there were four hundred and fifty of them. (See 1 Kgs. 18: 22) We read:

And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there. (1 Kgs. 18:40)

This is certainly uncharacteristic behavior for a prophet, and this point, a modern LDS reader will likely pull the “as far as it is translated correctly” card, allowing room for error or license to reject something in the Bible that may be jarring.

But what could possibly be mistranslated or mistranscribed into a description of a merciless prophetic massacre? I had a mission companion who offered the following plausible explanation:

One of the details in the verse is that “Elijah brought [the priests] down to the brook Kishon,” to kill them. Why would he pick a body of water to carry out a mass execution? And why would he want to execute them in the first place? Hadn’t they just witnessed and been convinced of God’s power? The Mosaic law certainly was quite liberal in its application of the death penalty, but did the crimes of the priests really warrant this?

Perhaps Elijah never killed anyone at all. Maybe he chose to take them down to the brook because that is where he was going to baptize them.

The ordinance of baptism, which LDS doctrine teaches us was around in Old Testament times, embodies in part the symbolism of death—of burial—of forsaking and slaying the old man of sin. It signifies the moment that a new creature is born in Christ, and the former creature dies. Also, baptism often follows the process of spiritual conversion—something the priests of Baal likely would have experienced after what they witnessed.

If this is true, and if the original account of 1 Kings 18 had been written in poetic, symbolic or figurative language, is it not plausible that a description of a group baptism could have been interpreted by future readers as a mass murder?

It seems it could be that after Elijah demonstrated the power of God, many people believed, were converted, and requested baptism. Elijah takes them to a body of water, and “slays the man of sin” within them through baptism. Later, some transcriber, confused about the idiom and/or unfamiliar with the ordinance of baptism, assumes it is describing Elijah actually killing everyone, and writes it as such.

So is this just an empty attempt at reinterpreting scripture into something that it’s really not? Or does a fresh perspective on the passage give us a more accurate (not to mention far less barbaric) portrayal of the prophet Elijah?

If this interpretation does have any credibility, what else does this tell us about the flexibility of scriptural interpretation?

If not, are we OK with accepting a prophet who’s hands are stained with the blood of 450 “potential converts”?

Judging solely by these profile pictures, identify the one male and the one female contestant that you think is Mormon. Write your guess in the comments. Follow this format:

Mormon Girl: #?
Mormon Boy: #?

After having posted your guess,
click the button below to reveal the true answer.
Click to Reveal the Answer!!

So how did you do? What was it about the person you chose that made you think they were Mormon?

What was it about others that made you think they were not? Are you surprised at the answer?

If you were able to accurately guess one or more, does this tell us anything about Mormon culture? Go ahead and add additional comments if you feel like weighing in on any of these issues.

First a disclaimer: While I make an effort to stay informed and fulfill my civil duties, I am not a political scientist, and, as is usually the case in politics, I am sure that anything I present here can be soundly rebutted by very valid counterpoints. Even so, I want to try to see what perspectives and insights regarding politics, government, and society can be gleaned from the standard works.

In the early chapters of the Bible, we learn of a theocratic regime: Moses, effectively a theocratic dictator, was charged with receiving, establishing, and enforcing a massive piece of legislation (Leviticus & Deuteronomy.) Failure to comply with these laws was met with a penalty, oftentimes capital punishment.

Post Moses, we see a venn diagram of political systems; the ruler occasionally had prophetic roles (Solomon/David,) and sometimes did not. (Jeroboam, Rehoboam). Even if we simply look at the books of the Old Testament, we see the political overtones (Kings, Judges.)

The New Testament mixes things up a bit with Jesus at once identifying himself as the “King of the Jews,” yet asserting that his “kingdom is not of this world.” (John 18:36) When asked about the local government, Jesus seems to advocate a clear separation between church and state:

“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” (Mark 12:13-17)

In terms of economic philosophy however, things get a bit more complicated. The parable of the talents and even the widow’s mite suggest ideas of economic relativism, even perhaps leaning towards the concept of “each according to his needs, each according to ability.” That said, we also see the concept of reciprocity come through many of Jesus’ teachings—reaping what you sow, and being judged accordingly. The accountability of the individual seems to be in place to generate the type of personal motivation that we would see in a successful laisser-faire free-market economic system.

We don’t have any information regarding what social programs King Benjamin implemented as king, but we do see some ideas come through in his speech that hint at some economically liberal themes:

“And also, ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish. Perhaps thou shalt say:

‘The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just,’

But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God. For behold, are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all the riches which we have of every kind?” (Mosiah 4:16-19)

The Nephites, while their government usually kept close ties with the religious leaders, had a society that valued personal liberty. We learn that “there was no law against a man’s belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds.” (Alma 30:7) It was these liberties that Captain Moroni rallied his people to defend during the Amalickiah conflict. It may seem odd that Moroni, given his exceptional moral and religious character, would want to defend someone’s right to disbelieve, but I can’t help but think that he would agree with Voltaire’s famed statement, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” In many ways, this ideology encapsulates the core of libertarianism, and is articulated in other places in the scriptures as well:

“Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.” (2 Nephi 2:27)

I found it a bit amusing when one of the US presidential candidates (with libertarian leanings) had as one of his slogans “Choose Liberty,” which I identified as coincidentally having come from this 2 Ne. 2:27 scripture. Again looking deeper in the scriptures, we see that the defense of choice, agency and liberty is a major and dominant theme in our account of the pre-mortal world:

“Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down; And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.” (Moses 4:3-4)

Looking from a more modern perspective, we see these ideas continued in a specific reference to the United States government:

“…According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles; … And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land.” (D&C 101:77, 98:5-6)

Here we see the Lord take credit for the establishment of the rights, freedoms, and principles set forth in the US Constitution, which was in large part were drafted by James Madison, a near poster-child for classical liberalism.

However, when we look at the what we might consider the “goal” of a society, we might consider the post-Christ Nephites, the city of Enoch, or the Zion described in the D&C. We learned that they had “all things in common,” and exhibited economic characteristics of what might be essentially described as Utopian communism (although Ezra Taft Benson would assert that it is simply “consecration.”) Of course, there are sharp differences in ideology between the Mormon United Order and Marxist proletariat communism, but in terms of practical economics, the differences more or less boil down to nomenclature.

I’m afraid I’ve done quite a poor job as masking my own political biases, but what I want to emphasize as the take-away from this post is the broad span of ideologies that are in fact compatible with LDS scripture. Also, I wish to point out that there is often a lack of clear-cut answers to be derived from our holy texts regarding these political issues.

For example, in terms of military strategy, we see both pacifists (Ammonites) and warriors (army of Helaman) among the righteous. The scriptures also show us successful, righteous societies under a range of theocratic, monarchical, judicial, socialistic, federal, tribal, patriarchal, decentralized, and democratic governments, and the embracing social, economic, and political ideas that are at times liberal, at times conservative, and at times both.

I suppose that’s why politics is so fascinating, and renders itself to such great debate topics. It seems to be one of those things that on any given issue, two people with differing views can both be right; and the question of who is more right is left up to the observer. Does these ideas carry over into any broader gospel concepts?

I read it over a few times, trying to make sense of it…trying to see if it was saying what I thought it was saying.

Growing up in the Church, attending Sunday School and Seminary, and being in the LDS community in general, I had noticed that there seemed to be an implication that one’s religious piety and righteousness was directly related to one’s lack of tolerance for inappropriate things.

If you don’t watch R-rated movies, you’re righteous; if you don’t even watch PG-13 movies, you even more righteous; if you don’t own a TV at all because “all there is is trash on these days,” then you’re one step away from ascension into heaven.

I would also hear things like “how easily the spirit is offended,” and how any exposure to any semblance of indecency would put me on the fast track to sheol.

So imagine my surprise when I unfold the word of God and learn that “Unto the pure, all things are pure.” Was I reading this right? I did a little poking around, and it turns out that the Jews of the time of Jesus had a number of dietary and other elements that were classified as “unclean” and/or “defiled.” This reminded me of an oft overlooked vignette found in the Gospel of Mark, chaper 7:14-23:

And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand: There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man. If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable. And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

As I searched for increased meaning on the concepts, I found some commentary from Jamieson-Fausset-Brown, who said this about the Titus passage:

“All things-external, “are pure” in themselves; the distinction of pure and impure is not in the things, but in the disposition of him who uses them; in opposition to “the commandments of men” (Tit 1:14), which forbade certain things as if impure intrinsically. “To the pure” inwardly, that is, those purified in heart by faith (Ac 15:9; Ro 14:20; 1Ti 4:3), all outward things are pure; all are open to, their use. Sin alone touches and defiles the soul (Mt 23:26; Lu 11:41).”

So what was I to think about these passages in terms of the LDS prudishness that I observed often came to define righteousness? While I knew I was to “avoid the appearance of all evil,” I was also aware of a God given capacity to know good from evil, to encounter something, be able analyze it, determine its value or detriment, and then accept or reject it.

I once overheard a dispute between two friends about whether or not a certain movie was appropriate to watch. After some sparring, one of the friends used his trump card with a “would the prophet watch it?”

Listening to this, I chuckled to myself and wondered whether the prophet would really lack the spiritual maturity to recognize, reject and dismiss any unworthy or destructive elements and absorb the good and uplifting elements as they came.

I recognize that there certainly is such a thing as being desensitized, and that certainly is not praiseworthy. But from this scripture I learn that my purity and virtue is reflected in the things I seek after—the things to which I am drawn. If I should encounter something of questionable moral value, I need not feel that the mere exposure thereto is staining me with the blood of Babylon as I dismiss it in search for something more uplifting.

On another occasion, I was in my apartment browsing an old conference Ensign while listening to one roommate talk to another about the some people they had just been around. The roommate who was speaking talked about how offended he was as the immodest attire and the coarse language of those he had been in the company of. As he ranted, I flipped the page of ensign over to Elder David Bednar’s October 2006 talk and read the title: “And Nothing Shall Offend Them.” I smiled, knowing the context of the talk; it was given as a lambasting of less-active members who had their feelings hurt by other members; but since it was so fitting in the moment, I couldn’t help but think that there was a broader lesson to be learned.

With all this in mind, I still believe that for the sake of virtue, there are plenty of activities that should never be engaged in, plenty of movies and videos that are better off unseen, plenty of places that should not be frequented, and plenty of people who’s association with will be detrimental. But if I look around me, and I am unable to see or focus on any of the goodness that is out there, and instead use my energy to count the vices and evils of all I encounter, perhaps I should ask if its not my “mind and conscience [that] is defiled”.

However I recently came across a very interesting news spot from ABC News (thanks to templestudy.com for the lead) which featured a world-renowned Anglican Bishop and theologian named Tom Wright, who is a leading New Testament scholar. In it, Bishop Wright challenges the simplistic Christian idea of heaven and hell, and explains that he (and the New Testament) is much more concerned with what happens after the spiritual realm termed “heaven,” like a resurrection, and a renewal of the earth. Those familiar with Mormon theology will notice some uncanny parallels to his analysis, and it might give rise to the need to reassess how “kooky” Mormon beliefs are. You can watch the clip here (pardon the ad), or read the story here.

Here is an except from the story I feel is significant:

“In a radical departure from traditional belief, Wright says that Christians are not ultimately destined for a spiritual place called heaven. He says that at the end of time as we know it, God will literally remake our physical bodies and return us to a newly restored planet.”

I suppose that is a “radical departure from traditional belief,” but its one that has been near the core of Mormon theology from very early on. Can anyone recite the 10th Article of Faith?

To quote him directly, he brings out even more intriguing details:

“Heaven is important but it’s not our final destination, If you want to say that when someone dies they go to heaven, fine. But that’s only a temporary holding pattern that is life after death. And what I’m much more interested in, or the New Testament is much more interested in, is what I’ve called life after life after death.”

“I’ve often put it like this, if somebody you know has been very ill, you say, ‘Poor old so and so, he’s just a shadow of his former self.’ And the extraordinary truth in the New Testament is that if you are in Christ and dwell by the spirit you are just a shadow of your future self, there is a real you to which the present you corresponds as a photocopy corresponds to the glorious original. You know, there is a real you, which God is going to make and it will be more physical — more real, not less.”

Oftentimes Mormons will explain that, instead of heaven or hell, there is actually the sun, moon, and stars (and sometimes their symoblic value is left out entirely…). However, let’s examine the traditional concept of the plan of salvation:

We will note that prior to the resurrection, there is in fact a spiritual realm. Mormons typically refer to it as “the spirit world,” “spirit prison,” or “paradise.” Setting aside differences in nomenclature, this could very well be termed “heaven” and/or “hell.” But we understand that the spirit world / heaven / hell is not the final destination and (echoing Bishop Wright) we are much more interested in what comes after. James E. Talmage even said:

“During this hundred years [of Church history] many other great truths not known before, have been declared to the people, and one of the greatest is that to hell there is an exit as well as an entrance. Hell is no place to which a vindictive judge sends prisoners to suffer and to be punished principally for his glory; but it is a place prepared for the teaching, the disciplining of those who failed to learn here upon the earth what they should have learned”

(In Conference Report, Apr. 1930, p. 97, emphasis mine)

So what does this all mean? Does the fact that one of the worlds leading theologians is now teaching doctrine that could be found in LDS Sunday School add any external credibility to the Mormon belief system? And what does this tell us about other odd doctrines that are still viewed by many as “radical departure” from traditional belief?

I have actually never had any major personal qualms with abiding by the honor code itself. I think that I naturally fit the BYU mold close enough that I haven’t felt my corners get rubbed off by any restrictions or regulations. However, I have had associations with many who have not shared my experience.

I hope to take this chance to analyze the pro and cons of the honor code, and examine its effect on the BYU, and even LDS community at large.

The Church, and BYU as its representative, is increasingly image conscious. Projecting a wholesome image to the world is of tremendous importance, and in that regard, I believe the honor code is successful in doing so. I currently work at the BYU International Studies Center, where we regularly host scholars, ambassadors, and other dignitaries who speak to us from abroad. More often than not, as they make their tours throughout campus, they take notice of the atmosphere, and are very impressed by the modest demeanor of the women and the trim look of the men. BYU has in fact gained a strongly positive reputation in the international academic and diplomatic community, and is reportedly the talk of the town when all the foreign ambassadors gather in Washington to compare travel logs.

Likewise, BYU is a hot spot for corporate recruiters: representatives come from companies looking to recruit, and at BYU they find a wholesome, clean cut, value oriented pool to choose from. Year after year, BYU grads get job from employers who see BYU as a gold mine for hard working, honest, and upright students. The honor code could well be attributed as the driving force behind this image.

In many ways, I feel that I have the same personal goals as that stated mission of the honor code, to “provide an education in an atmosphere consistent with the ideals and principles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” However, I do see principled disconnect when I consider that an institution feels the needs to uphold its moral principles (many of which are grounded in personal agency and liberty) by enforcing legislation that leads to compulsion or ultimatums.

Last week was “Honor Week” on campus. One of the events involved students submitting honor-code-promoting videos to the “Honor Oscars” (or something like that,) and the winning video would be shown the freshman at new student orientation in the fall. I saw a TV news spot about this where a finalist was interviewed and asked about the honor code. He said something to the effect of “…the honor code is important…it keeps us doing what we should.”

This is fairly representative of most pro-honor-code arguments; the emphasis of the argument praises the virtues it encompasses, and concludes with a “and the honor code maintains these great things, why would you be against it?”

The fatal flaw that I see in all these arguments is the implication that if the honor code didn’t exist, everyone would degenerate into lying, stealing, cheating, drug dealing, chain smoking, liquor swilling, promiscuous counter-culturists. If the honor code’s existence is justified by the fact that is it instills virtues, then the argument only holds ground if infact those virtues would be absent in the community were it not for the honor code. If that is true, then this argument is a terribly grim commentary about the community who at once wishes to be defined as adherents of the gospel of Jesus of Christ, but somehow feels it needs require a compulsory list of rules to maintain those morals. My understanding of Jesus Christ’s gospel includes the idea that obedience must be completely voluntary in order to produce its indented outcome. (Moro. 7: 6, 9)

Much more could be said about the honor code. On one side it helps in projecting a wholesome image to the world, and provides additional incentives for those who otherwise have no moral foundation to behave well. But on the other hand, it introduces a pharasitical framework of hedges around the law for the community to follow, which ultimately leads to “looking beyond the mark.” I am convinced that the pressures of conformity to the honor code more often than not lead to hypocrisy rather than righteousness.

Again, summarizing my stand on the issue, I am fully in favor of promoting wholesomeness and virtue on campus, but I find it somewhat saddening and unfortunate that a community that prides itself on inherent virtues and strong morals feels the need to establish mandatory legislation to enforce something it apparently already claims.

I suppose in the end, it’s up to the BYU administration to carry out the cost-benefit analysis of the two sides, and from the looks of it, it doesn’t seem like the honor code will be going anywhere anytime soon.

The song presents a somewhat abstract narrative that describes a man’s relationship with his father, and then with his son, mixed with some allusions to his wife. The first verse beings with the man speaking to his father, and asking him the foundational philosophical question: “What’s the sense in life?”

This brings to mind the account in the Pearl of Great Price, when Moses, having seen all of God’s creations, asks:

“Tell me, I pray thee, why these things are so, and by what thou madest them?” (Moses 1:30)

In the song, the man’s father essentially answers by saying:

“Here’s a riddle for you, Find the answer.”

Likewise, the Lord also replies in cryptic terms, by saying:

“For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me.” (Moses 1:31)

The song continues by describing the man’s search and discovery for the purpose of life. In a later exchange, the lyrics quote his son, who says:

“Dad, I’m big, but we’re smaller than small; In the scheme of things, well, we’re nothing at all.”

This bears notable resemblance to Moses’ reaction, when after contemplating the scope of God’s works, he breathlessly declares:

“Now, for this cause I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed.” (Moses 1:10)

The lyrics do provide an answer to the riddle. Through his interactions with his loved ones, he realizes that:

“There’s a reason for the world: You and I.”

So, according to this song, the “reason for the world” is “you and I.” The connection between these lyrics and Mormon theology gains greater depth when we consider what our scriptures tell us about the purpose of the earth.

Please bear with me as I play doctrinal dot-to-dot here. I believe that the scriptures have a number of telling clues that, when considered in their proper context, provide a beautiful, moving, and satisfying answer to the great question of why the earth exists. And perhaps surprisingly, the message of this song is right in line with it.

We can begin looking for answers by exploring one of the most significant scriptures in Mormonism, Malachi 4:5-6:

“Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.”

This scripture’s magnitude is apparent when we consider the fact that it is included in one form or another in all of our standard works: Old Testament (Malachi 4:5-6), New Testament (Luke 1:17), Book of Mormon (3 Nephi 25: 5-6), Doctrine and Covenants (D&C 2:1-3), and Pearl of Great Price (JS-H 1:38-39).

But it is critical to notice the differences that exist in the various versions. Joseph Smith noted that the angel Moroni: “quoted the [6th] verse differently:

‘And he shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.’”

The phrase “lest I come and smite the earth with a curse” is replaced with “If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming.”

The word “wasted” suggests that something’s function was not carried out effectively—that its purpose was not fulfilled. It becomes clear from these verses that Elijah’s mission is critically linked to fulfilling the purpose of the earth’s existence, the “reason for the world,” if you will. If Elijah had not come, the earth would have been a complete waste—void of purpose or reason—“smitten with a curse” as it were. It would seem that Elijah’s mission holds the key to resolving our planet’s existential crisis.

If that’s the case, The next logical step in pinning down the “reason for the world” would be to examine the mission of Elijah and its ramifications. The concept of “turning the hearts of the fathers to the children” has seems almost to have become synonymous with temple work. Elijah appeared in the Kirtland Temple in 1836 and delivered the keys of sealing to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. Regarding this, Joseph explained:

“The earth will be smitten with a curse unless there is a welding link of some kind or other between the fathers and the children, upon some subject or other—and behold what is that subject? It is the baptism for the dead.” (D&C 128:18)

Baptism for the dead? Is it just that simple? No. Joseph was clearly aware that baptism, by proxy or in person, is not simply a ritual that needs to be performed for the sake of performing it, but is rather an encapsulation of an array of deeper concepts and implications. One emphatic element of the restoration is the concept of covenants: their importance, and their significance. Joseph himself is reported as having said:

“You might as well baptize a bag of sand as a man, if not done in view of the remission of sins and getting of the Holy Ghost. Baptism by water is but half a baptism, and is good for nothing without the other half—that is, the baptism of the Holy Ghost.” (History of the Church, 5:499)

From here, we would do well to go over what function the Holy Ghost plays in the covenantal process. In this context, we learn that “all covenants…that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise…are of no efficacy, virtue, or force…” (D&C 132:7) When we consider Joseph’s “bag of sand” statement in this light, he seems to be indicating that the Holy Ghost is essential to the baptismal ordinance, because it is the means by which the covenant is sealed, activated, or legitimized. It brings forth the intended effects of the covenant.

With this in mind, lets examine what this baptismal covenant is, and what is means. The typical “Sunday School answer” tells us that a covenant is “a two way promise.” A discussion usually ensues that includes listing some commandments. The scriptures do in fact make it clear that entering into a covenant relationship involves accepting a law. Paul explains this in Hebrews 8:10:

“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people.”

In the case of the baptismal covenant, it involves accepting the law of Christ. So how is Christ’s law fulfilled? The simple answer is found in Romans 13:8:

“Love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.”

That’s it! As we dig through these doctrinal layers, this is what it boils down to! Elijah came to provide the impetus for a process that, if carried out correctly, creates a framework whose sole purpose is to establish love among one another.

This becomes more clear when we take in the counsel and instruction of John the Beloved:

“Let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.” (1 John 4: 7-8)

Knowing love is knowing God. And knowing God is the definition of Eternal life. (see John 17:3)

We often see the administrative and legalistic aspects of priesthood doctrine and ordinances. However, as Joseph made clear, we might as well be dealing with bags of sand if we don’t place due attention on what the Holy Ghost, the covenant, and the law point directly to: love.

Back to the song lyrics, we can now appreciate a special line that comes in response to the quest to find “the reason for the world.” He tells his son: “You’re looking for a clue: I love you free.”

He continues by expressing the transcendent resolution that comes when a paradox ceases to be resisted and instead is embraced:

“I guess we’re big, and I guess we’re small.”

And the effects that the power of love has in transforming someone’s outlook on life:

“If you think about it man, you know, we got it all.
Cause we’re all we got on this bouncing ball,
And I love you free; I love you freely.”

When I consider all these elements, I am deeply inspired by how the pieces fit together. Charity, the “greatest of all,” is both the means and the ends of spiritual progress. The keys and authority restored through Joseph Smith, particularly those delivered through Elijah, began the process of temple building and temple ordinances. These temples provide a framework of covenants, laws, and blessings, which are designed to bring salvation to those who enter therein. But the critical link that is sadly often overlooked is the love that must be present—the link between the covenant and the receipt of salvation. If abiding by the laws and principles of the gospel do not generate love, then the obedience is “utterly wasted.” Temple attendance that does not strengthen our interpersonal relations with others is “utterly wasted.” Indeed, sealings, baptism, priesthood, and commandments are all vehicles designed to bring us to the destination of love; if they do not, they are “utterly wasted.”

I believe that experiencing love is the closest thing to experiencing godliness that is available to us in mortality. Genuine love, in all its forms: parental, fraternal, filial, charitable, platonic, and romantic; are gifts from God. They are glimpses into heaven, samples of Godhood. Is it any wonder then that salvation is described as a “family affair”? You cannot be saved alone, because you cannot love alone. The actual power that seals and saves is the love that exists between people; covenants, priesthood, and keys are simply designed as an administrative framework to bring us to this end.

So back to considering that Elijah’s mission is inseparably connected to the earth’s reason for existing, as we think of those people we love most, and the personal growth and fulfillment we have experienced through our interactions with them, we can comfortably sing along in agreement with the song:

“There’s a reason for the world: You and I.”

You can now listen to the song and read along with the lyrics posted above.

If you enjoy the song, please support the artist by purchasing it on iTunes or on Amazon.com for $0.99.

Now, he steps into the film making arena with his new feature film: “Passage to Zarahemla.” Chris uses his time-tested narrative device of modern characters converging in one way or another with scriptural settings and events to tell the story of Kerra and Brock, two young people who somehow collide with a parallel universe which brings them into contact with the ancient world of the Nephites, Lamanites, and Gadianton Robbers. This movie seems to find its place in an as-of-yet unfilled void in the LDS film collection, as explained by Sean P. Means of the Salt Lake Tribune:

“Chris Heimerdinger breaks Mormon Cinema’s green Jell-O mold in ‘Passage to Zarahemla,’ ambitiously transposing settings from the Book of Mormon into a stimulating action-adventure drama.”

As a treat for us at Mormon Matters, Chris Heimerdinger agreed to record an interview, in which he tells his story, takes us through his time and experiences as a novelist, describes some of the processes he went through in producing this film, and gives us his take on how it fits within the scope of LDS cinema and culture. Throughout the interview, several noteworthy points come through:

• Chris is a convert to the Church, he originally came to BYU on a scholarship for his accomplishments in film, and it was at BYU that he was introduced to the Book of Mormon, and eventually was baptized and served a mission.
• At age 17, he was the youngest person to attend Robert Redford’s Sundance Institute—back before Park City took over, and it was actually still at Sundance.
• Film making was his primary passion, but he figured he could build up to that by writing novels, an endeavor that turned out to bring a surprising amount of success.
• This success as a novelist proved to be one of the key factors in building trust in investors for the film.
• “Passage to Zarahemla” was published as a novel, but it was always intented to be film, and was written with that in mind.
• During the production of the film, Chris was somewhat of a Renaissance Man, acting as the film’s writer, director, producer, song-writer, and surely a long list of other roles.
• The film features many special effects, which were produced by a firm in Lindon, Utah, composed partially of break-offs from Dreamworks and Pixar.
• Upon release, the film faced three major challenges relating to its box office success:
  1. Distrust from the LDS viewing market: while we have seen some memorable and well-made LDS films, there have been plenty of films that could be classified as cheap, tacky, cheesy, and/or dumb, and as such, many bridges have already been burned, especially when it might come to a fantasy or adventure film.
  2. A PG-13 rating: the film is void of vulgarity, profanity, and sexuality, but the MPAA still slapped it with a PG-13 rating for its intense and frightening depiction of the Gaddianton robbers, who match the scriptual description; the Book of Mormon explains that “great and terrible was the appearance of the armies of Giddianhi, because of their armor, and because of their being dyed in blood.” (3 Nephi 7:4) For some LDS families, PG-13 spells “inappropriate,” and is often met with a good deal of resistance.
  3. A shift in the movie viewing habits of large LDS families with young kids: an increasing number of families that would fall under the target market of this film are avoiding theaters altogether, as home-theaters and private viewing settings become more common. This point, however, will likely translate into greater success in DVD sales.
• Several recognizable LDS media figures participated in the film’s production, notably composer Sam Cardon, who wrote the film’s score. His most recognizable works might be the music from “Work and the Glory,” and several IMAX films.

I have yet to see the movie, but my curiosity is peaked. I think I am among those who got a bit worn out from the lower quality LDS films, but I’m willing to give a fair chance to “Passage of Zarahemla.” User comments across the internet seem to indicate that many viewers went in with low expectations, but were pleasantly surprised.

I hope you can find some time to listen to the interview, and if you feel so inclined, see if the film is showing anywhere near you, and go check it out!

Here are some links related to the interview:

• Promotional Website
• Soundtrack Website
• Daily Herald Review
• IMDB
• Wikipedia

In 4th Nephi however, we’re faced with a tricky ambiguity. We learn that the Nephi here is the father of Amos (4 Nephi 1:19), and it would appear that he is the son of Nephi, the disciple. Our only real clue into who he is comes from the heading of 4th Nephi, which says:

“The Book of Nephi, who is the son of Nephi, one of the disciples of Jesus Christ.”

I may be splitting hairs here, but it seems that this could be interpreted one of two ways:

1. The Book of:
   • Nephi, who is the the son of:
     • Nephi, one of the disciples of Jesus Christ
2. The Book of:
   • Nephi, who is:
     1. The Son of Nephi
     2. One of the Disciples of Jesus Christ

Interpretation 1 suggests he is the great-grandson of Helaman who we know virtually nothing of.

Interpretation 2 suggests he is the grandson of Helaman, the disciple we know of from the Book of 3rd Nephi.

In case that didn’t make sense, here are the two proposed geneologies:

1. Helaman
   • Nephi (Lehi’s Brother)
   • Nephi (Disciple of Christ)
   • Nephi ( Of 4th Nephi)
   • Amos
2. Helaman
   • Nephi (Lehi’s Brother)
   • Nephi (Disciple of Christ & Of 4th Nephi)
   • Amos

Looking at the references to time in 4th Nephi, and estimating Nephi the disciple’s age, the evidence seems in favor of the first interpretation, indicating that there is a Nephi between Nephi the disciple and Amos, but I find it interesting that a reworking of the same text leaves open the possibility that our reading of the Book of Mormon might have fabricated new character, and Amos is simply the son of Nephi the disciple.