Though it’s only an “additional teaching idea” in Lesson 12, Jacob’s ladder has captured my imagination due to some conversations I’ve recently had with Christian evangelicals.

The theme of the ladder to heaven is often used by the Early Church Fathers. Their interpretations of Jacob’s symbolic dream in Genesis 28 are similar to those made by Mormon General Authorities. In the 2nd century, Saint Irenaeus described the Christian Church as the ladder of ascent to God. In the 3rd century Origen explained that there are two ladders in the Christian life; one of which is the ladder that the soul climbs on the earth increasing the virtues. In the 4th century Saint Gregory of Nazianzus spoke of ascending Jacob’s Ladder by successive steps towards excellence, interpreting thus the ladder as an ascetic path, while Saint Gregory of Nyssa wrote that Moses climbed on Jacob’s Ladder to reach the heavens where he entered the tabernacle not made with hands, thus giving to the Ladder a clear mystical meaning. The ascetic interpretation is found also in Saint John Chrysostom who wrote:

“And so mounting as it were by steps, let us get to heaven by a Jacob’s ladder. For the ladder seems to me to signify in a riddle by that vision the gradual ascent by means of virtue, by which it is possible for us to ascend from earth to heaven, not using material steps, but improvement and correction of manners.”

The account of Jacob’s Ladder as an analogy for the spiritual ascetic of life is again found in the classical work Ladder of Divine Ascent by St. John Climacus. The ladder in Jacob’s dream represented a symbolic journey where each of the rungs suggest the steps needed to move upward. Man must climb up one level at a time as he participates in the saving principles and ordinances of the gospel offered by the Lord, who stands at the top. Notice how similar this description is to the quote by Marion G. Romney found in our lesson:

“Jacob realized that the covenants he made with the Lord … were the rungs on the ladder that he himself would have to climb in order to obtain the promised blessings—blessings that would entitle him to enter heaven and associate with the Lord” (“Temples—The Gates to Heaven,” Ensign, Mar. 1971, 16).

***
Later Christian interpretation of Jacob’s ladder is quite different than the early Church fathers, and demonstrates the dichotomy of thought between evangelicals and Mormons on the faith and works issue. In this exegesis, Jesus is seen as being the reality to which the ladder points in that he bridges the gap between heaven and earth. According to Martin Luther, Jacob’s vision of the ladder represented the incarnation of Christ. In the Gospel of John 1:51 there is a clear reference to Jacob’s dream pointing towards Jesus Christ, referred to by his title of the Son of Man:

And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

Adam Clarke, an early 19th century Methodist theologian and Bible scholar, elaborated upon this verse:

“That by the angels of God ascending and descending, is to be understood, that a perpetual intercourse should now be opened between heaven and earth, through the medium of Christ, who was God manifested in the flesh. Our blessed Lord is represented in his mediatorial capacity as the ambassador of God to men; and the angels ascending and descending upon the Son of Man, is a metaphor taken from the custom of dispatching couriers or messengers from the prince to his ambassador in a foreign court, and from the ambassador back to the prince.”

In this one Biblical symbol we find differing schools of thought over the issue of salvation: One group views the ladder as a way to reach heaven based on their own actions of improvement and obedience to covenants and ordinances. The other group has access to heaven based on the provisions of God through the Mediator, Jesus Christ, who came to earth and became that ladder or stairway for the sinner to reconnect the relationship with God.

In pondering this issue in the past, I have lamented that such a rift exists between our two faith traditions. It often seems to me that we are closer than we think, and that grace and works are both important. Mormons, I explain, emphasize works so much because we fear that if we don’t, the sinner might lapse into laziness or indifference. Christians emphasize the grace aspect of the equation so that no one will mistakenly trust in legalism rather than the Savior for their salvation. Isn’t the truth a balance between Paul and James? However, the evangelicals have labored hard to convince me that salvation must be accepted upon grace alone. Lately I’ve been pondering why I am reluctant to join them in their assurance. I’ve accepted Christ as my Savior, and it certainly would be a lot easier not to worry so much about whether I was paying my tithing, going to the temple regularly, or doing my visiting teaching. But here’s what holds me back: if Jesus offers me the grace they describe, then I’ll be OK whether I’m doing my works or not. But if the Mormon view turns out to be the more accurate description of the will of God for us, I need to be trying my hardest to do all of those works which are in my power.

Am I living my life based on fear rather than faith? Maybe. Will it count against me in the end?  I don’t see how it could.

What’s your take on Jacob’s ladder? Do we walk up, or does God descend to meet us where we are? Can this scriptural metaphor be of any help to us in our faith journey?

I enjoy the TV show ‘House’.  Aside from his acerbic wit I often enjoy the program’s discussion of issues of atheism and the explanation for suffering that exists in the world.  There are two episodes in particular that relate to this topic of suffering.  In one a girl comes into the surgery who has been raped and asks to have House treat her.  There is nothing wrong with her (medically) and so he sees no reason to treat her.  As a ‘Theology Major’ the episode develops through their dialogue on whether God exists and how he could let this happen.  Their approaches reveal an almost dichotomised view of the world.  House attempts to find the meaning behind her suffering in the randomness of the world and the psychology of the attacker.  She sees meaning in her suffering as something which exists, but which is beyond her understanding.

The second episode brings a magician into House’s diagnostic department.  They discuss the need to know versus the need for wonder and mystery.  The Magician seems almost to relish the mysterious nature of disease and would rather die from an unknown source than be saved from a known diseases.  The episode concludes with House finding the reason for the sickness and curing the Magician.  The final line from House is: ‘knowing is way cooler’.

For me this highlights a tension in thinking about suffering that I had not appreciated fully before but which I think Levinas describes aptly.  He writes that suffering is suffering because of ‘the denial, the refusal of meaning’ that attends it [1].  What I think Levinas is trying to get at  here is that suffering is different from pain.  Pain can be explained.  The magicians pain was not mysterious any longer because the explanation was given for that pain.  Yet pain becomes suffering when the explanation (House’s explanation) seems to break down or fracture under the weight of the suffering.  Thus the strength of House’s rationality seems more facile and weak in the case of the rape victim.  That type of pain causes suffering because it resists an explanation and meaning.

Yet, this is not necessarily the point at which religion or theology sweeps in and begins providing discrete meaning for all suffering.  For suffering resists all type of meaning, even religious.  Thus any explanation, even one provided by religion still seems to have fractures and breaks were the explanation does not fit, as Levinas demonstrates in the essay.  Religious explanations fail to console just as easily as Medical or psychological or any other explanantions.

Therefore if suffering resists meaning, then can meaning be found in suffering as I previously argued.  I think it can, but it can only ever do it imperfectly.  Our explanations will never be generalisable nor will they fully satisfy or console.  C.S. Lewis wrote, after the death of his wife, that he believes there is truth in religion, there is religious duty; but if you talk ‘to [him] about the consolations of religion’ and he will ’suspect that you don’t understand’[2].

If we expect religion or God to provide answers any more satisfactory than any other ideology or explanatory-structure then perhaps we have mis-understood.  What then is the role of religion in such suffering?  Levinas provides one possible explanation, which I hope to discuss in a future post.  But I want to offer a suggestion here which uses faith.

Alma describes faith as not having a perfect knowledge.  Faith can involve contradiction (see my previous posts on Kierkegaard and on Worship).  Religion then can provide people (and other institutions can do something similar) with a context for living out our lives beneath the weight of useless and unexplained suffering.  The contradiction built into meaningless suffering is so great that many have turned toward religious explanations to provide satisfactory answers when perhaps all that was required or expected by God, was to continue to seek out a relationship with Him in the midst of such contradiction.  A faith that is more about faithfulness and relationships (of trust and love) than about doctrinal explanations.  A faith that does not require a future meaning for the suffering of the present.

I am not saying that we should not seek to find meaning in our suffering, I think there is some value in that process, especially if we involve God in it.  Yet, what I am arguing is that by its very nature, suffering refuses to be circumscribed by a meaningful explanation.  As such, the response of religion, should be in part an acceptance of this contradiction and an attempt to utilize the dynamism of such contradictions to direct us toward God.  Yet, the passivity and activity of these two movements is a contradiciton in itself.

Notes:

1. Emmanuel Levinas, Useless Suffering in Entre Nous [London: Continuum, 2006], p. 78.

2. C.S. Lewis, A Grief Observed [London: Faber & Faber, 1961], p. 23.

A child is born in Bukavu

A child is born in Bukavu, and sadness fills his mother’s heart… Bukavu is not the city of David. It is a town in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo. War has been ravaging the country for years. Ever since Kabila invaded the former Zaire with military support from the US. It is a war that no one speaks of – but it has cost the lives of millions of people and caused unimaginable suffering.

The child’s mother is a young girl, a daughter of the area. This young girl is named Maria.  Maria was a girl like most any other girl in her town. She walked miles for water, she helped her mother with the cooking and she also tilled the land. She learnt how to read in primary school, but ever since the war her parents no longer could afford to pay her school fees. Maria was a believer in the Christian gospel – and went like all other young girls her age to church on Sunday.

Church was a mud hut with a roof made out of straw. There on Sundays, the kids would gather to learn about God. The preacher, an older man with glasses and graying hair, would always talk about God’s love for humanity – and that God once, long time ago, had come to the world as a male child to save humanity. In church, she had also learned some words of English. She knew that when you greeted someone, you had to say: “Good morning, class”. 

The morning breaks

That was then. Prior to the attacks… One day, as the morning broke and shadows gathered, foreign soldiers drove into town. The houses were set on fire. The adults were gathered on the square and the older men were executed one by one. This is how Maria lost her father – and she and her mother witnessed it. The soldiers held their heads for them to watch. Maria was afraid. After having seen the murder of her father, they also separated her from her mother. She was chosen from among the young girls to follow a group of soldiers. One of them stripped her of her clothes and forced himself on her – he, subject to the commanders’ orders.

Now she held this young child in her arms. Her heart was filled with sadness, and she knew that her firstborn child would have given her joy under other circumstances. Some months after the soldiers left, Maria was chased away. The villagers who were left behind were ashamed of her and of the other girls who had become pregnant. These girls were a constant reminder of the day when the men in the village had been powerless – confronted with the threat and the fear of a gun. “Do not ever come back”, were the last words she heard as she was running for her life into the deep woods. 

Maria sings to her little child a song she learned many years ago: “Lullaby, lullaby, my little one. Lullaby, my child so dear. Thy precious life has just begun. Thy mother holds thee near”. And yet, she knows the words do not ring true. True, all life is precious. But not one soul will ever value the life of this child. Born of a violent union, unwanted by his mother, into a world where people willingly march to the sound of guns. What future can she promise him? What life can this child possibly hope to have? Even though she loves him, he is a constant reminder of what happened to her, and like the villagers who once chased her away she cannot find peace when she looks into his eyes. 

Its ranks are filled with soldiers, united, bold and strong…

Victory, victory… The guys were singing and shouting, drunken by their thirst for blood and proud of their conquest. Bukavu had been encircled, trapped, taken, raped and ravaged. The soldiers executed the orders of their commander and had in turn executed the elders of Bukavu – one by one. Herodes was the commander’s name. His boys feared him.

They were now men. They had proven it – to themselves and to him who had led them into victory. Joseph, one of the soldiers, the one who raped Maria, was nonetheless feeling some unease. In following orders, Joseph had forced himself upon this young girl. The others had told him that having sex with a virgin was going to save him from the disease that was making him weak, this pandemic they called AIDS. But more importantly, the others respected him now. He had become one of them: their partner in crime.

You are the man! We saw you, Joseph. You did it. You made her cry – you and your gun. You made her scream. The words were both making him feel proud and good about himself, but for one reason, unknown to him, they were also haunting him. Could he look at a woman again without thinking of the pain he had caused to this young girl – whose name he would never know? In order to survive – either you dominate or you are dominated, Herodes used to say. To rule, you have to systematically brake down the bonds that bind communities together. They need to fear you or fear will overtake you…

I am trying to be like Jesus

War does not bring out the best in us – it brings out the worst in us. True, some acts are acts of courage – but aren’t those heroic acts always associated with saving lives, and not with taking them? Fear begets fear. It is the opposite of love. Misery begets misery. It is the opposite of joy. Violence begets violence. It is the opposite of peace.

The nativity story told the world of a little baby boy, born to Mary, a girl chosen among other girls to be the mother of a Savior, rejected by men and yet, many are they who believe he is their safe ticket to heaven. The story from Bukavu is the story of a little baby boy, born to Maria, a girl chosen among other girls to be the victim of a soldier, so he could gain accept in the eyes of his comrades, so he could become a man, taking by force what he believed was a safe ticket to health.

Jesus taught us that he was not Herodes. “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.”  Jesus was nonviolent. Not exactly what you would associate with being a King. He was God. He was love, both long-suffering and kind. That is why he came to earth as a man and not as a woman: not because God favors men, but because the concept of what it means to be a Man on earth is so contrary to what it means to being God in heaven – who Mormons believe is male. Be kind, as a child, he said to them, and loving as a hen gathers her chickens:

“O ye people of these great cities which have fallen, who are descendants of Jacob, yea, who are of the house of Israel, how oft have I gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and have nourished you. Yea, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens, and ye would not. O ye house of Israel, whom I have spared, how oft will I gather you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, if ye will repent and return unto me with full purpose of heart”. 

Love one another

It was necessary for Jesus to come to earth in the form and shape of a male – to represent God as his firstborn son, the first among all great men, a king of kings. “Little children, a new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another”.

The divine irony is the fact that Jesus exhibits throughout his life traits that we call feminine: peaceful, loving, kind, sharing, meek, forgiving, gentle, and caring. He helped the poor and he healed the sick. We crucified him, because he was a threat to men everywhere. He challenged the very idea of what it means to be a man: strong, violent, forceful, greedy, noisy, arrogant and proud. He challenged the way we think about achieving peace, not by dominating others before they dominate us, but by showing us a better way to freedom – paved with love and with sacrifice.

In short, this was the message Jesus gave to the modern House of Israel, to the modern sons of Jacob: “What manner of men ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am.”  He showed all men an alternative masculinity – that of the nonviolent male who sides with the poor and the downtrodden. Come, follow me, the Savior said. 

For an alternative and nonviolent study of the Book of Mormon, mormongandhi is regularly publishing a study chapter on mormon nonviolence (latter day satyagraha) at http://mormongandhi.com. Each chapter follows the set-up of the Institute Study Manual of the LDS Church. In addition, you can share your thoughts and insights on the nonviolent readings of the Book of Mormon with other “peaceable followers of Christ” (Moroni 7:3) at the discussion forum (http://peaceablefollowers.wordpress.com) created in parallel to the “latter day satyagraha” site.

mormongandhi currently lives in Oslo, Norway. He has a BA in peace and development studies from Bradford University in the UK, where he studied religious peacebuilding, as well as a master’s in peace operations from GMU in Washington D.C.

mormongandhi is looking for alternative and more peaceful ways of thinking and living. He calls himself an advocate for nonviolence in the Restoration movement.

I talked previously about the Wise Men and their part in the Christmas Story.  Not much is known about them, but there are quite a few interesting legends.  For example, we assume there are 3 Wise Men, but some ancient paintings show as few as two, and sometimes as many as four.  Names and legends have even sprung up to provide more information about these men.

In the Greek church,  Gaspar (or Caspar), Melchior and Balthasar are their names.  Some artists have shown them to represent all of humanity: its youth, middle age, and elderly.  In the Renaissance, other artists sought to make the magi represent race, color and creed.  In one painting, one of the Magi is represented as coming from Ethiopia and was black.  The others came from Persia and India.

Syrian Christians have a 6th century tale naming them Horamistar, King of Persia; Yestigat King of Saba; and Perozad, king of Sheba.  Wikipedia lists some other names and legends, and has some footnotes to provide some sources to these legends.

According to this video, in the Spanish world, presents are not exchanged on Christmas, but 12 days later on 3 Kings Day, January 6.  Presents under the tree are left by the 3 Kings, not Santa Claus.  A special cake is prepared, representing good luck for the next year.  The one who finds a ring cooked into the cake gets the good luck.

Marco Polo in the 13th century, claimed that he was shown the three tombs of the Magi at Saveh south of Tehran in the 1270s:

“In Persia is the city of Saba, from which the Three Magi set out and in this city they are buried, in three very large and beautiful monuments, side by side. And above them there is a square building, beautifully kept. The bodies are still entire, with hair and beard remaining.”

Another legend says their bones were allegedly removed by Helena, mother of Constantine, who was looking for Christian artifacts in the 4th century.  She took them to Byzantium, and the bones have been moved a few times, finally ending up in Cologne, where they are today, sealed in a golden coffin in a cathedral.

So, can anyone verify that the Spanish celebrate 3 Kings Day?  It sounds like a very interesting tradition to me.  I really like the cake idea.  About 3 years ago, I was trying to explain to my then 4 year old that Christmas was more than just Santa Claus.  I told him that it was Jesus’ birthday.  My boy exclaimed, “We should make him a cake!”

As I thought of this 3 Kings Day tradition, I thought that might be an interesting addition to the holidays.  Perhaps we should all celebrate 3 Kings Day.  Perhaps we could save some money on the post-Christmas sales if we waited to buy presents after Christmas.  What do you think?  I like the idea of 3 Kings Day better than giving birds to my love (and I think she wouldn’t know what to do with all the birds either.)

In the following video which lasts about 2 minutes, Jean talks about the stigma some members may feel if they choose a civil wedding ceremony. The other preseding videos last approximately 2 minutes each.

Temple Wedding Petition 3 Here

Temple Wedding Petition 1 Here

Temple Wedding Petition 2 Here

Temple Wedding Petition .org here

The actual petition is found here

I was raised in a part member family and remember when my brother was married my parents were disappointed that they weren’t able to go to the temple and see their son get married. It would have been nice for our family to have seen it. I wonder if it makes non- members, or those on the fringe, feel excluded from the church and may damper future missionary work with families. I live in England and it’s the law that there is a civil wedding which usually takes place in the chapel.

Recently a nephew was married and was schedueled to get married in the Salt Lake temple. Because much of the family couldn’t witness the wedding they decided last minute to have a civil wedding. He and his wife since their marriage enjoy going to the temple but have to wait a year now to be married in the temple.

I wonder if there is a church loophol if you want your non- member family to see your wedding you could get married in America and fly to a country where the church allows civil marriages followed by a temple marriage after?

What are your thoughts and experiences?

Just to make it very clear that there is no advocacy on the part of MM.

From viewing Aaron’s video of himself witnessing at Temple Square I’m getting the feeling that he wants us to believe that if something is miraculous, it has to be completely incomprehensible. But he doesn’t realize that concept doesn’t appeal to us. Mormons are likely to say that God does not defy law, but he works through physical laws, a fundamental principle of the universe. This in no way impedes our awe or sense of the wonder of Christmastime or the birth of the Savior.

A primary purpose of Joseph Smith’s vision in the grove was to reveal an embodied God. This conception of Deity has been vital to our doctrine from the early days of the Church to this day. Thomas S. Monson taught:

“This loving God who introduced his crucified and resurrected Son was not a God lacking in body, parts, or passions ­­ the God of a man-­made philosophy. Rather, God our Father has ears with which to hear our prayers. He has eyes with which to see our actions. He has a mouth with which to speak to us. He has a heart with which to feel compassion and love. He is real. He is living. We are his children made in his image. We look like him and he looks like us.” (Conference Report, April 1966, p.63)

But  if we believe in an embodied God, we have to think about what this might imply, including  the mechanics of how Mary was impregnated.  Aaron and other Christian evangelicals are bothered that LDS leaders have taught that the seed of our Father in Heaven produced Jesus Christ in a literal, physical fashion. The Bible teaches that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost, but the Book of Mormon clarifies that this was done by the power of the Holy Ghost, after the manner of the flesh.

There is no doubt that the idea of physical relations between God and Mary has been clearly advocated in the Church by such authorities as Brigham Young [1], Orson Pratt [2], Heber C. Kimball [3], Joseph F. Smith, [4], Joseph Fielding Smith [5], James E. Talmage [6], Melvin J. Ballard [7], J. Reuben Clark [8], Bruce R. McConkie [9], and Ezra Taft Benson [10]. Mormons believe that Christ was literally the Son of God in the flesh, and he was conceived in a natural, physical way according to eternal law. In explaining this, the aforementioned leaders gave their views on how it was accomplished. Despite this, many members do not agree, are unaware of the idea, or prefer not to discuss it. It is certainly understandable that some feel it is a sacred subject. Some feel that it is merely speculation which does not affect the LDS doctrinal position on the nature of Christ. Others find it distasteful because it conjures up issues of celestial polygamy or spiritual incest. There are those who would like to skirt the issue by postulating that Mary may have been impregnated by some means such as artificial insemination. But I see no reason, if God has a body and parts, that he would not use his parts.

Several contemporary Mormon writers are willing to accept the conception of Christ through a physical relationship. Kevin Barney finds the idea appealing:

“I presume the mortal Jesus had 46 chromosomes, and that 23 came from Mary, but where did the other 23 come from? As a Mormon, I’m not big on the idea that they were created ex nihilo for this specific purpose. I like being able to say that Jesus really did have a father, not in a metaphorical sense only (the language of begetting in the creeds doesn’t mean literal begetting), but in a physical sense. He really was the Son of God.”

For those of us who are willing to entertain the notion of a physical conception, how do we explain the “Virgin Birth” spoken of in the scriptures? There are several possibilities.

1. The word in the Bible translated as “virgin” actually means “young woman.”

An introduction to this controversy can be found here. Having studied the linguistics carefully, I believe there is merit to the argument that the Hebrew word “almah” in Isaiah 7:14 (Behold, a virgin shall conceive) was used for “young woman” and not specifically “virgin.” The word used in the New Testament passages to describe Mary as a virgin, “parthenos,” can also mean young woman (damsel), as in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament), when it refers to Dinah after she was raped. This explanation fits with the teachings of Church leaders that God the Father was the literal father of Jesus according to the flesh.

This argument is weakened by the fact that Mary is referred to as a virgin five times in 1 Nephi and once in Alma. Since we do not have the original language version of the Book of Mormon to refer to, we must take the English as it stands.

Additionally, General Authorities have insisted that our beliefs are consistent with Mary being a virgin. Therefore, some have conjectured:

2. Mary was a virgin because she did not have relations with a man, but with a God.

“One of the great questions that I have referred to that the world is concerned about, and is in confusion over, is as to whether or not his was a virgin birth, a birth wherein divine power interceded.” (Melvin J. Ballard)

Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a virgin because he is the only person who ever had an immortal Father. (Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 18­20.) “For our present purposes, suffice it to say that our Lord was born of a virgin, which is fitting and proper, and also natural, since the Father of the Child was an immortal Being” (BRM, The Promised Messiah, pg. 466).

Although God has a physical body, the reasoning goes, it was glorified and perfected. Since the Being who impregnated Mary had a Divine nature, she was not changed in the way she would have been had she had intercourse with an earthly, fallen man with a human nature.

NOW, We’ve discussed the fun, speculative stuff, let’s get to the IMPORTANT, ESSENTIAL stuff:

• Who does the Bible say is the father of the incarnate Jesus (God), and how was it accomplished? (by the power of the Holy Ghost) (Luke 1:35) Do Mormon teachings fit with this statement?
• (This is the big one in my opinion): If we concede the Evangelical teachings on how one obtains salvation, how does knowing whether or not God actually had sex with Mary pertain?

***
So, Aaron, what’s holding Evangelical Christians back from singing Christmas carols with us on Temple Square? Why is our commemoration of Jesus’ birth less valuable than yours if we believe that sexual intercourse is divine? What better way could there be to create a being who is fully human and fully God?

________________________________________

[1]“The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers,” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 115).

[2] “There is no doubt that the Holy Ghost came upon Mary to sanctify her, and make her holy, and prepare her to endure the glorious presence of “the Highest’, that when ‘He’ should ‘overshadow’ her she might conceive, being filled with the Holy Ghost; hence the angel said, as recorded in Matthew, ‘That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost;’ that is, the Holy Ghost gave her strength to abide in the presence of the Father without being consumed, but it was the personage of the Father who begat the body of Jesus; and for this reason Jesus is called ‘the Only Begotten of the Father;’ that is, the only one in this world whose fleshly body was begotten by the Father…The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father..” (Orson Pratt, The Seer, page 158)

[3] “I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my Savior Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it. (Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, 8:211)

[4] “I want the little folks [children] to hear what I am going to tell you. I am going to tell you a simple truth, yet it is one of the greatest truths and one of the most simple facts ever revealed to the children of men. You all know that your fathers are indeed your fathers and that your mothers are indeed your mothers – you all know that don’t you? You cannot deny it. Now, we are told in scriptures that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God in the flesh. Well, now for the benefit of the older ones, how are children begotten? I answer just as Jesus Christ was begotten of his father…Now my little friends, I will repeat again in words as simple as I can, and you ask your parents about it, that God, the Eternal Father, is literally the father of Jesus Christ.” (Joseph F. Smith, Box Elder Stake Conference Dec 20, 1914 as quoted in Brigham City Box Elder News, 28 Jan, 1915, pp.1-2. see also Family Home Evening [Manual], copyright 1972 by Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, pages 125-126).

[5]“The birth of the Savior was a natural occurrence unattended with any degree of mysticism, and the Father God was the literal parent of Jesus in the flesh as well as in the spirit,” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Religious Truths Defined, p. 44)

[6] “The only instance of offspring from woman dissociated from mortal fatherhood is the birth of Jesus the Christ, who was the earthly Son of a mortal mother, begotten by an immortal Father. He is the Only Begotten of the Eternal Father in the flesh, and was born of woman.” (James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, Ch.5, p.43)

[7] “No man or woman can live in mortality and survive the presence of the Highest except by the sustaining power of the Holy Ghost. So it came upon her [Mary] to prepare her for admittance into the divine presence, and the power of the Highest, who is the Father, was present, and overshadowed her, and the holy Child that was born of her was called the Son of God. Men who deny this, or who think that it degrades our Father, have no true conception of the sacredness of the most marvelous power with which God has endowed mortal men—the power of creation. Even though that power may be abused and may become a mere harp of pleasure to the wicked, nevertheless it is the most sacred and holy and divine function with which God has endowed man. Made holy, it is retained by the Father of us all, and in his exercise of that great and marvelous creative power and function, he did not debase himself, degrade himself, nor debauch his daughter. Thus Christ became the literal Son of a divine Father, and no one else was worthy to be his father.” (Sermons and Missionary Services of Melvin J. Ballard, p. 167)

[8] “That Child to be born of Mary was begotten of Elohim, the Eternal Father, not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof; and, the offspring from that association of supreme sanctity, celestial Sireship, and pure though mortal maternity, was of right to be called the “Son of the Highest.” In His nature would be combined the powers of Godhood with the capacity and possibilities of mortality; and this through the ordinary operation of the fundamental law of heredity, declared of God, demonstrated by science, and admitted by philosophy, that living beings shall propagate — after their kind.” (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Behold the Lamb of God, p.356)

[9] “These name-titles all signify that our Lord is the only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only means only, begotten means begotten, and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in He same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers.” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 546)

[10] “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the most literal sense. The body in which He performed His mission in the flesh was sired by that same Holy Being we worship as God, our Eternal Father. Jesus was not the son of Joseph, nor was He begotten by the Holy Ghost” (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pg.7)

At the out-set I should explain that I am not a Biblical scholar nor am I especially good with languages.  So I would appreciate, and even expect, some dialogue regarding the thoughts that I want to express here.

Isaiah 58 is, for me, the most inspiring text in the scriptures that discusses fasting.  In this post I want to consider some of the ideas it expresses.  Isaiah’s concern is that Israel’s focus in their fast is themselves.  He writes that people complain ‘Wherefore have we fasted… and thou seest not? Wherefore have we afflicted our soul and thou takest no knowledge’ (Isa 58:3)?   They fast ‘to make [their] voice heard on high’ (Isa 58:4).

The Lord in response to this behaviour asks the people to turn the focus of their fast outward.  ‘Is this not the fast that I have chosen? To loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?  Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?’ (Isa 58:6-7).

The sense I get is that this practice should be directed toward others.  To fast is not just to go without food as a sacrifice, but it is to render service or make especial effort to love those whom we struggle to love.  Fasting so that our own voice is heard in Heaven is condemned while serving our fellow men is central to our fast.  In fact, it seems that to give up food is a means by which we can ‘draw out [our] soul to the hungry, and satisfy the afflicted soul’ (Isa 58:10).  As we voluntarily go without we are to think about or focus our time upon those who go without involuntarily.  To do this expands our compassion and love.  In fact, it seems that in this act we emulate Christ, who voluntarily suffered so that he might perfect his capacity for ‘mercy and empathy’ [2].

Isaiah outlines some of the promised blessings that may come from such a fast (see Isa 58:8-12).  In v.9 he says ‘then shalt thou call, and the LORD shall answer; thou shalt cry, and he shall say, Here I am. If thou take away from the midst of thee the yoke, the putting forth of the finger, and speaking vanity’.  I believe the Lord’s answer is not synonymous with having our voice heard on high.  I believe that that answer is ‘Here I am’.  I believe the Lord promises us his presence and comfort and yet, Isaiah reiterates that this will only come if we put off those behaviours which afflict others.  Thus as we give up, or put off, food so are we also to put off those actions which offend or hurt.  The food in one sense becomes a symbol of our sin, which we desire to put off.

In addition the Lord promises us that as we turn our lives outward to those around us, as we learn to expand our capacities for love and service, that our lives will become ‘like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not’ (Isa 58:11).  The poetic allusion to Christ as the Living waters is wonderful and yet what is significant here is not that we come to the Living Waters, but they become placed within us.  In this sense we become like Christ, in that we become fountains of love rather than cups which need filling.  Fasting is one of those spiritual practices that helps us to place the Living Waters in us.

In v. 12 the Lord promises that such people will be those who help prepare Zion.  In speaking of this verse Eugene England has said ‘The Lord has, in these verses, drawn a straight line from fasting for the hungry to becoming a “repairer of the breach”–to preserving peace that will “raise up the foundations of many generations” instead of dooming those generations to nuclear destruction. The Lord is describing, with the extra power of poetic language, a precise and inexorable moral law: mercy begets and multiplies mercy; sacrificial giving will beget and multiply kindness, understanding, patience, brotherhood–even between enemies.’ [3]  In this sense again through Fasting the Lord promises us that we will begin to learn how to heal the wounds which afflict ourselves and others; we will learn how to break down those barriers that restrict us from being at-one with each and with God.

I am inspired by these verse because I would like to be someone who exhibits these characteristics and yet it is clear to me now that only by directing my fast toward others will this be made possible.  I feel that I have too often fasted so that I might receive a particular job, or even so that I might get good marks in my education.  I feel the urge to repent and turn toward God and other people, and to do this through fasting.

Notes:

1. Jana Reiss, Mormonism as Praxis in Sunstone, 12/1/04 [Salt Lake City UT.: Sunstone Education Foundation, 2004], p. 16-27

2. Neal A. Maxwell, A Choice Seer in Ensign, August 1986.

3. Eugene England, Fasting and Food, Not Weapons: a Mormon Response To Conflict in BYU Studies, vol. 25 [Provo Ut.: BYU Publications, 1985), p. 154.

The Church have just published (although I wrote this from a draft that I had access to before it was published) the new CES Book of Mormon Institute manual and my previous post asked some questions about what people hoped for in content.  This post is aimed at trying to develop a brief comparison of the most recent two.  I have tried to search topics, compared content and appendices and focussed on searching authors.  There are some interesting changes and some interesting constants.

Firstly the book is only 50 pages longer, which makes me wonder why bother to do a new one at all. 

Secondly there is still no discussion of the translation process, Joseph’s relationship with Moroni and the plates and the witnesses get a small outline in the appendix which is more an exercise in stating that they ‘never’ denied their testimonies.

Thirdly, McConkie has been used even more extensively and Mormon Doctrine has been used 19 times.  This is less than the previous manual but when contrasted with the new Gospel Principles manual, from which ‘Mormon Doctrine’ has been completely eradicated, this is quite interesting.  Why this schizophrenic move is not clear?  Perhaps we are seeing the impact of different writing committees.  In addition, Joseph Fielding Smith is also quoted more extensively.

Another noticeable, but perhaps unsurprising change, is the preference for living Apostles and Prophets, or at least very recent.  Yet, what is surprising, is the differences between those who are quoted frequently and those who are not.  For example, Fielding Smith and McConkie are quoted over 70 times in the new manual.  The other people who match that are President Benson, Joseph Smith (he is most quoted with 180 citations), Jeffrey R. Holland and Neal A. Maxwell.  Not far behind them is Elder Oaks, Packer and President Hinckley.  Why these brethren?  Hinckely and Benson have both been prophets and there is an emphasis upon thir teachings.  Elder Holland has written a popular book.  But Maxwell, Oaks and Packer?

The appendices have changed slightly.  They have dropped the map of the possible Book of Mormon geography while including a new map of Lehi’s journey.  This seems like an interesting reflection of how comfortable the Church feels with speculating about Book of Mormon lands with the current DNA ‘crisis’, while they clearly feel more comfortable about some of the work done by scholars on Lehi’s journey.  There is also a greater emphasis on the Scattering and Gathering of Israel.

Some of the things that have been reduced, or removed, or that are absent (which some might expect to be present); include the Journal of Discourses being cited only 3 times in the new manual compared to 13 in the old.  Further Brigham Young received no increase in citations.  FARMS (or the Maxwell Institute) are mentioned once and FAIR not at all.  Robert Millet is mentioned 5 times (usually in connection Joseph Fielding McConkie).  Even the Church sponsored Book of Mormon Symposiums only had 5 citations.  Monson has only 11 citations, which seems low for the current Prophet. Interestingly, Uchtdorf has only 1, whereas Bednar has 15 even though they were called at the same time.  In addition, Nibley is quoted less often in the new manual. 

It seems therefore that we are still living in a McConkie and Fielding Smith inspired Orthodoxy.  There are some other voices who are becoming important particularly Maxwell and Holland.  From a personal point of  view I would like to have seen something from Eugene England, Katheleen Flake, Catherine Thomas and Lowell Bennion (and others) who have all written insightful essays (and books) on the Book of Mormon.  Who else would you have liked to have seen cited?

Any other thoughts?

The Manual is now available online.

Oh God said to Abraham, “Kill me a son”
Abe says, “Man, you must be puttin’ me on”
God say, “No.” Abe say, “What?”
God say, “You can do what you want Abe, but
The next time you see me comin’ you better run”
Well Abe says, “Where do you want this killin’ done?”
God says, “Out on Highway 61.” (Bob Dylan)

Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) has written about the experience of Faith.  His short book ‘Fear and Trembling’ discusses the experience of Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son Isaac, and his subsequent designation as the ‘Father of Faith’.  This is probably not the place for an in-depth discussion of this book but I want to outline his views because it asks some important questions about what Faith is, how we exercise it and its fruits.

The first section of the book, is entitled, ‘Attunement’.  In this Kierkegaard explores a number of different narratives that may have occured as Abraham takes his son up the mount.  In one he characterises Abraham as scared, in another he is fearless, in another he is angry.  To me it seems that Kierkegaard is trying to help us realise that Abraham’s faith was not just in the act itself, but was exercised in every step in his journey?

Kierkegaard then poses a series of questions that the story of Abraham raises: but prior to that he outlines his view of faith as being able to give up everything and trust that you will receive it again on the strength of the absurd.  In other words, Abraham had faith because he gave up his son, but trusted he would be given back to him regardless of how absurd this hope was.  Is faith exercised in the absurd, or does it rest in the rational or logical?  I have always leaned toward the latter because I have been taught to study it out in my mind, but Kierkegaard’s challenge has made me re-think.  Is it not absurd to believe that Jesus has suffered for our sins?

The first question regards whether what is ethical can be suspended?  Can Abraham’s act to sacrifice his son (or Nephi’s act) be considered good despite it being unethical, or even contrary to God’s ‘general’ commandments?  Does faith lead us to do things that are contrary to the commandments?  If not what do we do with Abraham and Nephi, because it seems they are to be damned?

The second question asks whether there is an absolute duty to God?  In a similar way Joseph Smith said ‘whatever God requires is right’!  Is this correct?  Do you believe that God would give you as an individual a specific command that might contradict what is more widely accepted as right?

The final question asks whether it was ethically defensible to conceal from Sariah or Isaac what he was going to do?

In each case Kierkegaard does not give an answer but leaves us with an either/or.  Either the ethical can be suspended,and their is an absolute duty to God and it is ethically defensible to conceal his intent or Abraham is not the ‘Father of Faith’?  My problem then is that I am not sure I can have this kind of faith, because it asks things of me that I feel unable to do.  Moreover, I am not even sure that I would want to have this kind of faith.  This is, probably, Kierkegaard’s intent.

I remember, as a naive Missionary, discussing with someone Joseph Smith’s practice of polygamy, which for me has many parallels with how Kierkegaard frames Abraham’s experience .  He argued that it was sinful.  I countered that it was practised in the Bible.  He said that it was for that time only, not now.  I asked, ‘if God asked you to practice polygamy would you do it?’   He said, ‘No’.  I smugly retorted, ‘Then that is why you are not a Prophet and Joseph Smith was’!  Unsurprisingly, he did not let us teach him.  I regret this now, not only because I was an arrogant 20 year old who was supposed to be an ambassador of Christ, but also because I see more clearly the dilemma of doing something so reprehensible to our values that it is absurd, and that this may be the real test of our faith? A test I am unsure I would pass.  But is this something God asks of us at all?  (This is not intended to be a discussion of polygamy).

So what do you think? 

1. Do you have faith in the way Abraham does? 
2. Would you do anything God asked of you? 
3. Do you believe the story of Abraham or Nephi are literal and if so how do reconcile what they did with Christian Ethics? 
4. If they are myths what is the lesson to be learned from these stories?
5. Is Kierkegaard wrong in his logic? 
6. Can faith be rational or is the irrational the foundation of faith?

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

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

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

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

Appendages are important.

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

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

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

The ICM poll of 10,000 people in the USA, UK, Israel, India, South Korea, Indonesia, Nigeria, Russia, Mexico and Lebanon was carried out for the BBC

It reveals that only 46% of respondents in the UK said they have always believed in God – 27% less than the average. Only Russia (42%) and South Korea (28%) were lower. Furthermore just 52% of UK respondents believed God (or a Higher Power) created the universe, compared to 85% in the USA, 83% in Mexico, 99% in Indonesia and 96% in Lebanon.The highest levels of belief are found in the poorer nations of Nigeria (98%), India (92%) and Indonesia (97%).However, the USA – the richest nation polled – has a very high level of belief. Only 13% of those polled in America said they found it hard to believe in God (a Higher power) when there was so much suffering in the world.Yet this compares to more than half (52%) of those polled in the UK – the highest of all the countries – and more than twice the average. The figures for Lebanon were 2% and Nigeria 12%.

The survey found that Only 19% of those in the UK said they would die for their God/beliefs. This compares to 37% in Israel, 90% of those polled in Indonesia and Nigeria, and 71% in the USA and Lebanon.

A staggering 78% of those polled in the USA claimed to have studied religious texts, by far the largest figure, followed by 51% in Nigeria and 42% in the UK. This    compares to an average of 33%.

The poll also looked at the place of religion in the world. Almost a third (29%) of people in the UK believe that the world would be a more peaceful place without beliefs in God but very few people in other countries agreed. Just 6% of those polled in America agreed with this view, 11% in Israel and 9% in India. The average across all ten countries was 10%.Only 15% of those polled in America blamed people of other religions for much of the trouble in the world compared with more than a third (37%) in the UK and 33% in Israel.This figure fell to 8% of those polled in Indonesia, 24% in Lebanon and 17% in India.

The poll also looked at levels of attendance at organised religious services in the UK compared to the rest of the world. Across the ten countries, an average of 46% regularly attend a religious service but the figure was 21% in the UK, the second lowest behind Russia (7%). The highest figure was 91% for Nigerians, with 54% in the USA.

Furthermore just 29% of UK respondents said they had been encouraged to believe in God by someone outside their family, compared with 57% in the USA.

With regards to prayer, a total of 95% of Nigerians polled said they prayed regularly as did 67% of those polled in the USA with further numbers praying occasionally at times of crisis. 28% in the UK said they prayed regularly and 41% in Israel. However 25% of people in the UK and 29% of people in Israel said they never prayed.

The poll did reveal however that nearly 30% of all atheists polled admitted they prayed sometimes.

Asked whether a belief in a God/higher power makes for a better human being, well over 80% of people in most countries agreed, but by far the lowest figure was in the UK with just 56%.

Furthermore, just 42% of UK respondents believed God (or a higher power) judges their actions and the way they lived their lives compared to 76% in America, 72% in Israel, 81% in Nigeria and an average of 70%.

Exploring the issue of tolerance of different religions the poll found that more than 90% of all respondents in Nigeria, Indonesia and Lebanon believed their God was the only true God.This compares to 70% in Israel and just 31% in the UK.

The majority of those polled when asked if they believed death was the end disagreed. This was the case for more than half of the UK respondents (51%), 79% of those polled in Nigeria, 75% in Lebanon and 74% in the USA.

Looking at how attitudes change across different religions, the poll found that while 85% of Hindus and 83% of Muslims said they prayed regularly, only 65% of Christians did and barely a third (38%) of Jews.

When asked if their God was the only true God, 95% of Muslims said yes, compared with 68% of Christians and 66% of Jews.

But when asked if other religions were to blame for the troubles in the world, 34% of Jews agreed, while only 24% of Christians, 18% of Hindus and 14% of Muslims agreed.

What do you think?

OK Paul technically isn’t exactly an international DJ, not unless you consider that you can listen to his interviews on line.

He’s a returned missionary and member of the Grays Ward in the Romford Stake Essex England.  Paul got the show after being a presenter at Hospital Radio Chelmsford for a year and chased a local station for airtime:

“When I was asked to join Phoenix FM the station manager warned me that radio presenting wasn’t all easy but in fact involved a lot of voluntary service too.  I responded that I was a missionary in France for 2 years for the church and was used to giving service to others, as well as being actively involved in the church weekly.  The station manager was intrigued by this and I was invited to the station to explain more about my religious beliefs and the voluntary service I had done in France.  I was then offered the chance to begin a brand new religious show once a week that they had been wanting to start but couldn’t find anyone with the religious background to do it.  I put together the idea for a chat show where he would bring in local religious leaders and ask them about their beliefs on air and their views on current issues.”

Mark Pinchin and Ian Clarkson from the Church of Scientology – Listen   here

Highlights:

10 million members around the world. Their anti-drug program “Say no to drugs say yes to life”.  Human rights educational programme and other great work they do in the community.  We discussed the 8 dynamics, the founder of the church L. Ronald Hubbard and where the word “Scientology” comes from.

The core beliefs of the church of Scientology are:

Man is a spirit, he has lived before and that man is good. Through wisdom and knowledge man can improve any area of his life he wants. Scientology is all denominational and non-conversionary and members bring with them their own beliefs.

Great Interviews ( All the ads and music have been stripped out)

Habibur Rahman & Forad Edu – Islam / Alfurqaan Foundation
Father Matthew Bemand – St Thomas Church of England
Councillor Dudley Payne – Mayor of Brentwood
Mark Pinchin and Ian Clarkson – Scientology / Jive Aces
Ed Wellman – PhoenixFM Monday Classics
Richard Burch – Brentwood Buddhist Society
Chris Day – Crown Street Christian Fellowship
Reverand Peter Thomas (Baptist)
Reverand Trevor Jamison (United Reformed Church)
Julian May – ELIM
Father Paul Keane – Brentwood Catholic Cathedral
Bishop David Barter

The show can be seen at www.phoenixfm.com/proverbs98.php

Let us know your views

Surely, you have seen some of these folks:

• instead of communicating their true feelings, they use hackneyed cliche phrases (that are uniquely Mormon) to fit in
• they give the VT lesson never deviating to share their own true feelings unless those feelings could have been uttered by Julie Beck herself
• they prefer the standard Sunday School answers rather than thinking and sharing their own reflections
• they exercise a form of brand management:  doing the things that spell out “I’m a good Mormon,” and hiding anything that detracts from that image
• they are excessively careful of everything they say and do from a PR standpoint for the church

What would you do if every time you wanted to talk to your spouse, you had to consider the church in the relationship?  What if every time your child wanted advice from you, you referred them to what a church leader said or taught instead of sharing yourself with them?  What if every relationship was colored by your feelings of guilt or anticipation related to your own spiritual standing?

• Every family member or friend’s struggle would be a sign of your guilt for having failed them OR a sign that you should cut them off so you will not be tainted by association.
• Every new person you met would be an opportunity for a convert rather than a friend (and if not a convert, not a friend).
• You would carefully choose your words and deeds to demonstrate to others around you that you are living up to what you think they expect.
• If you ever did disagree with someone, you’d have to make sure that somehow your disagreement put YOU on the side of the church and THEM on the other side.
• If your spouse suddenly stopped attending church or became disaffected, you would stop loving them because they jeopardized your “perfect” image or your expectations for the Celestial Kingdom.

Matthew quotes Jesus as saying (Matt 10:34-37):

34 Think not that I am come to send ^apeace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man’s ^afoes shall be they of his own ^bhousehold.

37 He that ^aloveth father or mother ^bmore than me is not worthy of me: and he that ^cloveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

It seems that this comes with a few caveats:

• The church does not equal Jesus, even if one believes Jesus is at the head of it.  The church is a human institution that should ideally inspire us and draw us closer to Him.
• It’s pretty arrogant to put yourself (or your perceptions) in the role of Jesus and to assume that anyone who disagrees with you is rejecting you as the Savior was rejected.
• Being righteous does not equal being right.  In fact, once you start getting too concerned about the latter, you can kiss the former goodbye.
• The greatest two commandments are to love God and our fellow man as ourselves.  If we can’t even unconditionally love those closest to us (family and friends), how can we expect to love our enemies (also required)?
• “Perfect love casteth out fear.”  We can’t love people if we are consumed by fear of rejection (from either man or God).

Is this a particular problem in the church?  Do people really live their lives like this?  Do you know anyone like this?  Are you like this sometimes?  How do you take off the mask and “let your light so shine”?  Discuss.

This trend is probably to some extent backlash against the histo-centric year we are having with D&C as focus of GD class and JS manual in RS.  There may also be some desire to reaffirm our status as Christians when other religions often stigmatize us as not being Christian.  So, what would it look like if Christ were the center of our worship?  Here are some possibilities of how lessons & talks might be more Christ-centric:

1. the atonement of Christ; his role and divinity
2. how to apply Christ’s teachings:  how to be followers of Christ
3. stories from the life of Christ, events that happened to him in his lifetime
4. the parables of Jesus – sharing and elaborating on these messages
5. how to develop a personal relationship with Jesus; understanding Jesus’ nature as a personal friend

Have I missed any major angle above?  It occurs to me that these topics might get stale if covered for 3 hours every week.  Also, if speakers only focused on 1 or 2 of the 5, it would get very repetitive.  I also notice that as I look over the list, I don’t find them equally appealing.  Personally, I would prefer them in this order:  2, 4, 3, 5, 1.  What order would you prefer?  I think the order in which they are usually focused at church is the order I listed them above:  1, 2, 3, 4, 5.  Do you agree?

Do you feel that Church should be more Christ-centered or that it is sufficiently Christ-centered?  Which of the above focuses would be of the most interest to you?  Are there some ways of focusing on Christ that you don’t find appealing?  How do you think our focus (especially by topic) compares to other Christian churches?  Discuss.

My home teacher (who is very cool) came by yesterday to drop off some starter cables for my car and as one does in that short interlude we discussed the celestial kingdom and being Gods after this life. He believed that those who don’t make it to the highest kingdom in the Celestial Kingdom won’t have any sexual relationships and if you don’t have sexual relationships their will be no need for sexual organs.

Its interesting talking about controversial stuff but I was finding this unnerving!!

Eunuch
1: a castrated man placed in charge of a harem or employed as a chamberlain in a palace
2: a man or boy deprived of the testes or external genitals
3: one that lacks virility or power <political eunuchs>

In both of these kingdoms [i.e., the terrestrial and telestial] there will be changes in the bodies and limitations. They will not have the power of increase, neither the power or nature to live as husbands and wives, for this will be denied them and they cannot increase. Those who receive the exaltation in the celestial kingdom will have the “continuation of the seeds forever.” They will live in the family relationship. In the terrestrial and in the telestial kingdoms there will be no marriage. Those who enter there will remain “separately and singly” forever. Some of the functions in the celestial body will not appear in the terrestrial body, neither in the telestial body, and the power of procreation will be removed. I take it that men and women will, in these kingdoms, be just what the so-called Christian world expects us all to be – neither man nor woman, merely immortal beings having received the resurrection. (Doctrines of Salvation. vol. 2, pg. 287-288.)

Joseph Smith said that even the telestial Kingdom was thousands of times better than this world and if we had a glimpse of it we would kill ourselves now to get there. I think many of us now would disagree with Joseph Smith Jr in light of reading the more current views of Joseph Fielding Smith.

In the family proclamation we learn that Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. But the family proclamation is not kingdom specific to whether will still have our male or female gender if we don’t make it to the highest kingdom of the Celestial Kingdom.

I thought I was being unique (pun) in this post but as I have researched,being a so called  EUNUCH is a phrase used in the Bloggernacle since 2006 its called  TK SMOOTHIE

It has two definitions

1. The logical conclusion for JFS, then, was to say that the people in the TK would not have male or female genitalia.
2. If a doctrine of the church seems like it has been created in order to “fix” or explain another, it might be a TK Smoothie. The TK Smoothie is eponymous for all doctrines that are probably bogus but exist in order to clarify some other doctrine or speculation.

Bishop Young Spanish Fork 401st Ward

In Mormonism, we have an expanded picture of life that extends before this mortal life and then on into the eternities. However, when you really dig into this, it turns out that we have very few details on what to expect after this life, and the details we do have come mostly from talks given almost 175 years ago. And to say that our expectations of ‘Heaven,’ have changed quite a bit since then is a gross understatement.

Despite all the speculation, one detail that we know for sure: unless you make it to the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, there will be no eternal sex. Basically, you’d be turned into a Telestial/Terrestrial Kingdom Smoothie (TK Smoothie). I like to imagine these lesser-Kingdoms as the Barbie & Ken Kingdoms. Everyone walking around looking beautiful and perfect for eternity, but having a smooth under-carriage like Barbie or Ken.

Parley P. Pratt

The object of the union of the sexes is the propagation of their species, or procreation; also for mutual affection, and the cultivation of those eternal principles of never ending charity and benevolence, which are inspired by the Eternal Spirit; also for mutual comfort and assistance in this world of toil and sorrow, and for mutual duties toward their offspring. Key to the Science of Theology, Ch.17, p.169

I would like to believe as Parley P Pratt describes that this mutual affection will not only be for this life but carried through to all the kingdoms after this life to all of our Brothers and Sisters who have lived on this earth.

Questions

1. If you make it to the Celestial Kingdom how would you feel when you visit a Parent, Grandparent, Brother, Sister, Son or Daughter in the Terrestrial Kingdom with out any Gender?
2. Do you believe Joseph Fielding Smith is correct?
3. Is there any current doctrine that overrides his beliefs?
4. If JFS doctrine is correct the word Brother and Sister takes on a whole different meaning in the Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdom?
5. Is it silly doctrine we should jettison?
6. If it is still true do you think if we emphasised it more it might motivate members to push harder for the Celestial Kingdom?
7. Doctrines of Salvation is most of it safe doctrine we can use in our talks and lessons ?  Is some of it suspect and if it is how do we know what that is? Do you think of it as interesting reading not really fiction but not really solid doctrinally? How would you describe it?

Here’s the parable:

51 Behold, I will liken these kingdoms unto a man having a field, and he sent forth his servants into the field to dig in the field.  (What exactly are they digging for?)

52 And he said unto the first: Go ye and labor in the field, and in the first hour I will come unto you, and ye shall behold the joy of my countenance.  (So, rather than a team huddle and off they go, he talks to them one at a time.)

53 And he said unto the second: Go ye also into the field, and in the second hour I will visit you with the joy of my countenance.  (What if the guy is skylarking?  I don’t think he’s going to get “the joy of his master’s countenance” in that case.)

54 And also unto the third, saying: I will visit you;

55 And unto the fourth, and so on unto the twelfth.  (So, is this about the twelve apostles specifically and seeing the face of the Savior?  Otherwise, why 12?)

56 And the lord of the field went unto the first in the first hour, and tarried with him all that hour, and he was made glad with the light of the countenance of his lord.  (Light and joy seem to be synonymous here.)

57 And then he withdrew from the first that he might visit the second also, and the third, and the fourth, and so on unto the twelfth.  (So, he withdraws from the first.  He can’t visit everyone all at once.  Only one at a time.)

58 And thus they all received the light of the countenance of their lord, every man in his hour, and in his time, and in his season— (They received it, but it was time bound when it was “expedient”?)

59 Beginning at the first, and so on unto the ^alast, and from the last unto the first, and from the first unto the last;  (This only showed from the first to the last, but then it goes on to add from the last to the first and the first to the last.  Does he do this 3 times in reverse order in between?)

60 Every man in his own ^aorder, until his hour was finished, even according as his lord had commanded him, that his lord might be glorified in him, and he in his lord, that they all might be glorified.  (So, they got a full hour with the lord in which they and the lord were both glorified.)

61 Therefore, unto this parable I will liken all these ^akingdoms, and the ^binhabitants thereof—every kingdom in its hour, and in its time, and in its season, even according to the decree which God hath made.  (Earthly kingdoms or 3 degrees of glory?  Are these planets?)

62 And again, verily I say unto you, my ^afriends, I leave these ^bsayings with you to ^cponder in your hearts, with this commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall ^dcall upon me while I am near— (So, the Lord is not always near?  Does that mean sometimes he won’t hear us?)

• Who are the servants?  Everyone?  The 12 apostles?  Prophets through time?  Those that are called or who seek the Lord’s face?  Only those who have received the second comforter?
• Why are the workers sent out one at a time, each in his season?  Are the workers all working alone like the kids in “Holes”?  Does this mean it refers to our time on earth?
• What is the significance of the workers digging in a field, but with no other specified purpose?  Is the digging symbolic of something (e.g. seeking for treasure, preparing the ground for planting), or is it meant to signify a meaningless and mundane yet difficult and dirty task?
• What is the “joy of my countenance”?  Seeing the face of God literally (the second comforter)?  Receiving inspiration?  Obtaining a testimony or other spritual experience?  This is a phrase unique to this passage of scripture (“light of thy countenance” is also in Psalms; “full of joy with thy countenance” is found in Acts.)

Discuss.

“Could yet another possibility exist that explains Jesus sporadic appearances.  Is it possible that he did not limit his visits to ancient Israel?  This is the intriguing scenario described in the Book of Mormon.  The book which emerged in 19^th century America is revered by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as God’s Holy Word.”

Kathleen Flake, Assistant Professor of American Religious History, Vanderbilt University, “The Book of Mormon is an account of a civilization that lived in the Americas between about 600 years before Jesus was born, until about 400 years after he died.  The centerpiece of this story is Jesus’ appearance to them, after he died, and was resurrected.  He comes to the Americas with business in mind.  Jesus will say to these people in the Americas, ‘now I said to the Jews in Palestine “other sheep I have which are not of this fold”, and they misunderstood me.  They thought I meant the gentiles, but no.  I meant you.  I meant you’re the other sheep; I must come visit you, I must manifest myself unto you’ so that you can bear witness to the world about the nature of God, and how to receive a forgiveness of sin, or more to the point, how you can overcome the circumstances of the world and be made one with God.’”

According to the Book of Mormon, the risen Jesus remains with America’s ancient tribes for 3 or 4 days.  He then vanishes and then makes sporadic appearances for an unspecified period of time.  Meanwhile, according to the New Testament, Jesus continues to embrace his disciples in Israel.

The DVD then goes on to talk about a small reference where Paul mentions in passing a visit where Jesus visits 500 people after his resurrection in 1 Corinthians 13.  Has the Book of Mormon gained mainstream acceptance? (For more info about Easter on this DVD, check out this post.)

The only time I have seen Big Love is on a transatlantic flight back home to Salt Lake.  My initial thoughts were how amazing to have a church just like ours (almost) right in our back door and no one seems to know of it, as they keep it fairly discreet on the show.

From what I saw these Josephites seem to be very similar (i.e. Family Prayer, FHE, Family Council, even similar programs and auxiliaries).  They even seemed to act like Mormons I grew up with.

Since there was a split of Josephites from the Brighamites, wouldn’t most of these branches have similar temple ceremonies to ours?  If so shouldn’t they be the ones who are offended, not the Brighamites?

Big Love episode draws criticism from LDS Church

Before the first season of the HBO series Big Love aired more than two years ago, the show’s creator and HBO assured the Church that the series wouldn’t be about Mormons.

Here

Big Love Series to Show Rites from LDS Temples

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) – The HBO series “Big Love” will show its version of temple rites belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The episode is scheduled to air Sunday, March 15.

Here

‘Big Love’s’ promise to show LDS temple rituals has many crying foul

Richard Cowan, a BYU professor of church history and doctrine, said:  ”It isn’t something that we want to keep away from everyone who isn’t a member of our faith, but rather something we would like to share with those who are personally and spiritually prepared to appreciate it.”

Here

‘Big Love’ prompts LDS Church response and analysis

Certainly church members are offended when their most sacred practices are misrepresented or presented without context or understanding.  Last week some church members began e-mail chains calling for cancellations of subscriptions to AOL, which (like HBO) is owned by Time Warner.

Here

Please discuss anything and everything.

To the right is a statue of the First Vision.  Actually, I kind of like this one, although I’m not a fan of the medium the artist used.

This one is from Jesus’ little-known Sermon in Stepford.  Much discussion has been had elsewhere about the problematic placement of the rose and whether this is supposed to be a picture of Jesus with his polygamous wives.  The artist has apparently denied that interpretation, but without an explanation of the phallic rose.

A Moroni tree-topper.  Not exactly art, but kitschy.  It’s almost so bad that it’s good in a Nebraska salt and pepper shaker way.

This Nativity inspired painting is both beautiful and thought-provoking.

This toothy-grinned Jesus is not nearly as good as its unsmiling counterpart.  This picture doesn’t make Jesus look very smart, IMO.  Like he didn’t get the joke, but he’s laughing anyway.

This just looks like it belongs in a mini golf course to me.  Art?  Really?  Was this before wide-spread adoption of the Word of Wisdom?  Just plain weird.

This painting of the sacred grove always looks like it was inspired by the Redwood Forest rather than anything actually growing in upstate NY.  Accuracy aside, though, it’s nice enough with the effect of the light filtering through the trees.

This tattooed man (those are prophets’ portraits on his back) spells one word to me:  “devotion.”  I’d like to see him add one of E. Oaks since the “no tattoos” pronouncement.

I like this more Art Deco version of Moroni, although that trumpet looks a little bit improbable, like a straightened ear horn or gramophone.  Or a yard-long beer.

I have also noticed that many other religions seem to like our Jesus pictures, particularly these two:

 and

So, what do you think?  What Mormon artists do you like and which ones do you not like?  Why is there so much bad taste in Mormon art (kitschy or weird stuff) or is this just true of all religious art?  Is it because that’s what sells or is that blaming the victims?  Or does religious feeling inspire otherwise unskilled and inartistic people to create “art”?

Do you disagree with any of the above artistic assessments (beauty being in the eye of the beholder and all)?

Discuss.

One thing that hit me like a ton of bricks in the middle of a religion class at BYU was this:  I don’t know who the Holy Ghost is.  Even my religion instructor admitted ignorance on the subject, though speculation abounded.

The identity of our Heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, is a big deal to us, so much so that it is one of the defining characteristics of our faith.  The first Article of Faith asserts the separate identities of the members of the Godhead, turning 1700 or so years of theological history on its head.  From the Bible Dictionary, under the entry for God:

We learn from the revelations that have been given that there are three separate persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. From latter-day revelation we learn that the Father and the Son have tangible bodies of flesh and bone, and that the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit without flesh and bone (D&C 130: 22-23).

Fair enough.  So in the scriptures we learn about Heavenly Father:

1. He is our Father in a very literal sense.
2. He has a physical body (hands, arms, legs, eyes, etc.).
3. We worship Him.
4. We pray to Him.
5. He is a God.

Similarly, Jesus Christ is very similar to His Father.

1. He is our spiritual brother.
2. He obtained a physical body during His time in mortality on Earth.
3. We worship Him.
4. We pray in His name.
5. We do ordinances in His name.
6. He is a God.

The Holy Ghost is a “personage of spirit.”  We can conclude from this and a couple other passages in the scriptures that a personage of spirit looks like a man, but has no physical body.

To illustrate our ignorance, and the relative scarcity of information on the subject, I took the liberty of interviewing myself about the Holy Ghost:

1. Is the Holy Ghost our spirit brother? A: Umm.  I would guess so?  I think?

2. Is the Holy Ghost a “God”? A: He’s in the Godhead, right?  So I would have to go with Yes.  I think.

3. Do we worship the Holy Ghost? A: Not really.  It’s not the Church of the Holy Ghost.  We don’t pray in the name of the Holy Ghost.  We definitely use the Holy Ghost.  He’s our constant companion.  But we don’t worship Him.  If I prayed to the Holy Ghost, I would definitely feel like I’m doing it wrong.  So the answer is no, probably.

4. Will the Holy Ghost obtain a body? A: That would only be fair, right?  I have no idea.  Maybe?

5. So that means the Holy Ghost is inferior to God or Jesus? A: That doesn’t sound right.  Maybe?  It would seem so.

6. Is there only one Holy Ghost? A: Probably?

7. Why don’t we know anything about the Holy Ghost? A: Good question.

See what I’m getting at here?

Now, before this turns into another “Unbridled Speculation” thread, let me say that I’m not necessarily looking for the answers to these questions, per se.  What I’m really wondering is, why do we know so little about the Holy Ghost, his identity, his relationship to the other members of the Godhead, etc. compared to Christ and His Father?  Or if the information’s out there, why don’t I know it, even in light of me being a 25-year-old member who has served a full-time mission and has studied the scriptures pretty darn well for my whole life?  Is his/her/its identity so irrelevant that we simply don’t need to know?  So the Holy Ghost’s identity is just majorly de-emphasized in our curriculum?  And yet the Holy Ghost’s function is fundamental to our theology, our search for truth, people joining the Church, finding out its truthfulness, etc.  Take the following things into account:

1. The Holy Ghost is our constant companion.  We don’t know the identity of this being that is supposedly with us always?  Not only that, but the Holy Ghost “dwells within us!”  How comfortable are you with the idea of a being you don’t know living inside you?  Is this figurative or literal?

2. The Holy Ghost is essential for salvation, in a roundabout way.  We must have a testimony of Jesus Christ in order to be saved, and the only way to truly have a testimony of Christ is through the Spirit.  Yet we don’t know what the Holy Ghost actually is?

So why the mystery?

Before you give your opinion, here are some more specific questions to consider about an actual government with Jesus at the helm:

1. What kind of government.
   • Will the earth be a theocracy (like Iran) or will there be separation of church and state like in the U.S. (except the deep South and Utah)?
   • Would Jesus be subject to elections?  What if He got voted out?
   • Will there still be dissenting opinions?  Different political parties?  What if someone disagrees with Jesus?  What would He do?  Go all “cleanse the temple” on the Senate?
   • Is Jesus a Democrat or Republican  (remember he hung out with both poor people and tax collectors)?  Will He cut through pork barrel spending with a double-edged sword of fire?  Is Jesus good with money (wasn’t He keeping His money in a live fish last time)?
2. Role of churches.
   • Will there be a “church” during the millenium?  Why would there be?  Isn’t the church like the babysitter while the Savior’s away?  Remember, there wasn’t a church per se when He was on the earth.  He created a movement.  The disciples created a church to keep the movement going and provide support to new followers.  At the least, He could reduce the three-hour block.
   • Will there be various churches then?  Will some be non-Christian?
   • Will there be a mass conversion to one faith or at least Christianity?  Will there be apostates after that?
3. Culture.
   • What kind of shows would be on TV?  Would everyone be self-censoring?  Would there be less taking of the name of God in vain?
   • Would WWJD shirts & caps be irrelevant or an even bigger seller now that we know the answer to the question?
4. Jesus as a Leader.  What kind of political leader would Jesus be?
   • A great communicator (if you have ears to hear anyway).
   • Your basic delegator.
   • He might host some amazing parties (His reputation as a wine-bibber), but none of the cool people will be invited (expect guys in tin foil hats and aging hookers based on His friends the first time around).
   • Would He do interviews with Larry King?  Stephen Colbert?

So, do you take this idea literally?  If so, what do you think it will be like?  Do you fall into the “it will be so different than things are now that we can’t fathom it” (because if so, I guess I would just say “people are people”)?  Discuss.

I know what you are thinking:  “You have a rant about baptism?”

Yes, I do.  One of my pet peeves is telling innocent little kids that they need to repent of their sins in order to get baptized.  You hear it with surprising frequency, like at almost every baptism service you attend, and at lots of Primary Sharing Times.  And take, for example, this line from the song “I Like to Look for Rainbows,” sung at every Primary-run baptism I have been to in the recent past:

I know when I am baptized, my wrongs are washed away, and I can be forgiven and improve myself each day

How did this get past correlation?  Did they not read the scriptures cited in D&C 29: 46-47 which tells us that little children are incapable of sin and are redeemed from the foundation of the world.  Moroni 8: 9-12 says that little children do not need repentance and are alive in Christ.

I would be hard-pressed to identify an LDS doctrine I like more than the redemption of little children.  It is beautiful and merciful, and intuitively true.  So, why do we find ourselves telling innocent little kids that they need to repent of their “sins” to get baptized?

I know that there are scriptures out there that say you have to repent in order to be baptized.  I know that there are scriptures that say that children have to be accountable and capable of repentance in order to get baptized.  But “capable of repentance” and “needing repentance” are two different things.

One of the most difficult scriptures on this topic for me is D&C 20:37, which says that candidates for baptism should “truly manifest by their works that they have received the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins.”  Oliver Cowdery tried to get this phrase removed from the Book of Commandments, but Joseph insisted that it remain in.  How does this qualification for baptism, which Joseph Smith felt was truly inspired, square with child baptism?

Don’t get me wrong.  I think we should teach our children about repentance and help them understand it.  I think they need to know what it is and how it works by the time they reach the “age of accountability.”  But to me, baptism for an 8-year old is different than for an adult.  It is about obedience.  It is about discipleship.  It is about entering the strait gate and joining the Lord’s church.  It is not about repenting and remitting sins.  What sins has an eight-year old committed?

But am I wrong here?  Am I misunderstanding something?

End of rant.

The original citation is found in Matthew.  Here it is in context:

Matthew 16: 13-20.  When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?  And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.  He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?  And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.  And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.  And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.  And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.  Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

Why did Jesus say “Thou art Peter” first?  Was it just a play on words, or was he saying that Peter was the rock upon which he would build his church?  Most Christians would say that Peter is the rock (nevermind the fact that the Romans killed Peter and buried him and then built the church on his remains a couple hundred years later when they converted).  An LDS person would revert back to the larger context of the discussion to say that REVELATION was the rock, a very different meaning indeed.  (BRM specifically said this in a 1981 GC talk).  So which is more accurate or plausible?  Or are they both just a little off?

Supporting evidence that “the rock” isn’t Peter:

• Size matters.  The word for “Peter” was “petros” meaning stone or little rock (pebble?).  The word for “rock” used was “petra” meaning bedrock (Fred Flintstone’s hometown).
• What kind of rock?  “Rock” was a nickname Jesus gave Peter (kind of like the wrestler?).  His actual name was Simon.  JST states that the name he was given was Cephas which meant “seer stone.”  So, not just some rock you throw at enemies or whores (hey, it’s the Bible!), but a rock you use for translation or revelation.  Is this an accurate translation or wishful thinking on JS’s part?  There is certainly Biblical precedent for rocks being used as translators (Urim & Thummim).  Was that the intention?

I checked, and rocks are used in many symbolic ways throughout the scriptures.  Here’s a laundry list:

• Rock = place of sacrifice (like an altar).
• Rock = wellspring (water springs from a rock).
• Rock = “the Lord” or even someone else’s God is their rock.  Figuratively in the same sense, rock is used to mean one’s “salvation” or “defense” (as poetic equivalents for “Lord”)
• Rock = a refuge, a hiding place for people (either in a rock or under a rock); also the Savior’s tomb
• Rock = a place where animals live
• Rock = objects God throws around to demonstrate his power  (e.g. “rent in twain” at crucifixion)
• Rock = a good place to build a house
• Rock = a bad place to plant seeds
• Rock = doctrine or gospel
• Rock is molten to make tools or stones that are useful for people.

Almost all of the above can also be symbols that refer back to the Savior, and in fact, that’s another way to interpret the scripture, although not what is usually suggested.  Maybe the rock wasn’t Peter but was in fact the Savior’s mission and atonement.  It’s a little odd for Jesus to refer to himself in the 3rd person (who knows?  maybe he pointed to himself?), but maybe he viewed his mission/atonement as separate from himself in a sense, the way someone might refer to their role or job.  Or perhaps the text is just missing something in translation.

Which do you think is more plausible?  That the rock is Peter or that the rock is revelation or something else entirely?  What is the better rock to build on?  Is the text missing something?  Was it a clever wordplay that actually made it harder to understand (I hate when that happens!)?  Discuss, and rock on!

This is not the point of my post here, though. I recently had a conversation with my fiancee about Rastafarianism, mentioning that Rastas believe that Jesus Christ was black. I admitted that, though I personally don’t see much evidence for that, I did concede that Jesus probably looked very different than what most Mormons envision.

A lot of new Mormon art depicts a very clean, good-looking Christ. There is “beauty, that we may desire him.” Here’s an example from a very popular artist among Latter-day Saints, Simon Dewey:

I’ve always preferred the depictions of Christ done by Harry Anderson. They seemed marginally more authentic to me than the newer, “shinier” depictions of a Christ who had, apparently, full access to conditioner, a washing machine, a toothbrush, a nice hairbrush, etc.

However, even Anderson’s paintings have a “familiar” feel to them. Most portrayals of Christ that I see in our meetinghouses follow the same general pattern: Christ is medium-to-tall height, has a generally thinnish build, very Caucasian-looking, has a full head of long hair, a beard. He has a long face, a long, thin nose (what you’d call a “Roman” nose), robes and sandals. He is generally a handsome man.

I’ve always mused to myself on the possibilities of what Christ truly looked like. Could he have been short? Prematurely bald? Could he have been missing teeth? Could he have looked more like George Costanza from Seinfeld?

Furthermore, Christ is generally portrayed as Caucasian in our artwork, but we know he was a Jew. I’ve almost thought numerous times that the only one of Christ’s Twelve Apostles in paintings that looks “Jewish” (according to the stereotype generally pushed in the American media) is Judas Iscariot, who can be seen cruelly and evilly clutching his money bag. Interesting. So was Christ white? Did he look “Jewish”? Did he look like an Arab? How jarring would it be to the average, white, Mormon American to see a (hypothetical) photograph of Christ in mortality that looked like he could be Osama bin Laden’s brother?

We only have passing clues in the scriptures as to what he looked like in mortality, and a couple interesting details about the post-mortal Christ from Joseph Smith. There is, of course, a famous “Mormon Urban Legend” about the accuracy of this piece of artwork:

This depiction of Christ is rather racially ambiguous. He has a slightly darker (ruddy?) complexion and hair that could “go either way.” It’s an interesting depiction to say the least, especially considering the debunked mythology surrounding its supposed accuracy.

However, I’ve found that I can forgive the white bread, homogenous view of Christ in our artwork for a couple reasons.

I’ve gleaned from a few sources on the Internet some diverse pictures of Christ. Images of Christ painted by black artists and displayed in predominantly black churches may be black. Here is an example I actually found quite touching, called Black Jesus Blesses the Children, by Joe Cauchi:

I love how the Black Jesus in this picture looks so determined, and he has a definite look of determination as he blesses the children. It’s as if he’s searching the distance for danger as he embraces them. The protection portrayed in this image is just as real to me, and represents the Christ I know, as tangibly as any “white” picture I’ve seen. I want Christ to protect me like he’s protecting these children.

Images of Christ painted by Asian artists may have Asian skin-tone and characteristics. Here is a Chinese example from the 1800s:

I think many people and artists might tell you that this is more for comfort and familiarity rather than an attempt at being historically accurate. So it would make sense for a white artist living in a white culture (like Utah, or in a broader sense, Mormonism) to depict Christ as a being who would “fit in.”

It is also useful for artists to have a common language for images such as Christ, and it is not useful to have images of Christ that are difficult to identify. If an artist wishes to paint Christ, say, teaching a group of people, how can he communicate without words the identity of the Teacher in his painting? There were many teachers in the scriptures: Paul, Ammon, Elijah, Enoch, etc., so a painting of a man with his mouth open, teaching other people by itself may not clearly identify the Teacher. It’s useful to be able to look at a new painting and say, “Hey, it’s a picture of Christ.”

Therefore, to me, the image of Christ is, of course, a symbol. It is a symbol in the same way that a Cross is a symbol, or the Angel Moroni is a symbol. It is one of the many pictures that we use in our religious language to communicate ideas, and it’s a useful one. However, as the Church grows, we will continue to adapt to new symbols and new images.

So, questions.

The LDS faith is now moving to many new countries across the world, and is being embraced by many ethnicities and cultures, nationalities and skin colors. Will we one day see Latino Christs in our temples? Asian Christs? Black Christs? If we admit that our image of Christ is just a symbol, would we allow a painting of a black Christ in an African temple? What about the Logan Temple?

Do we marginalize minorities in the Church by portraying a white Christ?

Is it “wrong” to portray a Christ that is probably historically inaccurate?

This got me thinking about something I’ve never been quite sure about. How do we Mormons really feel about the cross? It’s one of those things that we don’t really discuss very often, but over the years I’ve heard everything from respect to disdain from Mormons for the symbol of Christianity. Some reasons that I’ve heard the cross being absent from Mormon life is that:

a) It’s more of a Catholic or Protestant symbol and we are neither
b) The cross represents some terrible crimes that have been committed in the name of Christianity, such as the Crusades, and we don’t want to be associated with that
c) The cross has become nothing but a fashion statement for most
d) We want to focus on the Resurrection and not so much the Crucifixion

Non-LDS Christians are often quick to notice the lack of crosses in LDS chapels and materials. When they’ve asked me about it, I usually give them the speech citing reason d), about how we don’t use the cross because we prefer to focus on Christ’s resurrection and the fact that we believe that He lives, instead of focusing on his death. I don’t feel like I’m lying when I give them the speech, but I have wondered about other possible reasons. I will summarize a story that I remember reading once, which illustrated how some Mormons feel about the cross. A non-LDS Christian woman entered the home of an LDS family. The non-LDS woman was wearing a cross, and somehow the subject came up. When asked why they did not use the cross, the LDS woman said that she could explain it this way: “If one of your loved ones was killed in a car accident, would you wear a car around your neck to remember them?”

• Have you or would you wear a cross or crucifix to meetings in the LDS Church?
• Would you display a cross, crucifix, or a traditional Christian work of art where the cross is prominent, in your home?
• Do you think that we should be more open to using and displaying the cross (at least outside of official LDS Church capacities), or will we lose our unique Christian-Mormon identity by doing so?