“There is no place that can take away the happiness of a man, nor yet his virtue or wisdom. Anaxagoras, indeed, wrote on the squaring of the circle while in prison.”

-Plutarch

The basic puzzle is this: Using only a square, a compass, a straight edge and a writing stick, create a square with the same circumference or area as a circle. It has to be done in a finite number of steps.  You can not measure it numerically (with a ruler). It all has to be done through proportion and true principles using four unmarked tools.

It’s a geometry puzzle with meanings, here are some basic interpretations.

Right-Angled Square: This represents logic and law.  It is associated with the head and mind.  It is left thinking.

..

Compass: Used for making circles.  This represents feeling and intuition, the emotional mind.  It is associated with the heart.  It is right thinking.

.

..

Writing Stick: This represents our desire, our appetites, what we hunger for, the energy and will that drives action (like drawing and working a puzzle).  It could also be called faith in its verb form.  It is associated with the belly, the source of hunger and desire.

.

..

Straight Edge: This represents precision, exactness and a division between opposites (good/evil, dark/light, etc.).  It represents a decision, a commitment and an action that separates thinking from doing.  The knee divides the upper leg from the lower leg, and the leg is symbolic of walking a path towards a destination.  A straight line represents boundaries..

..

.

A square shape is symbolic of the “four corners” of the earth, the physical world, the tangible, the rational, our body, our material experience and the absolute of truth.  It represents that which is defined and the finite..

…

.

A circle shape is symbolic of the heavens, the spiritual world, the intangible, the irrational or transcendental, that which surrounds and embraces our spirit and ideal potential.  It represents that which is beyond definition, the eternal and infinite..

…

Squaring the Circle asks the initiate to reconcile the circle with the square, and through that process grow and receive wisdom. Can you reconcile the mind and the heart? Can you combine heaven and earth to find a place where they meet? Can you balance perfectly your intellect with your emotions to find a solution? How does your spirit and body combine to become one?  Where is the boundary between justice and mercy?  These are the questions answered through pondering and meditating on solutions to the puzzle.

It is said that all truth (a square) can be circumscribed (a circle) into one great whole (perfection and enlightenment).

The answers to Squaring the Circle will get you past the stumbling blocks, like gate keepers inside your soul, that prevent you from entering through the veil of mortality to your kingdom as a returning champion, a queen or king, the victorious hero from an epic quest.

Our contemporary modern society has moved away from metaphorical expression like this.  We are often not comfortable working in symbol when it comes to the spiritual.  If things aren’t factually true (such as the details of a myth), then they are false and should be discarded.  We find artistic and religious metaphor silly, even pointless in our materialistic, technician-oriented culture.  Left-brained labels and icons define all by putting things into neat boxes but leave out what the right brain intuits through relationship and proportion.  If only there was a way to preserve this exercise of Squaring the Circle in a new religious framework, a way to re-purpose it for the modern world, many could benefit from such a metaphorical hero’s quest in their life journey.  Someone would probably want to borrow from the ancients and from traditions handed down over the ages, since those that came before us already did so much work.  It would be wasteful to reinvent the wheel completely from scratch, I would think. *wink*

-Brian Johnston, www.staylds.com

Many of you in the bloggernacle thrive on having two opposing ideas at once in your head. I have always found that difficult. I have seen many who can’t cope with it at all and have to come to a conclusion one way or the other or their belief system will cave in and their minds will explode.

I have all the best intentions in the world to start a series on cognitive dissonance this year. To start off I have found some quotes from the brethren which seems to be in opposition to each other. I am sure some of you will figure out away in which they are not!

Don’t Think for Yourself!!

“Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the prophets, seers, revelators’ of the church, is cultivating the spirit of apostasy. One cannot speak evil of the lord’s annointed… and retain the holy spirit in his heart. This sort of game is Satan’s favorite pastime, and he has practiced it to believing souls since Adam. He {Satan} wins a great victory when he can get members of the church to speak against their leaders and to do their own thinking.”

“When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God’s Plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give directions, it should mark the end of controversy, God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God.”

Ward Teachers Message, Deseret News, Church Section p. 5, May 26, 1945
Also included in the Improvement Era, June 1945 (which was the official church magazine before the Ensign)

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

“Always keep your eye on the President of the church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, even if it is wrong, and you do it, the lord will bless you for it but you don’t need to worry. The lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.”

LDS President Marion G. Romney (of the first presidency), quoting LDS President (and prophet) Heber J. Grant “Conference Report” Oct. 1960 p. 78

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

“The Lord Almighty leads this Church, and he will never suffer you to be led astray if you are found doing your duty. You may go home and sleep as sweetly as a babe in its mother’s arms, as to any danger of your leaders leading you astray, for if they should try to do so the Lord would quickly sweep them from the earth.”

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, p. 289, 1862.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

“When the Prophet speaks the debate is over”.

N. Eldon Tanner, August Ensign 1979, pages 2-3

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

“I sat in this tabernacle some years ago as President Joseph Fielding Smith stood at this pulpit. It was the general priesthood meeting of April 1972, the last general conference before President Smith passed away. He said: ‘There is one thing which we should have exceedingly clear in our minds. Neither the President of the Church, nor the First Presidency, or the united voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve will ever lead the Saints astray or send forth counsel to the world that is contrary to the mind and will of the lord’.”

L. Aldin Porter of the Presidency of the First Quorum of Seventies (Ensign, Nov. 1994, p. 63)

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

“Follow your leaders who have been duly ordained and have been publicly sustained, and you will not be led astray.”

Boyd K. Packer (General Conference, Oct. 1992; Ensign, Nov. 1992)

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray.”

President Wilford Woodruff (considered scripture as it is canonized at the end of the D&C)

Think for Yourself!!

President Joseph F. Smith said, “We talk of obedience, but do we require any man or woman to ignorantly obey the counsels that are given? Do the First Presidency require it? No, never.” (Journal of Discources (JD) 16:248)

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Apostle Charles W. Penrose, who would later serve as counselor to President Smith, declared: “President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but we do not believe his personal views or utterances are revelations from God; and when ‘Thus saith the Lord’, comes from him, the saints investigate it: they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill.” (Millennial Star 54:191)

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

“And none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the priesthood. We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark, that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God… would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without asking any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their minds to do wrong themselves.” (Millennial Star, vol.14 #38, pp. 593-95)

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Brigham Young said:

“What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.” (JD 9:150)

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

“How easy it would be for your leaders to lead you to destruction, unless you actually know the mind and will of the spirit yourselves.” (JD 4:368)

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

“I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied…Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, ‘If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,’ this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord.” (JD 3:45)

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

“…Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another’s sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but James, Peter, or somebody else must control them. They never can become Gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. They never can hold sceptres of glory, majesty, and power in the celestial kingdom. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heaven, who will go forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right, though all mankind besides should take the opposite course. Will this apply to any of you? Your own hearts can answer.” (JD 1:312)

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

“President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel [see, for example, verses 9-10: 'If the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing...the punishment of the prophet shall be even as the punishment of him that seeketh unto him.']…said the Lord had declared by the Prophet [Ezekiel], that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church — that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls — applied it to the present state [1842] of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall — that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves…” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith pp. 237-38)

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

George Q. Cannon, Counselor to three Church Presidents, expressed it thus: “Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a bishop, an apostle, or a president. If you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone;” (Millennial Star 53:658-59, quoted in Gospel Truth, 1:319)

Have you had experiences where you think you have genuinely had bad advice from following your leaders?

Later prophets and apostles trump older ones. How do you think the older ones feel about that?

Have you had times where you had so much on your plate you were glad to let someone think for you and it worked out for the best?

Should we think for ourselves in the church or should we let the Brethren think for us that is the question?

A statement has been circulated that asserts in part that the youth of the Church today “were generals in the war in heaven . . . and someone will ask you, ‘Which of the prophet’s time did you live in?’ and when you say ‘Gordon B. Hinckley’ a hush will fall, . . . and all in attendance will bow at your presence. [You were held back six thousand years because you were the most talented, most obedient, most courageous, and most righteous.]”*

This is a false statement. It is not Church doctrine. At various times, this statement has been attributed erroneously to President Thomas S. Monson, President Henry B. Eyring, President Boyd K. Packer, and others. None of these Brethren made this statement. Stake presidents and bishops should see that it is not used in Church talks, classes, bulletins, or newsletters. Priesthood leaders should correct anyone who attempts to perpetuate its use by any means, in accordance with “Statements Attributed to Church Leaders,” Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 1 (2006), 173.

Although this is not Church doctrine, I don’t see much which distinguishes it from the following quotation in our approved Sunday School Lesson #2:

President Ezra Taft Benson taught:

“God has held you in reserve to make your appearance in the final days before the second coming of the Lord. Some individuals will fall away; but the kingdom of God will remain intact to welcome the return of its head — even Jesus Christ. While our generation will be comparable in wickedness to the days of Noah, when the Lord cleansed the earth by flood, there is a major difference this time. It is that God has saved for the final inning some of His strongest children, who will help bear off the kingdom triumphantly. …

“… Make no mistake about it—you are a marked generation. There has never been more expected of the faithful in such a short period of time than there is of us” (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson [1988], 104–5).

I’ve been scratching my head all evening wondering why the Church would come out so emphatically against the “generals in heaven” quote, denouncing it as false doctrine, and yet retain these very similar teachings in the manual. I suppose it might be because of the notion that someone in heaven would bow to anyone other than a member of the Godhead; however, if we become gods when we are exalted that’s not as heretical as it seems. Perhaps the problem lies in the substitution of being chosen as a heavy responsibility for a kind of entitlement or specialness. But this is very subtle. The entire Sunday School lesson, based on Abraham 3 and Moses 4:1–4 expounds our own unique spin on Calvinism and the doctrine of election. In the vision recorded in Abraham 3, the Lord showed Abraham the Council in Heaven that was held before the earth was created. Present at the Council were “many of the noble and great ones,” including (as enumerated in D&C 138) Adam, Eve, Abel, Seth, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Elias, Malachi, Elijah, Nephite prophets, Joseph Smith, Hyrum, Brigham, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, “and other choice spirits who were reserved to come forth in the fulness of times.” These spirits, the lesson teaches, were foreordained to do important things for the kingdom of God during their mortal lives. Including ourselves in that list of scriptural V.I.P.s is heady nectar.

That’s a very careful word — “foreordination.” We teach that even though a person is foreordained to a calling, that calling is dependent on the person’s worthiness and willingness to accept it. We may have been righteous in the premortal “first estate,” but that doesn’t guarantee the keeping of our second estate here on earth. In this way, we stay a pace away from predestination. But foreordination is a loaded word for twentieth-century Mormons.

Episode 22 of Season 7 and the series finale of Buffy the Vampire Slayer is titled “Chosen.” In this episode Buffy comes up with a plan which involves Willow performing a difficult spell. The magic activates Potentials all over the world, defying the tradition of only one Slayer per generation. As the screen shows a montage of young women, Buffy’s voice-over says:

From now on, every girl in the world who might be a slayer…
A young woman stands at the plate staring at the pitcher, waiting to bat. She looks a little nervous.

will be a slayer.
A young woman breathes heavily as she leans on her locker for support.

Every girl who could have the power…
A young woman is lying across the floor, having fallen out of her chair.

will have the power… can stand up,
In a Japanese-style dining room, a young woman stands up at family dinner.

will stand up.
A young woman grabs the wrist of a man who’s trying to slap her face, preventing him.

Slayers… every one of us. Make your choice.
The girl at the plate changes from nervous to confident, smiling as she waits for the pitch.
Are you ready to be strong?

This scene gives me the same kind of feeling I used to have as a young adult, when countless Church leaders spoke to groups of us telling us that WE were the chosen, saved for the Latter-Days, to prepare the world and usher in the Millennium. That’s the feeling I got when I heard the word “foreordination.” It still gives me shivers, thinking about it. I wasn’t a member yet, but in 1970 I was 11 years old when President Joseph Fielding Smith declared: “Our young people … are the nobility of heaven, a choice and chosen generation who have a divine destiny. Their spirits have been reserved to come forth in this day when the gospel is on the earth, and when the Lord needs valiant servants to carry on his great latter-day work.” I was part of that generation. But then I had children, and they grew, and became the Youth of Zion themselves, and suddenly the leaders were telling THEM they were the marked ones. “This is the greatest age in the history of the world, and its youth are a chosen generation,” President Hinckley told them in 1995. And then in November, my daughter brought forth my firstborn grandchild, and a third generation is beginning to rise up since I heard those words.

OT SS Lesson #2 states that its objective is “To help class members understand the doctrine of foreordination and their own responsibility to help build up the kingdom of God and bring souls to Christ.” Do you think this is the intended meaning of the scripture block in Abraham 3, Moses 4, and D&C 138? Do you think you were part of the Council in Heaven described there? Does the doctrine of foreordination as you have been taught it give you a sense of specialness and entitlement? Were you taught you would usher in the Millennium? Do you feel your day of being a chosen generation of youth has passed you by?

________________________________________________________________________________
*Bracketed portion of the circulated quote not included in the First Presidency letter.

President Thomas S. Monson has been named the most influential 80-year-old in America and Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are listed among the most important 100 Americans in history

Other noteworthy items from the article include from the past decade:

• After the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001, President Hinckley was one of the first guests Larry King interviewed on his nationally televised program.
• President Hinckley attended a special summit at the White House to counsel President George W. Bush.
• Winter Olympics in SLC with many Mormon Interpreters
• PBS documentary
• Prop 8 vote in California
• Humanitarian efforts in various earthquakes, wildfires, famine, war, hurricanes and floods around the world.
• Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney ran for president,
• Sen. Harry Reid became Senate Majority leader, and
• pundit Glenn Beck offered a play-by-play account of the battle lines that separated their political parties.
• David Archuleta sang himself into the hearts of Middle America on “American Idol,”
• Stephenie Meyer wrote of high-minded vampires, selling millions of novels that primed a series of movies.
• City Creek Center will literally remake downtown Salt Lake City.
• The number of temples built or planned reached 151 during the decade.

Do, what do you think?  Vote and comment.

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.

I don’t really do Christmas cards so it was not really a big deal, except it made me wonder, who else gets Christmas cards from the First Presidency?  Did I get this because of my calling, and if so what other callings get Christmas cards?

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)

Recently I drove up Little Cottonwood Canyon with my brother and nephew.  This is the canyon in which many of your ancestors pulled out  the granite for the construction of the salt lake temple. As soon as we passed the granite facings on the side of the canyon my nephew played a song on his iPod by Corb Lund Brother Brigham Brother Young and it brought mental flashes into my mind of men working on the side of the mountain blasting granite out of it.    It made me think of the struggles that men and women had even back then with the faith in many ways very similar to our day. From what I have read Mr Lund isn’t LDS but has relatives that are. Im assuming one of his relatives is a historian buff? Its probably safe to presume this song will never be played in a chapel but I can’t help liking it!  You can listen to his song Here

Brother Brigham Brother Young

music and lyrics by Corb Lund

I have sinned so gravely Brother Brigham, Brother Young
I have sinned so gravely Brother Young
That only you can save me Brother Brigham, Brother Young
That only you can save me Brother Young

I have revealed the temples secrets Brother Brigham, Brother Young
The temple garments, oaths and secrets Brother Young
I have apostatized and doubted Brother Brigham, Brother Young
And borne my testimony falsely Brother Young

And I have loved a woman Brother Brigham, Brother Young
A woman in adultery Brother Young
I have also wed a negress Brother Brigham, Brother Young
My fifth wife has some color Brigham Young

I now see that you’re a prophet Brother Brigham, Brother Young
A living, breathing prophet Brother Young
And now I believe the revelations Brother Brigham, Brother Young
I now believe your revelations, every one

Even the ones beyond all reason Brother Brigham, Brother Young
Even the ones beyond all reason Brother Young
For you’re the Lord’s own earthly prophet Brother Brigham, Brother Young
And he’s simply testing in our faith o Brigham Young

My only hope for exaltation Brother Brigham, Brother Young
My only chance for exaltation Brother Young
Is to send me o’er the rim of the basin Brother Brigham, Brother Young
The rim of the Great Salt Lake Basin Brother Young

For water cannot save me Brother Brigham, Brother Young
Baptismal water cannot save me Brigham Young
My sins are just too deep a dye o Brother Brigham, Brother Young
My sins are just too deep a stain o Brother Young

So send Avenging Angels Brother Brigham, Brother Young
Won’t you send Destroying Danites Brother Young
To spill my blood upon the earth o Brother Brigham, Brother Young

So what do you think?

Do you find the song offensive?

Is it historicaly accurate of what may have happened to some of the saints in the salt lake valley?

Does it bare some similarites to what we have gone through in our day or not?

I consider all of these women my friends and so we started chatting. As we bemoaned the unfortunate decline of the “spare the rod, spoil the child” philosophy, we noticed the elders walking down the hall. One of the women commented on how cute they were, but followed up with how young they looked. We all kind of giggled, but it opened up a discussion on how your perspective changes on something that is essentially unchanging. For the most part, missionaries are 19-21 and that’s how its been for decades, but how those young men are viewed drastically changes over time.

When I was a young girl, having the missionaries over for dinner was a blast. They were the best playmates ever. They ate like they had two hollow legs and would just rough house(way before the more recent guidelines that prohibit such things)and act goofy until they had to go home and make curfew. Once you graduate from Primary into the Young Womens program these elders morph into demigod-like status. They are so cute and so funny and so cool and you just can’t wait until you can date and marry your own RM. Beehive, Mia Maid(you can date!), and then finally Laurel, when dating a returned missionary is often a reality. Now they are potential husbands so you are sizing them up as breeding stock and providers. This phase will last for a few months to a few years. Maybe you will go to BYU for your MRS degree, maybe you will meet your eternal companion at FHE in your singles ward. There are so many ways it can happen, but it usually ends with your standing in a receiving line and your closest friends and family eating those chalky pastel mints and drinking ice water out of a punch bowl. Then, if you have a real testimony, you give birth to your own little missionary nine months later. The perspective changes and your focus shifts to raising the next generation of missionaries.

My perspective now? Perspective is a funny thing. The girls from my Laurel class are now sending their sons on missions. One of those girls just welcomed her oldest son back from serving an honorable mission in Argentina. Technically, I am old enough to be the mother of a returned missionary, yet I shamelessly flirt with them via my blog. In my defense, Jake started it, but…

What seemingly unchanging things within the church changed for you, depending on your perspective?

The Books

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Dead Sea Scrolls

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

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

The Pseudepigrapha

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

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

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

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

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

Much has been said in this vein by people with more wisdom and experience than me. So my point here is not to examine the psychology, convince you to stay, leave, become a cafeteria Mormon or anything of that nature. I just want to speak with you. I want to talk directly to you and tell you at least one possible route you might take. You can take my words with a grain of salt, but do yourself a favor and at least ponder them for a moment!

To those struggling in their faith:
Turn inward, not outward. Stop making your tradition the object of your worries, and worry about you. Decide that you will take responsibility for your own spirituality. Recognize that the only thing in life you get to control is you – and rightfully so. Use that power to dictate your future spirituality and stop being controlled by other influences whether historical, cultural, or familial. Use the power found in personal responsibility to elevate yourself by loving others. Recognize that people make choices and get to control themselves just like you get to control you. These two attitudes allow you to build a healthy mechanism for interacting with people. You have compassion for others, and even organizations, and give them the benefit of the doubt because you know they are imperfect.  But you also reserve your right to act in response to their actions in the way you see fit. You try to create the perfect balance of love and compassion with resolute understanding of your right to control yourself.

You then arrive at a place where you get to decide what you believe and what you won’t believe. But you have also learned (since you’ve been there before) that you better not believe everything you think! You know you need to constantly learn from other people, cultures, ideas, science, religion, etc. If you don’t, you run the risk of reverting to the same mindset you previously had (although with a different set of ideas). You see that you’re not that interested in joining with people who simply verify what you already believe because there is no growth for you there (and that’s exactly what your old tradition gave you in your former self). You have now fully realized that the object of your disaffection was not your old tradition, but your old mindset and attitude. You have elected to take control and modify your expectations of your old tradition, people, and life in general.

You are now prepared to look to your old tradition, and when you do you find that it isn’t so bad when viewed from your new perspective – and besides you feel at home there in some sense. You are largely aloof of all the truth claims (they may or may not be true, it doesn’t really matter that much anymore), culture, and doctrinal problems but you enjoy associating with good people and you see everyone as “good people.” You occasionally feel like an “alien” because while you feel comfortable in your old tradition, you realize that you are on your own personal journey, grabbing bits of truth here and bits of truth there. You no longer feel like part of the “collective.”

You understand your purpose in the organization from the view of your new perspective. You’re not interested in making institutional changes as you view the church as your spiritual tool in the toolbox of life. You are invested enough that you want the organization to succeed, but divested enough that your world won’t end if it doesn’t.  You may not accept some callings offered to you, but welcome opportunities to make a difference on a local, more personal level in a way you are comfortable.  Once again, you are in control of your spirituality.

You look at the people in your old tradition and see them on their own journey, believing what they want, all while recognizing you can learn from them even if you don’t necessarily believe what they believe. You see most truth as relative for each person, yet admit that existence and nature are the ultimate objective truth and reality. You have arrived at a healthy balanced view of the world. But in that very moment of “arrival,” the next life event makes its way onto center stage in your mind and you’re right back to work through the new challenges trying each time anew to maintain the proper balance you developed before. But you know that with each cycle it gets better and better!

You are now in a strange paradox, feeling comfortably uncomfortable. Faithful Mormons will likely see you as apostate if they could see things from your perspective. And by the same token, apostates will see you as an apologist, caught up in ignoring reality. But you know you have embraced reality as your guiding star to help you navigate the seas of life! You have embraced the ideology that each ideology has some truth, and some falsehoods, and you accept the obvious irony in this very statement!

Good luck on your lonely journey, there are many who have come before you and will come after you to cross the same bridges.

That being said, we do know that there is a divider between the glories and the non-glories. We have that ominous concept: Outer Darkness. But what does it mean? Who is it for?

Just as I’ve always taken Mormonism’s after life to be so much more universal than other afterlife formulations, I’ve naturally wanted to stretch out this universalism. So, my understanding has always been that the three glories of heaven will be quite generously populated and that outer darkness will be sparse and lonely indeed.

Let's hope life isn't like a Sierra game

I took for granted that to qualify for this terrible anti-prize of complete separation, a person would have to try pretty hard. I didn’t think it was like a Sierra game, where you can accidentally and irreversibly render the entire game unwinnable within the first five minutes of turning on the game. Instead, you had to do specific (and unlikely) things. Like, say, come to a fulness of the gospel, have an amazing experience as consequence of your full understanding (like, I dunno, see God), and then walk away from in all with rejection. And then, only after all of this, could you win your new prize of total estrangement from their Heavenly Father.

Even then…this consequence wouldn’t be something that God sentenced someone to. Rather, it would be an individual’s choice to walk away from it all after having seen so much.

That was how I understood it. So, when I realized that I — gasp — didn’t believe in the church’s teachings, the “what if” scenario for if the church ended up being correct anyway didn’t bother me. I would accept whatever I got, but my understanding was that I wouldn’t quite qualify for outer darkness.

…But it all hinges on what it means to have the fulness of the Gospel. After all, it might not mean the amazingness of seeing God face-to-face. We often say that we have the fulness of the Gospel. In this case, would this mean that all ex-Mormons are hosed?

Let’s look at some scriptures.

31 Thus saith the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and have been made partakers thereof, and suffered themselves through the power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my power—

32 They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that it had been better for them never to have been born;

33 For they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity;

34 Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come—

35 Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame.

36 These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels—

37 And the only ones on whom the second death shall have any power;

38 Yea, verily, the only ones who shall not be redeemed in the due time of the Lord, after the sufferings of his wrath.

Better off if we had never been born..?

The criteria here for receiving these scathing descriptors doesn’t seem too difficult to reach: just deny the Holy Ghost after having received it.

In the church, every member who is baptized has the laying on of hands to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. If we use that as the yardstick, then wouldn’t any apostate become one for who “it had been better for them never to have been born”?

Is this scripture one of the straightforward ones…or is it one that needs to be looked at more carefully? What do you say?

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

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

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

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

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

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

But wait, there’s more!

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

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

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

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

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

So why would Gospel Principles be Vague?

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

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

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

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

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

I must say that I am one of these people who believe that private communications don’t work very well.  However, I have tried hard to improve my communications (though I’m not always successful.)  A few months ago, I decided to give Andrew’s option #3 a test to see if it would do any good.  I was quite surprised at the positive result.

I wrote my stake president (SP) a letter expressing concern for how large our ward is.  I live in a growing community, and the last time the ward split, we reached about 950 people.  I thought it was outrageous–parking was terrible, and even finding a seat in the gym was hard if you were late.  So, our ward was over 700 again, and I decided to write the SP a letter expressing concern at the size of the ward, the parking problems, and difficulty finding a seat in the gym for sacrament meeting.  I have a baby, and one particular Sunday, he had a blow out just as we were leaving for church.  So we had to change his clothes completely and were late, having difficulty parking and finding a seat.

I tried to take extra care to emphasize that I wasn’t trying to “counsel the brethren”, and I hoped my email would be considered in the same way that Jethro counseled Moses.  My email was met with silence.  I told my bishop I wrote an email to the SP, and asked if he had heard anything.  He hadn’t heard anything (and was concerned that my email might be taken the wrong way) so he asked the SP if my email had offended him.  The SP said it was no big deal, and made a comment that when I was stake president I could split the wards as I chose.  (I wasn’t overly impressed with the SP response.)  I never heard a word from the SP, but in the coming months, he or his counselors would visit the ward and tell us they were aware of the overcrowding problem, and exhorted us to be patient.  I kept wondering if my email was the reason they were saying this.  Within about 3 months, they decided to realign the ward boundaries, and during the meeting, the SP used a phrase from my email that only he and I knew about.

As I discussed the ward split with my bishop, he said, “You’re the one that started this whole thing!”  I said, “Wow, I have a lot more power than I thought.”  I’m sure there were other influences here (my bishop had served 5 years and was due to be released anyway, and I am aware a counselor to the SP also had similar reservations about the size of our ward), but I do think that my email did play a role in influencing the SP in this decision when I talked about concerns about parking and overcrowding in sacrament meeting.  One Sunday I counted 60 people in the foyer because they couldn’t find a seat for sacrament meeting.  I think the split did happen sooner than it would have if I had stayed silent.

Now I know my issue isn’t very large in the scheme of things, but I was positively surprised at the results of my email.  Have any of you had any similar experiences, or are they all bad experiences?

Over the past couple weeks here at Mormon Matters, we’ve had two posts discussing the need to be “improvers” in the Church rather than uncritical optimists or unloving pessimists, and suggesting some practical rules that would-be improvers should follow. Fortunately, our Church leaders have not left us to re-invent the wheel when it comes to figuring out what our options are when we disagree with their statements, policies, or practices.

Below are excerpts from Elder Dallin H. Oaks’ article entitled “Criticism,” which appeared in Ensign magazine in February of 1987. (You can read the full article here.) In this article, Elder Oaks straightforwardly informs Church members that there are two very different sets of rules when it comes to publicly disclosing the truth and criticizing leaders or their decisions: (1) the rules that apply to the political and business worlds; and (2) the rules that apply to the Church. According to Elder Oaks, it is essential for Church members to be aware of, and abide by, these two different sets of rules. As you read these excerpts, I invite to you pay particular attention to the following ideas that Elder Oaks shares:

(1) “’[T]he fact that something is true is not always a justification for communicating it. . . . The gist of Paul’s thought is that integrity is of no value in itself.’ . . . The critical consideration is how we use the truth. . . . A Christian who has concern for others exercises care in how he uses the truth. Such care does not denigrate the truth; it ennobles it. Truth surely exists as an absolute, but our use of truth should be disciplined by other values. . . .”

(2) “The use of truth should also be constrained by the principle of unity. . . However, this caution to constrain the use of truth provides no justification for lying. . . . When truth is constrained by other virtues, the outcome is not falsehood but silence for a season.”

(3) “Government or corporate officials, who are elected directly or indirectly or appointed by majority vote, must expect that their performance will be subject to critical and public evaluations by their constituents. . . . A different principle applies in our Church, where the selection of leaders is based on revelation, subject to the sustaining vote of the membership. In our system of Church government, evil speaking and criticism of leaders by members is always negative. Whether the criticism is true or not, as Elder George F. Richards explained, it tends to impair the leaders’ influence and usefulness, thus working against the Lord and his cause.”

(4) You’ll want to pay particular attention to the latter part of Elder Oaks’ article where he presents five suggestions for how to appropriately deal with situations where we find ourselves disagreeing with Church leaders.

And now, without further ado, excerpts of Elder Oaks’ Ensign article on Criticism:

I am persuaded that many do not understand the Church’s teachings about personal criticism, especially the criticism of Church leaders by Church members.

I do not refer to the kind of criticism the dictionary defines as “the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.” (Random House Dictionary, unabridged ed., s.v. “criticism.”) . . . Sports writers, reviewers of books and music, scholars, investment analysts, and those who test products and services must be free to exercise their critical faculties and to inform the public accordingly. This kind of criticism is usually directed toward issues, and it is usually constructive.

My cautions against criticism refer to another of its meanings, which the dictionary defines as “the act of passing severe judgment; censure; faultfinding.” (Ibid., s.v. “criticism.”) Faultfinding is “the act of pointing out faults, especially faults of a petty nature.” (Ibid., s.v. “faultfinding.”) It is related to “backbiting,” which means “to attack the character or reputation of [a person who is not present].” (Ibid., s.v. “backbite.”) This kind of criticism is generally directed toward persons, and it is generally destructive.

Faultfinding, evil speaking, and backbiting are obviously unchristian. . . . The primary reason we are commanded to avoid criticism is to preserve our own spiritual well-being, not to protect the person whom we would criticize. . . .

Does this counsel to avoid faultfinding and personal criticism apply only to statements that are false? Doesn’t it also apply to statements that are true? In a talk I recently gave to Church Educational System teachers, I urged that “the fact that something is true is not always a justification for communicating it.” A letter published in the New York Times Magazine described my counsel as “contempt for the truth.” (Feb. 9, 1986, p. 86.) I disagree. I rely on the teaching in Ecclesiastes: “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.” (Eccl. 3:1.) Specifically, there is “a time to speak,” and there is also “a time to keep silence.” (Eccl. 3:7.)

The counsel to mute our criticism is like the counsel the Apostle Paul gave to the Corinthian Saints to abstain from eating meat offered as sacrifices to idols. In truth, he taught, the idol was nothing. But since some of the members were weak and might misunderstand, those who knew the truth needed to “take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.” (1 Cor. 8:9.) A Protestant theologian, Krister Stendahl, concludes: “The gist of Paul’s thought is that integrity is of no value in itself.” (See Paul Among Jews and Gentiles and Other Essays, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976, p. 61.)

The critical consideration is how we use the truth. When he treated this same subject in his letter to the Romans, Paul said, “If thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy him not with thy meat, for whom Christ died.” (Rom. 14:15.) A Christian who has concern for others exercises care in how he uses the truth. Such care does not denigrate the truth; it ennobles it.

Truth surely exists as an absolute, but our use of truth should be disciplined by other values. . . .

The use of truth should also be constrained by the principle of unity. One who focuses on faults, though they be true, fosters dissensions and divisions among fellow Church members in the body of Christ. . . . In this dispensation, the Lord commanded that “Every man [should] esteem his brother as himself,” and declared that “If ye are not one ye are not mine.” (D&C 38:25, 27.)

However, this caution to constrain the use of truth provides no justification for lying. The principles of love, unity, righteousness, and mercy do not condone falsehood. The Lord commanded, “Thou shalt not bear false witness” (Ex. 20:16), and he has not revoked that command. When truth is constrained by other virtues, the outcome is not falsehood but silence for a season. As the scriptures say, there is “a time to keep silence, and a time to speak.” (Eccl. 3:7.)

The counsel to avoid destructive personal criticism does not mean that Latter-day Saints need to be docile or indifferent to defective policies, deficient practices, or wrongful conduct in government or in private organizations in which we have an interest. Our religious philosophy poses no obstacle to constructive criticism of such conditions. The gospel message is a continuing constructive criticism of all that is wretched or sordid in society. But Christians who are commanded to be charitable and to “[speak] the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15) should avoid personal attacks and shrill denunciations. Our public communications—even those protesting against deficiencies—should be reasoned in content and positive in spirit.

Does the commandment to avoid faultfinding and evil speaking apply to Church members’ destructive personal criticism of Church leaders? Of course it does. It applies to criticism of all Church leaders—local or general, male or female. In our relations with all of our Church leaders, we should follow the Apostle Paul’s direction: “Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father.” (1 Tim. 5:1.) . . .

“Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. Jude condemns those who ‘speak evil of dignities.’ (Jude 1:8.) Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. . . .

Government or corporate officials, who are elected directly or indirectly or appointed by majority vote, must expect that their performance will be subject to critical and public evaluations by their constituents. That is part of the process of informing those who have the right and power of selection or removal. . . .

A different principle applies in our Church, where the selection of leaders is based on revelation, subject to the sustaining vote of the membership. In our system of Church government, evil speaking and criticism of leaders by members is always negative. Whether the criticism is true or not, as Elder George F. Richards explained, it tends to impair the leaders’ influence and usefulness, thus working against the Lord and his cause. . . .

So what do we do when we feel that our Relief Society president or our bishop or another authority is transgressing or pursuing a policy of which we disapprove? Is there no remedy? Are our critics correct when they charge that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are “sheep” without remedy against the whims of a heedless or even an evil shepherd?

There are remedies, but they are not the same remedies or procedures that are used with leaders in other organizations.

Our Father in Heaven has not compelled us to think the same way on every subject or procedure. As we seek to accomplish our life’s purposes, we will inevitably have differences with those around us—including some of those we sustain as our leaders. The question is not whether we have such differences, but how we manage them. What the Lord has said on another subject is also true of the management of differences with his leaders: “It must needs be done in mine own way.” (D&C 104:16.) We should conduct ourselves in such a way that our thoughts and actions do not cause us to lose the companionship of the Spirit of the Lord.

The first principle in the gospel procedure for managing differences is to keep our personal differences private. In this we have worthy examples to follow. Every student of Church history knows that there have been differences of opinion among Church leaders since the Church was organized. Each of us has experienced such differences in our work in auxiliaries, quorums, wards, stakes, and missions of the Church. We know that such differences are discussed, but not in public. Counselors acquiesce in the decisions of their president. Teachers follow the direction of their presidency. Members are loyal to the counsel of their bishop. All of this is done quietly and loyally—even by members who would have done differently if they had been in the position of authority.

Why aren’t these differences discussed in public? Public debate—the means of resolving differences in a democratic government—is not appropriate in our Church government. We are all subject to the authority of the called and sustained servants of the Lord. They and we are all governed by the direction of the Spirit of the Lord, and that Spirit only functions in an atmosphere of unity. That is why personal differences about Church doctrine or procedure need to be worked out privately. There is nothing inappropriate about private communications concerning such differences, provided they are carried on in a spirit of love.

There are at least five different procedures a Church member can follow in addressing differences with Church leaders—general or local, male or female.

The first—and most benign—of the procedures is to overlook the difference. President Brigham Young described his own application of this method in a circumstance in which he felt “a want of confidence” in the Prophet Joseph Smith’s financial management. After entertaining such thoughts for a short time, President Young saw that they could cause him to lose confidence in the Prophet and ultimately to question God as well. President Young concluded:

“Though I admitted in my feelings and knew all the time that Joseph was a human being and subject to err, still it was none of my business to look after his faults. … He was called of God; God dictated him, and if He had a mind to leave him to himself and let him commit an error, that was no business of mine. … He was God’s servant, and not mine.” (Journal of Discourses, 4:297.) . . .

A second option is to reserve judgment and postpone any action on the difference. In many instances, the actions we are tempted to criticize may be based on confidences that preclude the leader from explaining his or her actions publicly. In such instances there is wisdom in a strategy of patience and trust.

The third procedure, which should be familiar to every student of the Bible, is to take up our differences privately with the leader involved. The Savior taught: “If thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.” (Matt. 18:15.)

This course of action may be pursued in a private meeting, if possible, or it may be done through a letter or other indirect communication. How many differences could be resolved if we would only communicate privately about them! Some would disappear as they were identified as mere misunderstandings. Others would be postponed with an agreement to disagree for the present. But in many instances, private communications about differences would remove obstacles to individual growth and correction.

A fourth option is to communicate with the Church officer who has the power to correct or release the person thought to be in error or transgression. The Bible calls this “tell[ing] it unto the church.” (Matt. 18:17.) Modern scripture, in the revelation we call “the law of the Church,” describes this procedure:

“And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world.” (D&C 42:89.)

Note the caution that this remedy is to be private—“not before the world.” This is not done in order to hide the facts, but rather to increase the chance that the correction will improve the life of a brother or sister. . . .

There is a fifth remedy. We can pray for the resolution of the problem. We should pray for the leader whom we think to be in error, asking the Lord to correct the circumstance if it needs correction. At the same time, we should pray for ourselves, asking the Lord to correct us if we are in error. . . .

All five of these are appropriate options for Church members who differ with their leaders. The preferred course depends upon the circumstances and the inspiration that guides those who prayerfully seek. . . .

Despite the commandments and counsel I have reviewed, we have some members who persistently and publicly criticize Church leaders. What about them? . . .

Just as our Church leaders’ source of authority is different from that of government and corporate leaders, so are the procedures for correcting Church leaders different from those used to correct leaders chosen by popular election. But the differences are appropriate to the way in which our Church leaders are called and released. By following approved procedures, we can keep from alienating ourselves from the Spirit of the Lord.

This counsel will be anathema to some. I invite those who are troubled by it to consider it in terms of the teachings of the scriptures rather than in terms of their personal preferences or the canons of any particular profession. Those who reject the authority of the scriptures or our latter-day prophets cannot be expected to agree with what I have said. Those who see freedom or truth as absolutely overriding principles in all human actions cannot be expected to be persuaded by the scriptures’ teaching that “knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.” (1 Cor. 8:1.)

Those who govern their thoughts and actions solely by the principles of liberalism or conservatism or intellectualism cannot be expected to agree with all of the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As for me, I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism—but I find no salvation in any of them.

. . . It is easy to preach freedom or truth. Praise for those subjects is usually safe and always popular. It is infinitely more difficult to preach how men and women should use freedom or truth. The preacher of that message may command respect, but he or she will not win popularity.

I conclude with a message of hope. When Isaiah condemned the critics of his day, he concluded with a prophecy. He said that in time the children of God would sanctify his name and “fear the God of Israel.” Continuing, he declared, “They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine.” (Isa. 29:23–24.) In that spirit I pray for the day when all of us will know God and keep his commandments. In that day, as Isaiah foretold, the “king shall reign in righteousness,” and “the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever.” (Isa. 32:1, 17.)

If someone can find something in the Book of Mormon, anything that they love or respond to or find dear, I applaud that and say more power to you. That’s what I find, too. And that should not in any way discount somebody’s liking a passage here or a passage there or the whole idea of the book, but not agreeing to its origin, its divinity. . . . [W]e have many people who are members of the church who do not have some burning conviction as to its origins, who have some other feeling about it that is not as committed to foundational statements and the premises of Mormonism. But we’re not going to invite somebody out of the church over that any more than we would anything else about degrees of belief or steps of hope or steps of conviction. . . . We would say: “This is the way I see it, and this is the faith I have; this is the foundation on which I’m going forward. If I can help you work toward that I’d be glad to, but I don’t love you less; I don’t distance you more; I don’t say you’re unacceptable to me as a person or even as a Latter-day Saint if you can’t make that step or move to the beat of that drum.” . . . We really don’t want to sound smug. We don’t want to seem uncompromising and insensitive. -Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, Mar. 6, 2006. (Source.)

I testify that one cannot come to full faith in this Latter-day work and thereby find the fullest measure of peace and comfort in these our times until he or she embraces the divinity of the Book of Mormon and the Lord Jesus Christ of whom it testifies. If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text, teeming with literary and Semitic complexity, without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages somehow–especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers–if that’s the case then such persons, elect or otherwise, have been deceived. And if they leave this Church, they must to do so by crawling over, or under, or around the Book of Mormon to make their exit.” -Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, Oct. 4, 2009. (Source.)

When Elder Holland delivered his stinging rebuke to Book of Mormon critics in his General Conference address last Sunday, reactions ranged from “woots” and “double woots” by literalist believers of the Book of Mormon, to disappointment by those who felt Elder Holland was backtracking on his prior statement that Church members who don’t believe the traditional story of its origins should not be considered “unacceptable . . . as a Latter-day Saint if [they] can’t make that step or move to the beat of that drum.” However, after listening carefully to Elder Holland’s address again, I think both camps might be mistaken about what Elder Holland was intending to say, particularly with regard to the “Inspired Fiction” theory of the Book of Mormon.

The Inspired Fiction Theory and Its Scriptural Precedents

For those who may not be familiar with the Inspired Fiction theory, it goes something like this: Scripture is a vehicle that teaches us divine truths through the medium of divinely-inspired stories which are oftentimes fictional. Just a few of the more obvious examples would be the parables contained in the New Testament, or the fantastic stories in the Old Testament (Noah and the Ark, Moses’ divine cursing of Egypt, Jonah living three days in the belly of a whale, etc.). These seemingly obvious examples of divinely-inspired fiction are no less important or valuable as sources of divine guidance than had they been literally true. For example, the stories of the Prodigal Son or the Good Samaritan do not have to be based on literal historic events to have spiritual value. Moreover, the fact that Jesus openly used fictional stories to teach timeless truths establishes an example and a pattern of God teaching his children spiritual truths through stories that are not grounded in literal, historic fact.

Latter-day Saint Apostles and scholars have embraced the notion that scripture may be divinely-inspired fiction. For example, Apostle Parley P. Pratt stated that the Creation story was the equivalent of a child’s fable because humankind has not been intellectually equipped throughout the ages to understand its true origins. (See Temples of the Most High.)

Moreover, faithful LDS scholars who have examined the surviving Egyptian papyri that were in Joseph Smith’s possession (which contain the facsimiles that appear in the Book of Abraham but which date from around 100 – 250 B.C. rather than from Abraham’s much earlier era) have theorized that perhaps the Book of Abraham was not translated from Egyptian papyri even though Joseph Smith said it was, but rather, that the Book of Abraham was a divine revelation that Joseph was able to receive only after his mind was opened and prepared to receive it by examining the Egyptian papyri in his possession. (Source.) In other words, faithful LDS scholars hypothesize that despite Joseph’s claim that the Book of Abraham was “A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt—The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus,” the papyrus merely served as a “catalyst” to inspire a divine revelation that was, in fact, not contained on the Egyptian papyri in his possession. (Source.) These LDS scholars feel comfortable with this possibility because, as one LDS apologetics forum explains: “Joseph used the word ‘translation‘ to mean several things, including the process of receiving pure revelation. (Joseph Smith’s revelations call his revision of the Bible a “translation” (D&C 73:4; 76:15; 90:13; 94:10; 124), even though he didn’t use any Hebrew of Greek manuscripts. Also, D&C 7 is a revealed translation of a lost record written by the Apostle John.)” (Source.) Again, it is worth emphasizing that, according to faithful LDS apologists, Joseph Smith is known to have used the word “translation” to mean “the process of receiving pure revelation,” as opposed to literally translating words in an ancient record from one language to another. (Source.) Thus, faithful LDS scholars have no qualms with the possibility that Joseph may have thought he was producing a “translation” of an ancient record when in reality he was receiving and recording “pure revelation” that was unconnected to any ancient record, even when a physical object such as Egyptian papyri were present. The overall concept is that Joseph’s revelations were divinely inspired even if he didn’t completely understand the process through which those revelations were received.

Resistance to, and Acceptance of, the Inspired Fiction Theory

When it comes to applying this same sort of theory to the Book of Mormon, however, the resistance sometimes becomes fierce. It seems most LDS leaders and scholars are unwilling to extend this same theory to the Book of Mormon, and are deeply disturbed by any suggestion that the Book of Mormon represents anything less than an actual translation of Reformed Egyptian characters into English taken from an actual historical record written by real persons living anciently in the Middle East and on the American continent. It is worth noting that this resistance to the Inspired Fiction theory persists even though LDS scholars now believe Joseph Smith and his contemporary Latter-day Saints were mistaken when they made many statements indicating their belief that the Book of Mormon accounts had taken place over large swaths of the North American continent. (Source.)

In summary, most LDS scholars are comfortable stating that Joseph Smith did not actually “translate” the Book of Abraham and the Bible as that word is commonly understood, and that he was mistaken in thinking that the Book of Mormon accounts took place over large swaths of the North American continent (rather than a relatively small area in Guatemala and southern Mexico), but they are unwilling to allow for the possibility that Joseph Smith also mistakenly believed the Book of Mormon was a translation of an actual ancient record.

Some may ask: Why resist applying the Inspired Fiction theory to the Book of Mormon? Why resist the idea that God inspired Joseph Smith to dictate the Book of Mormon to teach us divine truths through the medium of divinely-inspired stories that are equally fictional but no less valuable than the parables of Jesus? Why resist the idea that Lehi, Nephi and others were divinely-inspired characters in a grand divine novel rather than real persons who actually lived in the ancient Americas? Why resist the idea that Joseph mistakenly thought the Book of Mormon was a “translation” of an ancient record written by actual ancient prophets, similar to his mistakenly thinking he was translating the Egyptian papyri in his possession when he received the revelation that is the Book of Abraham? In a prior interview, Elder Holland explained why he has difficulty embracing the Inspired Fiction theory:

Now, in terms of more modern theories, there are those who say it’s more mythical literature and spiritual, and not literal. That doesn’t work for me. I don’t understand that, and I can’t go very far with that, because Joseph Smith said there were plates, and he said there was an angel. And if there weren’t plates and there wasn’t an angel, I have a bigger problem than whether the Book of Mormon is rich literature. . . . I have to go with what the prophet said about the book, about its origins, about the literalness of the plates, the literalness of the vision — and then the product speaks for itself.

I don’t think we’re through examining the depth, the richness, the profundity, the complexity, all of the literary and historical and religious issues that go into that book. I think we’re still young at doing that. But the origins for me are the origins that the prophet Joseph said: a set of plates, given by an angel, translated by the gift and power of God. . . . (Source.)

However, some LDS scholars, usually those whose conclusions fall outside the “mainstream” of what Church leaders and Church-funded scholars are comfortable accepting, view the Inspired Fiction theory as a favorable “middle ground” position where Latter-day Saints can continue to reverence the Book of Mormon as divinely-inspired scripture without having to believe it is an actual translation of an actual ancient record written by real people, and thereby avoiding the numerous challenges to the Book of Mormon’s historicity that currently keep a team of Church-funded scholars employed to research and respond to.  However, as LDS scholar Louis Midgley has explained, such a “middle ground” position is harmful to the Church’s tradition and interests:

Some may ask: why not find a way to reduce the controversy over the Book of Mormon? What harm can such an accommodation do? The reasons for rejecting such compromises seem obvious to me. For one thing, the Book of Mormon is, more than anything else, what keeps the Church of Jesus Christ from becoming just another Protestant sect or social welfare agency. Its existence makes of Joseph Smith something other than a mere quaint or colorful example in a line of Christian primitivists or restorationists. In addition, the Book of Mormon was what witnessed to those who first became members of the fledgling Church of Christ that Joseph Smith wore the mantle of a genuine prophet, as it does to those who are currently believing and practicing Latter-day Saints. And its existence has, more than any other single thing, right from the beginning, distinguished the Latter-day Saints from various brands of Protestant sectarian religiosity. (Source.)

Did Elder Holland Denounce or Carefully Avoid the Inspired Fiction Theory?

Though it is clear that Elder Holland’s recent Conference address denounced all theories that portray Joseph Smith as having knowingly fabricated a book that he knew was not divinely-inspired, it is less clear to me after carefully listening to Elder Holland’s talk whether he was likewise intending to denounce the Inspired Fiction theory that portrays Joseph as receiving and dictating a divinely-inspired but fictional history of Israelites emigrating to and settling in ancient America as a medium for conveying spiritual truths and doctrines that promote the happiness, peace, and spiritual well-being of humankind. As you read the portions of Elder Holland’s address quoted below, it is important to keep in mind the distinction between what Elder Holland personally believes about the Book of Mormon, and what he is comfortable allowing other faithful Latter-day Saints to believe about its origins (as we see reflected in the very first Holland quote above). Although it is clear that Elder Holland personally believes the Book of Mormon is an actual translation of an actual ancient historical record, and although it is likewise clear he finds it utterly unacceptable for any Latter-day Saint to believe that Joseph Smith knowingly, and therefore deceptively, fabricated the Book of Mormon, ask yourself as you read Elder Holland’s remarks whether he allows for faithful Latter-day Saints to believe that the Book of Mormon was divinely-inspired, but that Joseph was simply mistaken in saying it was a translation of an actual physical historical record (as LDS scholars are willing to accept when it comes to the Book of Abraham and the Egyptian papyri Joseph Smith believed he was “translating”). For example, when Elder Holland states that Latter-day Saints are “deceived” unless they believe in the “divinity” of the Book of Mormon, does that mean he feels Latter-day Saints are deceived if they believe it is divinely-inspired fiction?

In my view, Elder Holland selected his words very carefully, I suspect for the purpose of allowing faithful Latter-day Saints to hold a position that he personally does not share: that the Book of Mormon was divinely-inspired, but that Joseph did not recognize its stories as being fictional (again, similar to LDS apologists’ theory that Joseph mistakenly believed the Book of Abraham was an actual translation of an actual historical record, rather than knowingly lying about it, and similar to LDS apologists’ assertion that Joseph was mistaken in believing that the Book of Mormon actually took place over large swaths of North America, rather than knowingly lying about it). And now, without further ado, the relevant portions of Elder Holland’s talk (as transcribed by me from the audio recording):

There is one kind of latter-day destruction that has always sounded to me more personal than public, more individual than collective, a warning perhaps more applicable inside the Church than outside it. The Savior warned in the last days, even those of the covenant, the very elect, could be deceived by the enemy of truth. . . . [Elder Holland then identifies the Book of Mormon as a source of divine guidance in the Latter-days, summarizes Lehi's dream, focusing on the rod of iron and the mists of darkness, and relates a story of Hyrum reading a Book of Mormon passage to bring comfort to the party on their way to Carthage jail.]

Later, when actually incarcerated in the jail, Joseph the Prophet turned to the guards that held him captive and bore a powerful testimony of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Shortly thereafter, pistol and ball would take the lives of these two testators. As one of a thousand elements of my own testimony of the divinity of the Book of Mormon, I submit this as yet one more evidence of its truthfulness. In this their greatest and last hour of need, I ask you, would these men blaspheme before God by continuing to fix their lives, their honor, and their own search for eternal salvation on a book, and by implication a church and a ministry, they had fictitiously created out of whole cloth?! . . . [A]nd tell me, whether in this hour of death, these two men would enter the presence of their eternal judge, quoting from, and finding solace in, a book which if not the very word of God would brand them as impostors and charlatans until the end of time. They would not do that! They were willing to die, rather than deny the divine origin and the eternal truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.

Elder Holland’s choice of words above is interesting. A Latter-day Saint who believes the Book of Mormon represents divinely-inspired fiction would whole-heartedly agree with his remarks about the Book of Mormon’s “divine authenticity,” “divinity,” “truthfulness,” “divine origin,” and “eternal truthfulness,” in the same way he or she would embrace the “divine authenticity” and “divine origin” and “eternal truthfulness” of Jesus’ parables or any number of the fantastic stories in the Old Testatment. Moreover, when Elder Holland uses the word “fictitiously” above, it’s seems he almost certainly means that Joseph would not have knowingly fictitiously created the Book of Mormon, as opposed to his receiving a divine revelation that he did not recognize as being a fictional spiritual history (again, in the same way LDS apologists hypothesize with regard to the Book of Abraham). This line of thought continues in the next paragraph, where he denounces the various theories that portray Joseph as knowingly plagiarizing from other works to create the Book of Mormon, or knowingly fabricating it out of whole cloth:

Failed theories about its origins have been born, parroted, and died. From Ethan Smith to Solomon Spaulding, to deranged paranoid to cunning genius. None of these frankly pathetic answers for this book has ever withstood examination because there is no other answer than the one Joseph gave as its young, unlearned translator. . . . “No wicked man could write such a book as this, and no good man would write it, unless it were true, and he were commanded of God to do so.” I testify that one cannot come to full faith in this Latter-day work and thereby find the fullest measure of peace and comfort in these our times until he or she embraces the divinity of the Book of Mormon and the Lord Jesus Christ of whom it testifies. If anyone is foolish enough or misled enough to reject 531 pages of a heretofore unknown text, teeming with literary and Semitic complexity, without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages somehow–especially without accounting for their powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the profound spiritual impact that witness has had on what is now tens of millions of readers–if that’s the case then such persons, elect or otherwise, have been deceived. And if they leave this Church, they must to do so by crawling over, or under, or around the Book of Mormon to make their exit.

Again, I do not see anything here that should cause Latter-day Saints who ascribe to the Inspired Fiction theory of the Book of Mormon’s origins to feel as if they’ve been pronounced “deceived” by Elder Holland. While he obviously sees “Semitic complexity” in the Book of Mormon, which he plainly relies upon to support his personal view that it represents literal history, he does so in the context of denouncing those those who deny the Book of Mormon’s divinity. Of course, those who ascribe to the Inspired Fiction are in full agreement with Elder Holland about the divinity of the Book of Mormon, and could further believe that any genuine “Semitic complexity” within its pages was divinely-inspired as well.

Elder Holland then cited as support for his position that witnesses to the Gold Plates, some of whom were later sometimes hostile to Joseph, testified to their death that they had seen an angel and had handled the Gold Plates by the power of God and not the power of man. Thus, Elder Holland plainly believes in the literal existence of Gold Plates, and views them as being the source material for the Book of Mormon, along with “gift and power of God” to translate them. However, there is no plain denunciation of those who believe the Gold Plates could have been an angelically-provided object that served as a catalyst to open and prepare Joseph’s mind to receive the Book of Mormon through revelation, in the same way that LDS apologists posit Joseph received the “pure revelation” of the Book of Abraham after examining the catalyst to that revelation, namely, the Egyptian papyri in his possession. Moreover, this would explain the accounts where Joseph “translated” the Book of Mormon while he gazed into a seer stone placed in his hat, rather than by reading from the characters on the Gold Plates. (Source.)

Elder Holland continues:

Now, I did not sail with the brother of Jared . . . . I did not hear King Benjamin speak his angelically-delivered sermon. I did not proselyte with Alma and Amulek . . . . I was not among the Nephite crowd who touched the wounds of the resurrected Lord, nor did I weep with Mormon and Moroni over the destruction of an entire civilization. But my testimony of this record and the peace it brings to the human heart is as binding and unequivocal as was theirs. Like them, I give my name unto the world to witness unto the world of that which I have seen, and like them, I lie not, God bearing witness of it.

I suppose one could read the quote above cynically to mean that Elder Holland said he didn’t do any of these things because they never actually happened, but I don’t believe for a second that was his intended meaning. It seems this passage again demonstrates Elder Holland’s belief that these were actual historic events. But is that the equivalent of saying that those Latter-day Saints who do not share that belief are “deceived”? I personally don’t think so, because when he referred to Latter-day Saints being “deceived” about the Book of Mormon earlier in his remarks, he did so in the context of identifying those who deny the Book of Mormon’s divinity. Moreover, if at any point in his talk Elder Holland intended to say that faithful Latter-day Saints must believe the Book of Mormon is a literal historical account of real people, he could easily have just said so. For example, he could have easily testified to the Book of Mormon’s “historical truthfulness” or “historical authenticity” but instead, he chose to testify of its “divinity” and “eternal truthfulness.”

Elder Holland concluded with his personal testimony of the Book of Mormon:

I want it absolutely clear when I stand before the judgment bar of God that I declared to the world in the most straightforward language I can summon, that the Book of Mormon is true, that it came forth the way Joseph said it came forth, and was given to bring happiness and hope to the faithful in the travail of the last days. My witness echoes that of Nephi, who wrote part of the book in his last days, “hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, . . . and they teach all men that they should do good. And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day.

Remember this declaration by Jesus himself: “Whoso treasureth up my word shall not be decieved.” And in the last days, neither your heart nor faith will fail you. Of this I earnestly testify, in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen

Once again, a Latter-day Saint who ascribes to the Inspired Fiction theory would have no problem echoing Elder Holland’s testimony that the Book of Mormon is “true” any more than the average LDS apologist would bristle at the suggestion that that the parables of Jesus, or the Book of Abraham or the Joseph Smith”translation” of the Bible, are “true”–even though those are all recognized by LDS apologists as potentially being divinely-inspired fiction and not literal translations of actual historical records in Joseph’s possession.

Finally, I can’t help noting what I feel must have been carefully chosen wording by Elder Holland in saying that the Book of Mormon “came forth the way Joseph said it came forth.” This language struck me because it reminded me of a passage in an official Church text book used in CES Institute and BYU Religion classes, Church History in the Fullness of Times:

Little is known about the actual process of translating the record, primarily because those who knew the most about the translation, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, said the least about it. Moreover, Martin Harris, David Whitmer, and Emma Smith, who assisted Joseph, left no contemporary descriptions. The sketchy accounts they recorded much later in life were often contradictory.

The Prophet was reluctant to give the details about the translation. In a Church conference held 25-26 October 1831 in Orange, Ohio, Hyrum requested that a firsthand account of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon be given. But the Prophet said, “It was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.” Joseph explained in an open letter to a newspaper editor in 1833 the heart of the matter, but he gave few particulars, stating that the Book of Mormon was “found through the ministration of an holy angel, and translated into our own language by the gift and power of God.” (Church History in the Fullness of Times, p. 58, Church Education System, 1993.)

This passage raises some interesting questions: Why did Joseph and Oliver say so little about the method of translation of the Book of Mormon? Why was Joseph Smith “reluctant to give the details about the translation”? When Joseph Smith’s own brother Hyrum, who obviously believed in the Book of Mormon, asked Joseph to give a firsthand account of its coming forth to a Church conference, why did Joseph answer that “[i]t was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon”? Why did Joseph stick to generalities about the Book of Mormon being translated “by the gift and power of God”?

Elder Holland’s fervent testimony that the Book of Mormon “came forth in the way Joseph said it came forth” takes on an interesting meaning when examined in the context of these statements. It seems he too was testifying, in general terms, that the Book of Mormon came forth “by the gift and power of God,” which is a statement that adherents to the Inspired Fiction theory can fully agree with.

So what do you think? Did Elder Holland intend to denounce the Inspired Fiction theory along with all other non-traditional theories about its orgins, or did he, consistent with his words in the first quote above, intentionally and carefully avoid it to provide room within the Church for those for whom the Inspired Fiction theory serves as a lifeline that keeps them tethered to the Church?

“Evidence from accounts of some early meetings and conferences indicates that many of the New England leaders of the Church felt that the membership should be directly involved in decision-making meetings, including making motions on policy issues, following standard parliamentary procedure for public meetings, and voting to finalize decisions”[2][3].  Bushman argues that one unique feature of Mormonism was that revelation and governance came through councils, and this implied Common Consent [4].  Many of the revelations included in the D&C were written in and through Council meetings and then accepted by Common Consent [5].  It seems two converging cultures have emerged from this Brigham Young Mantle experience.

As Jan Shipps is famous for saying, we can distinguish between the ‘Mountain Saints’ and the ‘Prairie Saints’.  For the Mountain Saints “as the Church grew and as new converts required greater organization, it was not possible to maintain a simple democracy where each member had equal access either to power or to revelation for the group as a whole.” [6].  But this was not a necessity, for the Prairie Saints have maintained a strong democratic culture to their religion.  One example Jan Shipps cites is a situation where the RLDS (as it was then called) wanted to publish a revised version of the Book of Mormon.  When it was ready they took the decision to a General Conference and the ideas was rejected by the membership[7].

Bonner Ritchie has written that “Security religion provides refuge. It builds an ecclesiastical wall which protects from the onslaught of questions and doubts and decisions. Growth religion, on the other hand, forces its adherents to grow, to accept responsibility to assume the burden of proof, to move beyond extrinsic constraints”[8].  Bonner Ritchie argues that we need both types or religion and that the tension between them needs to be managed.  It appears to me that how we use Common Consent is one way of utilising this tension between Growth and Security Religion.  But how could this be more fully incorporated into our Church practice?

My thinking here is that this should work on a Local and Church-wide level differently and should utilise changing mechanisms.  Moreover it seems that we should distinguish between those matters that are up for debate and those which might not be.  It seems that some votes like sustaining our leaders might not be times for debate and discussion while maybe decisions of Church policy, like the consolidated meeting schedule, might be discussed.  At a Church-wide level, what decisions could be open to discussion and even for a dissenting vote?  In addition, at a Local level are there decisions that should be open for discussion rather than just made in small council meetings?  Would this shift re-create some of the elements of Growth religion that Ritchie supports.  I am not saying that every decision should be made by Common Consent, I think this would be impractical and would negate some of the good Security religion practices that the ‘Sustaining Vote’ Common Consent provides for the Church.

The second area that I am interested in, is how we, as a Church, relate to Common Consent.  Here are two statments regarding the practice: “The Church has a right to reject or approve of revelations… Before a revelation can be accepted by the Church, as a law, it must in some form or other be presented to the Church and accepted by the Church” [9]. Interestingly Apostle Taylor (who was removed from his position for practicing polygamy after the Manifesto, explained that he never sustained the Manifesto when it was presented and therefore was not required to be obedient to that principle.  Contrastingly, George Q. Cannon has said “It seems nonsensical that the Prophet of God could not deem the revelations he received authentic until they had the approval of the different quorums of the Church” [10].  So what is the role of Common Consent, is it supposed to be a test for the membership as to whether they follow their leaders or is it intended to a mechanism to work as a check/balance to ensure the Church is on course?

My Questions again:

What was intended by the principle of Common Consent?

Could the principle be used to encourage greater ownership and growth?

Is it possible to have two types of Sustaining Vote, one with discussion and one without?  Then, if we did have votes with discussion what topics should or should not be covered?

What is the role of Common Consent in the Church: is it a test of obedience, is it an a cceptance of a Covenant, it is a democratic principle of support or is it something else all together?

Notes:

1. Leonard J. Arrington, Brigham Young: American Moses [Urbana & Chicago, IL.: University of Illinois Press, 1986] p. 113-7.

2. Common Consent in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1-4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 297.

3. Donald Q. Cannon and Lyndon W. Cook, eds., Far West Record: Minutes of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1830-1844 [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1983], 9.

4. Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling [ New York: Vintage, 2007] p. 252.

5. Robert J. Woodford, How the Revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants Were Received and Compiled in Ensign, [January 1985]

6. (John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks, eds., By Study and Also by Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley on the Occasion of His Eightieth Birthday, 27 March 1990, 2 vols. [Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book Co., Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1990], 1: 164.)

7. Jan Shipps, Prophets and Prophecy at Sunstone

8. J. Bonner Ritchie, The Institutional Church and the Individual in Sunstone [Salt Lake City, UT.: Sunstone Education Foundation, ], p. 101.

9. Wilford Woodruff, cited in Von Wagoner et al, The Lectures on Faith: A Case Study in De-canonization in Dialogue, 1987, vol. 20, no. 3,  74.

10. George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth: Discourses and Writings of President George Q. Cannon, selected, arranged, and edited by Jerreld L. Newquist [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1987], 258.

General Conference must be coming this weekend.

Twice a year, I can’t help formulating hopes and expectations, or making predictions about what we might hear in the next General Conference. There are a few things that are givens. We can expect to hear spiritual messages that transcend the issues discussed most often on LDS blogs. We can expect to hear speakers relate sincere, heart-felt experiences that bring comfort to those who are struggling with loneliness, loss, sickness, guilt, or feelings of inadequacy. Those are messages I know I can expect to hear every conference.  But the anticipation that slowly builds in my mind over the couple weeks before Conference is whether we will hear anything about the issues typically discussed in the Bloggernacle by those for whom the Church is more than a religion or a lifestyle, and who make a hobby out of studying Mormonism from an academic standpoint.

Major changes in the Church have been announced at General Conferences in the past, and when the Ninth Article of Faith tells us that God “will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God,” I can’t help wondering whether any of those “great and important things” will come out this Conference.

I invite you to express your own hopes, expectations, and predictions for this coming General Conference in the comment section below. But before doing so, I’d like to share with you a few of mine.

1. Consensus and Clarity About the Nature of Revelation

I have come to believe we are a bit schizophrenic in the Church when it comes to defining and explaining what “revelation” is, particularly as it applies to revelations received by the Prophets and Apostles.  Some Church leaders and members seem to view revelation as a process whereby God transmits his exact thoughts and words directly to the Prophet, who then passes them on to us without any human interference or input, such that revelations handed down by the Prophets are completely free from any human considerations (e.g. economic, political) in their origin, and completely free from any human error in the Prophet’s perception and interpretation of what he believes God told him.  Some LDS apologists have referred to this version of revelation as reflecting a “fundamentalist” mindset, so for the sake of ease I’ll refer to this as the “Fundamentalist Version” of revelation.  The Fundamentalist Version of revelation is usually presented when Church leaders are trying to create unity and motivate members to rally around a particular program or policy and carry it out without question or challenge. The Fundamentalist Version creates compliance and squashes dissent because if we view revelation as a pure transmission of God’s will devoid of any human imperfections, then members will feel no room to question or refuse to comply, and Church leaders will feel divinely justified in reprimanding and punishing those who do.  A few examples of scriptures or quotes used to support the Fundamentalist Version of revelation are: “whether it be from my mouth or the mouth of my servants, it is the same” or “the Prophet will never lead us astray.”  And when something the Prophet says or does seems not to make sense, the scripture “[God's] ways are higher than [man's] ways” is often invoked, the implication being that if what the Prophet says or does doesn’t make sense, it must be because it is one of those “higher” divine truths, rather than because the Prophet has made a human error.  The Fundamentalist Version of revelation seems simple, clear, and provides a feeling of comfort and safety to people looking for a reliable guide to help them navigate through the perils and uncertainties of the world.  But this Fundamentalist Version of revelation also has a significant downside: it creates an image of Prophets as being men who do not err in their revelations, so when people encounter evidence that seems to overwhelmingly demonstrate that Prophets past and present have erred, this Fundamentalist Version of revelation provides no framework to reconcile those obvious human errors with the belief that so-and-so was a genuine Prophet of God.  In other words, the Fundamentalist Version of revelation creates the expectation that Prophets and their revelations are infallible, because despite the occasional acknowledgements of prophetic fallibility in theory, telling people that whatever the Prophet says is what God says creates an illusion of prophetic infallibility in practice.  As a result, when Church members who embrace the Fundamentalist Version of revelation encounter convincing proof of human error in the statements or actions of Prophets (and if the Internet provides us an accurate glimpse, there are many such people) they become disillusioned and stop believing in the concept of revelation altogether.

However, there is another version of revelation within the Church, one which has long existed alongside this Fundamentalist Version in our scripture and in Church leaders’ statements.  And because it has become so popular with LDS Apologists, we could call it the Apologist Version of revelation.  In the Apologist Version, revelation is understood to be a collaborative process between a perfect, omniscient God and imperfect men with limited understanding who “see through a glass, darkly.” In the Apologist Version, we understand that revelation is a transmission of divine knowledge oftentimes received as somewhat vague “impressions” that can be misperceived and misinterpreted by fallible men who have cultural biases, human passions, political and economic considerations, and pride.  As a result, we hope and expect that revelations will usually reflect God’s will on at least a general level, but we recognize that sometimes those revelations will err in their specifics, or (hopefully rarely) be wrong altogether.  This version of revelation is usually presented in the context of apologetics when responding to uncomfortable evidence that seems to conclusively demonstrate that the statements or policies of past or present Prophets and Apostles have been in error.  Thus, the Apologist Version of revelation is often used to persuade someone that he should not lose his testimony of Joseph Smith as a Prophet because it allows someone like Joseph Smith to inadvertently mix human errors into his revelations and still be a Prophet. In support of this version of revelation, apologists cite the acknowledgments in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants that God’s servants “err” in ways that are eventually “made known” but that their revelations should be heeded nonetheless.  Or we find the Apologist Version of revelation in Joseph Smith’s famous quotes that “some revelations are from God, some are from man, and some are from the devil” or that “a prophet is only a prophet when he speaks as a prophet.” The overall idea presented in this version of revelation is that it sometimes contains human errors, and therefore we ought to expect to find such errors without losing our testimony of Church leaders’ prophetic callings when we do.  Of course, the drawback of the Apologist Version of revelation from the perspective a Church leader is that it causes some Church members to feel free to doubt, question, challenge, or refuse to comply with the Prophet’s purported revelations on the grounds that they reflect the will of man rather than the will of God.  And such doubting and dissent is a hindrance to administrative effectiveness in any organization.

Because I see these two different versions of revelation existing within the Church, anytime the subject of revelation comes up in a talk, either directly or indirectly, my ears always perk up and I listen closely to which version is being presented: the Fundamentalist Version or the Apologist Version.  Overall, it’s my feeling that the Fundamentalist Version of revelation is most often presented in sermons and lessons by both Church leaders and members, with a sprinkling of the Apologist Version from time to time, such as when uncomfortable situations arise where it become necessary to acknowledge prophetic error in attempt to save someone from losing his testimony altogether.  However, I think anyone who has been paying attention to FARMS, FAIR, and the Church’s media and public affairs departments have good cause to believe that the Apologist Version of revelation is becoming more popular and is being invoked more frequently, perhaps in an effort to stem the flow of folks losing their testimonies over troublesome episodes in Church history that seem to reflect human error in Church leadership.  So with the Church’s media and public affairs folks quoting apologists with seemingly increasing frequency, I am constantly curious to see whether and when the Apologist Version of revelation will become the dominant version of revelation presented by Church leaders at General Conference.

Very briefly, four more issues I’m always wondering whether will be addressed:

2. A clearly-worded, official repudiation of the statements made by past Church leaders to support the pre-1978 priesthood ban for African Americans. The policy changed in 1978, but there was never an accompanying clear, official renunciation of the many statements that past Church leaders had made to support it.  Many of those statements are still sitting on Church members’ bookshelves at home.  And when people ask the understandable question of why the ban was ever instituted in the first place, those old statements, some of which are extremely hurtful, are sometimes trotted out by misguided members.  We know a committee was formed to draft such a statement several years ago, and there were high hopes such a statement would be presented at the 20-year and 30-year anniversaries of the rescission of that ban, but it didn’t come. Will it come this Conference?

3. Will we receive messages aimed at preparing Church members to continue to generously donate their time and money to support legislation to prevent Same-Sex Marriage? Or will the negative backlash from some quarters regarding the Church’s heavy involvement in Prop. 8 result in a more moderate approach that simply “encourages” members to do so, but this time without creating a mechanism of administrative enforcement for that “encouragement”? I have heard anecdotal stories about General Authorities saying that Prop. 8 was nothing compared to what the Church will be doing in the future, so we shall see what comes out about that topic in Conference.

4. Clarification about what the “central” components of the Restored Gospel are. Recently, a notable LDS apologist who specializes in Egyptology and the Book of Abraham, Dr. John Gee, gave a talk in which he provided a list of what was “central” to the Restored Gospel.  His list included the Book of Mormon, but excluded the book of scripture that he has researched and defended for so long: the Book of Abraham.  Dr. Gee’s speech prompted discussion about the criteria for determining what the “central” components of the Restored Gospel are, and also fueled speculation about whether Dr. Gee’s exclusion of the Book of Abraham reflected a lack of scholarly confidence in Joseph Smith’s claims about that book of scripture in attempt to establish a “fall back position” where the Church can argue that academic challenges to the Book of Abraham should not undermine anyone’s testimony of Joseph Smith’s status as a Prophet on the theory that the book is “not central to the Restored Gospel.”  Was Dr. Gee’s statement a prelude to a change in the way the Church views, teaches, and uses the Book of Abraham? My guess is probably not; the Church seldom seems to move that quickly. But the Church’s relatively recent revision of the Introduction to the Book of Mormon, which was preceded by an emerging consensus among LDS scholars that the Book of Mormon action took place within a limited geography rather than upon the entire American Continent, demonstrates that these types of issues are receiving the attention of the General Authorities, and that the General Authorities are willing to adjust the Church’s claims about its books of scripture.  So perhaps something is in the works on this issue.

5.  Warnings, admonishments, and clarifications about what the General Authorities view as being appropriate and inappropriate online discussion of LDS doctrine and history. Elder Ballard’s recent encouragement to become involved in online discussions about the Church seems to have enlarged the pool of Mormons participating in the Bloggernacle and other online discussion fora.  However, it seems only a matter of time that Church leaders will recognize that Church members’ increased involvement in online discussions about Church history and doctrine will only increase the likelihood that they will come into contact with uncomfortable information that they otherwise would not have encountered.  Around 20 years ago, Elder Oaks delivered an address in which he warned Church members about participating in symposia and becoming involved with “alternate voices.”  But Elder Ballard’s encouragement to become involved in the world of online discussions seems to have departed from that approach, or to have at least created ambiguity about the degree to which faithful Church members should be involving themselves in online discussions and debates, even with the intent to defend the Church.  Will the General Authorities issue any warnings or admonishments about the “proper” way to discuss Church topics online, or the “proper” online fora to visit?  If so, it seems Elder Ballard would be the most likely Apostle to deliver that message.

Overall, I should say my expectations are not high that issue #2 will receive any mention in Conference.  While I do believe it is possible, it seems the Church prefers to make such statements more quietly in between Conferences, rather than making any sort of dramatic public announcement that will attract attention to an uncomfortable topic.  But I do think it’s very possible we will hear messages addressing issues #3 , #4, and #5.

So, what are your hopes, expectations, or predictions for this coming General Conference?

I’d like to get into some of these details leading up to the Manifesto.  (This is a shorter version–more details are found here.)  I talked about the Manifesto previously in the context of whether the prophet would ever lead the church astray.  It should be noted that the church had been fighting federal anti-polygamy legislation for nearly 30 years, so I think it should be noted that the Manifesto banning polygamy in 1890 was not a spur-of-the-moment quick capitulation.  I’ll be taking my quotes from 2 books: Forgotten Kingdom by David Bigler, and Great Basin Kingdom, by Leonard Arrington.

It was during the administration of Abraham Lincoln that the first federal anti-polygamy legislation passed Congress, but Lincoln wanted to ignore the issue.  With the outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln’s first priority was slavery.  In 1862, Lincoln signed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act which (from Wikipedia)

banned plural marriage and limited church and non-profit ownership in any territory of the United States to $50,000.^[1] The act targeted the Mormon church ownership in the Utah territory. The measure had no funds allocated for enforcement, and President Lincoln chose not enforce this law; instead Lincoln gave Brigham Young tacit permission to ignore the Morrill Act in exchange for not becoming involved with the Civil War.^[2] General Patrick Edward Connor, commanding officer of the federal forces garrisoned at Fort Douglas, Utah beginning in 1862 was explicitly instructed not to confront the Mormons over this or any other issue.

The footnote at Wikipedia is especially interesting.  Quoting from the book, Firmage, Edwin Brown; Mangrum, Richard Collin (2001), Zion in the courts, University of Illinois Press, p. 139, ISBN 0252069803, http://books.google.com/books?id=9AimifP2a-4C,

“Having signed the Morrill Act, Abraham Lincoln reportedly compared the Mormon Church to a log he had encountered as a farmer that was ‘too hard to split, too wet to burn and too heavy to move, so we plow around it. That’s what I intend to do with the Mormons. You go back and tell Brigham Young that if he will let me alone, I will let him alone.’”

If the church had capitulated at this point, I can understand critics who say that the church traded polygamy for statehood.  The church had been applying for statehood for 40 years when it finally happened, and were always ignored by Congress.  In fact, the state of Utah is less than half the size of the original territory of Deseret.  Congress split the Deseret Territory, and created the territory of Nevada.  Congress continued to take away slices of Utah and added them to Nevada in 1861, 1864, and 1866.  Check out this map.  Nevada even became a state before Utah, even though it was created after Utah.

Utah continued to practice polygamy in defiance of federal law for another 20 years following the Morrill Act.  Congress made several attempts to handle “The Mormon Question”.  Leonard Arrington (former church historian) documents some of these laws on page 357 from his book called Great Basin Kingdom.  (Much more detail is in the book.)

• The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862 – passed.
• The Wade Act of 1866- failed to pass.  It would have prohibited church officers from solemnizing marriages, would have taxed the church, taken over the Nauvoo Legion, and sent federal officials to take over all government responsibilities, among other things.
• The Cullom Bill of 1869-70 – passed House but failed Senate.  Plural wives would have been deprived of immunity as witnesses involving their husband.  It would have authorized the President to send army of 25,000 to Utah, and would confiscate all property of any Mormon.
• The Ashley Bill of 1869 – failed to pass.   Here’s an exact quote:  “The bill provided for “the dismemberment” of Utah by transferring large slices of it to Nevada, Wyoming, and Colorado.”
  
• The Poland Act of 1874 – passed.  Gave federal attorney general and federal jurisdiction  over criminal, civil and chancery (equity) cases in Utah.
• The Edmunds Act of 1882 – passed.  Quoting from page 358, the act

“put teeth” in the 1862 law and attempted to eliminate the Mormon Church as a power in Utah by vesting the political machinery of the territory in federal non-Mormon appointive officers.  Specifically, the Edmunds Act provided heavy penalties for the practice of polygamy: defined cohabitation with a polygamous wife as a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $300, by imprisonment not to exceed six months, or both; declared all persons guilty of polygamy or cohabitation incompetent for jury service; and disfranchised and declared ineligible for public office all persons guilty of polygamy or unlawful cohabitation…all elective offices were declared vacant…persons professing belief in polygamy or cohabitation as a religious principle, whether or not proved guilty of their practice, were ineligible to vote and to hold public office…in the first year of its existence it had excluded some 12,000 men and women from registration and voting.

when, on March 3, 1885, the Supreme Court denied  Clawson’s appeal and upheld the constitutionality of the law, territorial officials commenced the intensive prosecution of Mormon leaders in Utah and elsewhere known as “The Raid.”

Polygamous marriage being difficult to establish in the courts, the most common charge against the Mormons what of unlawful cohabitation, punishable by a $300 fine or six months in jail, or both.

…

There were 1,004 convictions for unlawful cohabitation under the Edmunds Act between 1884 and 1893, and another 31 for polygamy, but these hardly measure the magnitude of the effect of the Act upon Mormon society.  The period from 1885 to 1890 was marked by intensive “polyg hunts” for “cohabs.”  Officials of the church made a grave decision to fight each and every charge under the law.  Having taken sacred covenants to remain true to their wives “for time and all eternity,” they regarded it as unthinkable that they should desert these women in order to avoid punishment provided in the law of Babylon.  Accordingly, when it became clear early in 1885 that rigorous enforcement and interpretation of the law were to be held constitutional, church leaders–nearly all of whom had one or more plural wives–went “underground.”

…page 360

With almost all leaders of Latter-day Saint communities in prison or in hiding, business establishments were abandoned, or were kept in operation by inexperienced wives and children.  The ownership of the co-operatives drifted into the hands of a few individuals and eventually were converted into private enterprises.  Those United Orders which had survived until this period were discontinued.  There were no further meetings of Zion’s Central Board of Trade.  Almost every business history, in short, shows stagnation; almost every family history records widespread suffering and misery.  Above all, the church, as prime stimulator, financier, and regulator of the Mormon economy, was forced to withdraw from participation in most phases of activity.  The Raid, in other words, was a period of crippled group activity of every type, of decline in cooperative trade and industry–a period when, above all, church economic support was essential but not forthcoming–a period when planning would have saved much, but when planners dared not plan.

A more despairing situation than theirs, at that hour, has never been faced by an American community. Practically every Mormon man of any distinction was in prison, or had just served his term, or had escaped into exile.  Hundreds of Mormon women had left their homes and their children to flee from the officers of the law; many had been behind prison bars for refusing to answer the questions put to them in court; more were concealed, like outlaws, in the houses of friends…Old men were coming out of prison, broken in health.

The Edmunds-Tucker Act

Nevertheless, the Edmunds Law was unable to force a change in the attitude of Latter-day Saint authorities. It was an unwilling cross, but one which the create majority of members seemed prepared to bear rather than yield on what they regarded a religious principle.  Congress therefore moved almost immediately to increase the pressure, and after considering several proposals during a number of sessions, adopted, on February 19, 1887, an amendment to the 1862 law known as the Edmunds-Tucker Act.  Enacted into law without the signature of President Grover Cleveland, this “Anti-Polygamy Act,” as it was entitled, amended the 1862 law to provide as follows:

1.  That the Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, insofar as it had, or pretended to have, any legal existence, was dissolved.  The United States Attorney General was directed to instituted proceedings to accomplish dissolution.

2.  That the Attorney General institute proceedings to forfeit and escheat all property, both real and personal, of the dissolved church corporation held in violation of the 1862 limitation of $50,000, which was reaffirmed.  The property was to be disposed of by the Secretary of the Interior and the proceeds applied to the use and benefit of the district schools of Utah.

The books continues on, with 3 more items, including the abolition of women suffrage.  (Utah was the first or second state to allow women to vote–quite progressive, eh?)  Continuing from page 361,

The Edmunds-Tucker Act was a direct bid to destroy the temporal power of the Mormon Church.  Congressional leaders reasoned that the church would have to yield on the principle of plural marriage or suffer destruction as an organization of power and influence.  Church leaders did not see the matter in this light, however.  They believed (and were supported in this belief by several constitutional lawyers of national reputation) that several features of the Edmunds-Tucker Act were unconstitutional.  They further declared that they could not revoke the principle of polygamy:  Only God could do that; and, if He so decided, He would do so by direct revelation to the church–not by prohibitory national legislation.

The book details how many properties, including the Tithing Office, were placed or sold into private church members and/or stake hands, and hidden as much as possible.  A series of legal battles ensued as federal officials tried to track down church assets.  However, the government did uncover many of these transactions, and took control of the assets.  Arrington goes into great detail about many of these trials.  A trustee was appointed, and he charged enormous fees to maintain records of these properties.  He was removed later, but many of the church properties were squandered as payment for his services.

In January 1889, the church challenged the constitutionality of the confiscated properties, but lost again in the Supreme Court.  From page 375, the majority Supreme Court opinion read,

“Under these circumstances we have no doubt of the power of Congress to do as it did.”

However, the opinion was not unanimous.  Chief Justice Fuller and associate justices Field and Lamar

wrote a short but vigorous dissent based on the States’ Rights doctrine which had reached its farthest in the Dred Scott decision.  Wrote the Chief Justice:

In my opinion, Congress is restrained, nor merely by the limitations expressed in the Constitution, but also by the absence of any grant of power, express or implied in that instrument….  If this property was accumulated for purposes declared illegal, that does not justify its arbitrary disposition by judicial legislation.  In my judgment, its diversion under this Act of Congress is in contravention of specific limitations in the Constitution; unauthorized, expressly or by implication, by any of its provisions; and in disregard of the fundamental principle that the legislative power of the United States, as exercised by the agents of the people of this Republic, is delegated and not inherent.

From page 377,

The second effect of the Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the Edmunds-Tucker Act was the church “Manifesto” proclaiming an end to the performance of plural marriage.

The Supreme Court decision on May 19, 1890 was nearly the final blow.  David Bigler, author of Forgotten Kingdom page 354 outlines an even more ominous problem.

What made this ruling truly ominous was the appointment two months later of Henry W. Lawrence, a leader of the Godbeite schism, as receiver of church property.  He replaced the moderate former U.S. marshal Frank H. Dyer, who had earlier agreed to keep hands off the church’s temples under the provision of the law that exempted buildings used exclusively for “the worship of God.”  The Utah Supreme Court had approved this determination.  Now Lawrence and U.S. attorney Charles Varian, reappointed in 1889 by President Harrison, made it known they intended to overturn the agreement on the ground that temples in Logan, St. George, and Manti did not qualify for exemption since they were not places of public worship.  If upheld, this move would lead to confiscation of the church’s holiest places, where its most sacred ordinances were performed, including marriages.

Arrington writes in Great Basin Kingdom on page 355 that Church president Wilford Woodruff wrote in his journal on Sept 25, 1890,

“I have arrived at a point in the history of my life as the president of the Church…where I am under the necessity of acting for the temporal salvation of the church.”  On that date, just four months after the fateful decision of the Supreme Court, President Woodruff issued the “Official Declaration” which proclaimed the end of polygamy among the Mormons:

Inasamuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.

In the October 6 session of the general conference of the church, the congregation “unanimously sustained” this declaration as “authoritative and binding.”  Polygamy no longer had official sanction.

Forgotten Kingdom adds additional detail here.  From page 356,

While many treated the manifesto with skepticism, one who took it at face value was the magistrate who had sent more men to prison for violating  the marriage laws than anyone else.  The day after it was sustained, Judge Charles Zane on October 7 said that he would record the church “opposed to polygamy hereafter, unless something happened to change my opinion,” and he began only to fine violators, but not impose prison time.

Arrington, author of Great Basin Kingdom concurs discusses the issue of statehood on page 377,

The Manifesto declaring an end to officially sanctioned plural marriages also enabled the Mormons to achieve the goal of statehood, which had been denied them for over forty years.  Statehood gave them the prospect of getting rid, once and for all, of the unwanted and unfriendly federally appointed governors, judges, marshals, attorneys, and commissioners who had fought against them since 1852.  As part of the “deal” by which this was arranged, church officials are said to have given congressional and administration leaders to understand that they would support a proposition to prohibit forever the practice of polygamy in Utah; that the church would dissolve its Peoples’ Party and divide itself into Republican and Democratic supporters; and that the church would discontinue its alleged fight against Gentile business and relax its own economic efforts….The Raid had finally culminated in the long-sought goal of statehood, but had produced capitulation in many areas of Mormon uniqueness, not the least of which was the decline in the economic power and influence of the church.  The temporal Kingdom, for all practical purposes, was dead–slain by the dragon of Edmunds-Tucker.

So, what do you make of these events?  Did the church wimp out?  Should the church have defended the temples like the Jews did in the days of Nero?  Many Jews died, the temple was taken anyway and hasn’t been rebuilt in 2000 years.

Posing the Questions on a Personal Level

Since these two bloggers did such a nice job, I will not attempt to address his remarks directly. Rather, I am interested in discussing the address from a personal standpoint. Particularly, I’m interested in how I, jmb275, can understand and deal with his remarks since I clearly do not agree with him.

Let me be very clear here, I do not agree with Elder Hafen’s remarks, and I recognize the poor research, logical fallacies, and dogmatic approach to this issue. I understand that it seems to be a step backwards for the church, and I recognize it is not in harmony with some other messages being sent from the church on this issue (see here, here, or here). I also recognize that Elder Hafen was very bold, possibly to the point of establishing new doctrine (resurrection is, definitively, a mechanism which removes homosexual feelings?). However, none of this is what I want to deal with. What is done, is done, and his remarks have been analyzed. I’m interested in answering the following questions:

1. Is this the last straw? Should I simply leave the church?
2. If not, do I have to agree with Elder Hafen to be a member in good standing?
3. How can I categorize, or otherwise deal with Elder Hafen’s remarks?
4. What is my relationship with the church, and does my membership imply my consent for, or agreement with what has been said?

Answering the Questions For ME

• Answering #1. I am not in the business of trying to convince people to stay in the church, or to leave the church. I see great arguments on both sides. However, I have made my choice to stay, and find spiritual nourishment in my choice. There’s simply enough good, to me, in the church, and I am sufficiently attached to it psychologically, and physically (through family) to convince me to remain. If your choice is to leave, then we’re done here and you can move along. Since I choose to remain we will move on to answering the other questions (and since it wouldn’t be a very interesting blog post if I didn’t).
• Answering #2. I think there will be many who would answer “yes” to this question. I believe this is a product of our Mormon culture. Indeed, from my reading of Joseph Smith’s life, I think the very idea would strike against what Joseph said and did! The good news is that despite what many might think, there is nothing in any doctrine of which I am aware that says disagreement with one of the Brethren puts my membership in jeopardy. Certainly I can “sustain” the Brethren, and recognize their authority in the church without agreeing with everything they say!
• Answering #3. It would seem like there are some relatively straightforward answers to this question.
  • Elder Hafen is a man, so we could conclude that his remarks are “the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture.” After all, I have chalked up lots of things said by prophets to this idea. There certainly is truth in this analysis since each of us “see[s] through a glass, darkly”(1 Cor 13:12).
  • Elder Hafen is not the prophet, nor does he speak for the prophet (at least he didn’t indicate that we was). Hence, we can conclude that this does not represent the position of the church collectively, and may not be God’s will.
  • Elder Hafen is using apologetics, coupled with suspect research, all as a dogmatist to draw invalid conclusions. Indeed, rather than examining the evidence and drawing conclusions (the scientific method), the dogmatist already knows the “truth” (has drawn the conclusions) and must interpret the evidence accordingly.

  These are all valid points, and possible answers. But notice that they focus on characterizing Elder Hafen himself, or his remarks. I am interested in something more. How can I understand his remarks, disagree with them, but still respect him and his position?

  For this, I feel I must turn to an attempt to understand Elder Hafen in a Christlike way. Are his intentions good? Does he believe that what he’s doing is right? Does he really seek to hurt people, or does he seek to help them overcome what he believes is a temptation to be conquered? In other words, rather than dismissing his words and analyzing their negative effect on people, I am seeking understanding as to what leads him to make such remarks in the first place. After all, most of us do what we think is best, not intentionally trying to hurt each other, although that effort may be misguided!

  What does this approach buy me? Empathy, and understanding! Not agreement, and not consent, but understanding. It seeks nuance when the tendency is to be dismissive (black), or accepting (white). It gives me the tools I need to avoid letting anger dictate my actions. And, ultimately, at the end of the day, I personally believe that this kind of understanding helps me to transcend my natural inclinations, and use a higher model of human interaction.

• Answering #4. Answering #4 is an important key, for me, in understanding my relationship with any of the organizations to which I belong – church, work, country, school, etc. For me, it is a balancing act. I must sufficiently care for the organization (since I receive benefit from it) to desire to stay a part of it, and desire that it remain intact. But in contrast, I must be sufficiently divorced from the organization in order to avoid the personal pitfalls that come with being a part of it (groupthink, mind control, defending the indefensible, etc.).How do I directly apply this balancing act to the church? I have separated my spiritual growth from the organization! Currently, I find the church a useful mechanism for me to serve, pray, introspect, and otherwise grow spiritually. Arguably, some of this may be attached to being raised LDS. That’s irrelevant to me, as the important point is that I grow spiritually in this particular environment. It also means I can look at Elder Hafen’s remarks and not feel inclined to defend that with which I do not agree. In contrast to the response to #3, this balancing act does allow me the ability to dismiss his remarks (should I feel so inclined).

  Certainly this can be taken to the extreme, and if the church started sanctioning secret assassinations I would be the first one out the door. But I don’t see this type of evil in the LDS church (contrary to what some critics may infer). I love this church, and want it to succeed. But I maintain sufficient distance that I need not accept every piece of doctrine or opinion.

I appreciate what has been said regarding Elder Hafen’s speech by others in the bloggernacle. I make no excuse for the backward step his words seem to imply. However, I do wish to transcend his remarks and take them in stride. These words from Denise Turner in the Ensign a few years back seem particularly appropriate:

Regrettably, there are times when others’ motives are not entirely innocent. This may particularly cause pain and confusion when the offender’s actions seem to contradict the religion he or she espouses; yet even in these difficult situations we are not justified in nursing our anger or turning away from the Church. President Stephen L Richards, First Counselor to President David O. McKay, said, “Does one offense wipe out another? Does weakness in one, even one who has been given a testimony of the truth, justify transgression of the law or failure to listen to its precepts?” (“Encouragement for Repenters,” Improvement Era, June 1956, 398). Our testimonies must be based on Jesus Christ, not on imperfect and fallible individuals. (Denise Turner, “If Any Man Offend Not”, Ensign, August 1998)

Whether your testimony is literal, metaphorical, or you are TBM, non-Mormon, or a middle-way advocate, I think we can learn to understand our fellows better, and while not agreeing with them, can still respect and honor them.

So how do you plan to deal with Elder Hafen’s remarks?

“God knows where the money is, and he knows how to get the money to you,” preached Mrs. Copeland, dressed in a crisp pants ensemble like those worn by C.E.O.’s.

…

Stephen Biellier, a long-distance trucker from Mount Vernon, Mo., said he and his wife, Millie, came to the convention praying that this would be “the overcoming year.” They are $102,000 in debt, and the bank has cut off their credit line, Mrs. Biellier said.

They say the Copelands rescued them from financial failure 23 years ago, when they bought their first truck at 22 percent interest and had to rebuild the engine twice in a year.

Around that time, Mrs. Biellier first saw Mr. Copeland on television and began sending him 50 cents a week.

Others who bought trucks from the same dealer in Joplin that year went under, the Bielliers said, but they did not.

“We would have failed if Copeland hadn’t been praying for us every day,” Mrs. Biellier said.

Err, odd.

While the very concept of a prosperity gospel (which involves sending money to the pastor in order to…gain money back in blessings?) seems insane, it’s probably the idea that people like the Copelands seem to be making this scheme work, yet don’t seem too keen on giving back that wealth that is most interesting.

The Book of Mormon foretells this. In fact, the various “pride cycles” in the Book of Mormon can be essentially summarized as a process by which righteous living does net you economic blessings (so the Copelands and others seem to be right about that much at least) [Does this bother you? TT of Faith Promoting Rumor agreed a while back; even we kinda addressed it], but which also leads to complacency, pride, an unwillingness to freely donate to those less fortunate, and then spiritual hardheartedness (and I’m thinking we can also see this with the various prosperity gospel pastors).

What are some notable scriptures in the Book of Mormon that we can relate? Let’s look at Alma 4: 1-12. Actually, I’ll hone in even closer, on verse 8, 9, and 10.

8 For they saw and beheld with great sorrow that the people of the church began to be lifted up in the pride of their eyes, and to set their ^ahearts upon riches and upon the vain things of the world, that they began to be scornful, one towards another, and they began to persecute those that did ^bnot believe according to their own will and pleasure.

9 And thus, in this eighth year of the reign of the judges, there began to be great ^acontentions among the people of the church; yea, there were ^benvyings, and ^cstrife, and malice, and persecutions, and pride, even to exceed the pride of those who did not belong to the church of God.

10 And thus ended the eighth year of the reign of the judges; and the wickedness of the church was a great ^astumbling-block to those who did not belong to the church; and thus the church began to fail in its progress.

What’s this? So it seems that the pride that comes about from this gospel-prosperity is written to exceed the pride of those even outside the church. This pride also led believing members, who probably felt themselves assured of their righteousness, to persecute those who did not believe. As a result, this wickedness from within the church was a turnoff to those outside the church.

OK, so I actually admit…this topic may have been a ruse. I don’t know or care much about Kenneth Copeland. I do know that he is not setting a good or admirable example for nonbelievers, and as a result he is tarnishing the Christian brand.

But what I got from this scripture wasn’t about them. It was about us. It wasn’t about their megachurch. It was about our church. Tylee85 didn’t need to pull up Korihor to find a suitable example. Others have suspected it.

When I think about things that don’t invite me to continue a conversation, Alma 4 actually hits it rather well. And yet too often I see members whose prides, whether its their pride in their material possessions or their pride in the gospel they have, serve as stumbling-block. Sometimes, I think members read so much about the material kind of pride that they forget that pride can be ideological too. It can lead to persecuting those who “do not believe according to their will and pleasure.”

But how do we avoid this, whatever our wills and pleasures are? The scriptures (and reality) aren’t so promising, with an almost reliable fall into pride (remember: the scriptures really don’t end on a happy note as to the fate of the Nephites.) It’s like we can’t (or shouldn’t) handle prosperity, yet we still attract it. It’s a lesson we keep failing, after which we whiz through our remedial courses, come to this lesson and fail it again.

But there was another curious (if bold) comment he had made…he points out how he feels in certain areas he hasn’t earned his morals, and that many members aren’t “earning” their morals. If one isn’t truly “earning his morals” from following guidance like the Word of Wisdom or the Law of Chastity, then how do we avoid or move past simply practicing a modern and vain form of legalism?

The meaningful part for this discussion was:

I worry that Brigham Young’s fears may be prophetic – the LDS Church cannot stand wealth. It cannot withstand success. We have grown fat and complacent in our certainties and blessings. We have taken our moral rightness for granted. We have taken our status as chosen people for granted.We have been given a pearl of great price, and thus far, we seem content to use it as a paperweight.

That is the fundamental flaw with Mormon fundamentalism. It’s smug. It’s prideful. It’s complacent. It takes it’s own blessed status with God for granted…

The trouble with the “cultural conservative” view in Mormonism…is not that they advocate for strong morals. The problem is that they really did nothing to earn those morals.

I never slept with any woman before my wedding night. But, while I am grateful for that, I take no moral self-satisfaction from it. The truth is, I didn’t have sex with girls before then because I was raised not to. And frankly, I was too shy as a teenager to ever get to the point with a girl where sex was even a possibility. I earned no right to feel smug about my “purity” as opposed to the drunk frat boys I kept hearing about. What did I earn? What basis for pride on the issue did I ever have?

But modern Mormon culture takes exactly this position. The modern generation of Mormons rest on laurels they have not earned, tout morals that are not truly theirs, and pray to a God that they cannot know – because their preconceptions keep getting in the way.

The cry of “all is well in Zion” has gone on long enough. I think I’d like to see some new sermons.

How can one truly earn his morals? I mean, obviously, a drunk frat boy who converts will see the clear distinction between his past and present life (and the hope is that he’ll feel he’s moved “up”)…but that’s it wouldn’t be safe to say that all of the BIC youth should be shuffled into big sin just to show them what it’s like.

Or is the point simply that we shouldn’t take moral self-satisfaction anyway? After all, if we’re all counseled to be humble, isn’t it silly to dash all that away by being proud of having the Gospel when instead one should remain humble to have it?

And relating to that legalism thing…are we fulfilling the spirit of things through our obedience to the letter of things? Or is the the case that unearned morals still obstruct our view of trying to show true charity to others?

Do you think Seth is on to something, or is he just an angry, angry man?

The reason I highlight this is because there are certain callings within the Church that make it impossible, or at least very unlikely, for you to have if you have been involved in certain activities.  I am sure that these people do not seek for these types of callings.  I highlight this as an apparent ‘inconsistency’ between scripture and practice.  For example, over the years there has been some flip-flopping on the issue of Divorce and being a Bishop.  It seems that with current levels of divorce so high that the Church can no longer not have those people as possible candidates, when in the past they have made that restriction.

Any records of Church disciplinary councils are kept at Church headquarters (they are destroyed after a short-time in the local areas) presumably so that callings that need to be ratified by the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve can check to see if there are any issues.  Further if an individual commits some sins then these become annotated permantly on your membership record.  An example here is being involved in child abuse or pornography.  This means that you cannot have callings with children.

How far then does forgiveness go?

Are there cases when this type of policy is justifiable?  If so which?

If we believe in true repentance why does the Church need to check their past, presumably because they want to see if they are likely to do something again in the future?  Is this faulty reasoning?

Bercot was raised as a Jehovah’s Witness but left over differences about Biblical interpretation, and subsequently became an Evangelical Christian. However, he had doubts about some Evangelical doctrines as well, such as the idea of eternal security (once saved, always saved), and remained convinced the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ belief in pacifism was correct.

Based on the fact that the pre-Nicene Church Fathers were the closest in time and place to the Apostles, Bercot reasoned that present-day disputes over scriptural interpretation could similarly be resolved by examining the writings of the pre-Nicene Church Fathers to determine how they interpreted and applied scripture. (These pre-Nicene Church fathers lived anywhere between 50 and 325 A.D.) Bercot’s legal training taught him to seek out the primary sources containing the writings of the pre-Nicene Church Fathers, rather than relying on modern treatises that often present sixth or seventh-hand accounts of what the Early Christians supposedly believed and practiced.

At the conclusion of his research, Bercot published a ten-volume collection of the Ante-Nicene Fathers‘ writings, the most comprehensive collection of primary sources available in English. Bercot then compared what he learned about pre-Nicene Christianity to mainstream Evangelical Christianity, formed his own publishing company, and published his summarized findings and analysis in Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up.

Mormons might be interested to know that Bercot’s research into the Early Christian Church demonstrates that the LDS Church today shares many of the doctrines of the Early Church, including:

• A concept of salvation that stresses the importance of both faith and obedience. As Bercot puts it: “The early Christians believed that salvation is a gift from God but that God gives His gift to whomever he chooses. And He chooses to give it to those who love and obey him.” (Emphasis in original.) According to Bercot, the mainstream Evangelical interpretation of “saved by grace” actually originated with St. Augustine after the Nicene Creed.
• That a person, once saved, could fall from grace and lose his salvation through disobedience.
• That salvation depends on a person’s correct exercise of his free will, rather than being predestined arbitrarily and irrevocably by God.
• That baptism actually effectuates a remission of sins, rather than simply being a sign of outward commitment.
• That unbaptized infants who died before baptism could still be saved, as well as other good and noble people who died without baptism.
• That Christians should observe the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper weekly.

However, Mormons might also be interested to know that, according to Bercot, the Early Christians held additional beliefs and practices that may be waning or absent from Mormonism:

• Early Christians had no belief resembling the modern “health and wealth” gospel that physical health and safety, or material prosperity, are blessings for righteous living. Rather, the Early Christians lived in material simplicity, striving to have all things in common and giving to the poor to the point of joining others in their poverty.
• Early Christians believed in separating themselves from the world as much as possible, going so far as to abstain from politics and the legal system, refusing to take oaths, and abstaining from the popular amusements of the day.
• Early Christians rejected capital punishment and even refused to assist in prosecuting someone for a capital offense. Similarly, Early Christians rejected war and refused to serve in the military. According to Bercot, the concept of the “just war” did not exist amongst Christians until St. Augustine.
• Many Early Church Fathers taught there was no special doctrinal revelation after the apostles and that everything we need to know about God had been revealed to the apostles by Jesus.

As Real Heretics crept into Christian bookstores, Bercot was surprised to learn that the book was making a huge splash in Anabaptist (Amish/Mennonite) circles. Bercot’s historical validation of several Anabaptist doctrines like pacifism, baptismal regeneration, separation from the world, and a rejection of the Reformation doctrines of sola fide (faith only) and predestination backed up several of their most cherished views. While Bercot was intrigued to learn that his findings greatly overlapped with Anabaptist beliefs, he found no legitimate basis for some Anabaptist beliefs, such as their lack of evangelism and avoidance of modern technology.

Over the next several years, Bercot struggled to find a religious community that embraced all Early Christian beliefs and practices as he understood them. He formed his own short-lived Early Christian Fellowship, but later affiliated with the Anglican Church because it allowed him freedom to form his own society to promote Early Christian beliefs, and because it is one of the older Christian churches that avoids the veneration of icons. However, Bercot eventually left the Anglicans due to their Catholic practice of venerating the Virgin Mary and espousing the “Just War” theory.

Bercot ultimately relocated to Pennsylvania, where he currently resides, and now affiliates with the Mennonites, who have many, but not all, of the Early Christian beliefs and practices that his research discovered.

The Campbellite-Mormon Connection

As I read Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up, I was intrigued to find a non-LDS scholar giving historical support for so many LDS doctrines. Page after page, I kept wondering to myself: When Joseph Smith set out to restore the Early Christian Church, how did this largely uneducated 25-year old get so many things right? As far as I know, Joseph was ignorant of the writings of the Early Church Fathers. I couldn’t see how Joseph could have had the time or means to pour over old texts written by Polycarp, Ignatius, Origen, Ireneus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, or any of the other Early Church Fathers. Nor am I aware of Joseph ever having quoted the Early Church Fathers in his sermons or writings.

Moreover, I was struck by the fact that some of the Early Christian beliefs and practices that seem to be waning or absent in Mormonism today, such as the strong emphasis on creating a separate society and having all things in common, were found in Mormonism as originally established by Joseph Smith. The differences between Mormons today and the Early Christians (e.g., Mormons’ abandonment of communal living, strong involvement in political and legal affairs, common approval of capital punishment, military service, and strong allegiance to country) all seem to have resulted from Mormon “mainstreaming” over the past century .

In response to the question of how Joseph Smith got so many things right when he undertook to restore the Early Church, faithful Mormons will likely respond that Smith’s success owes to the fact that he was a true prophet of God who was called to restore the true Church of Jesus Christ. However, Real Heretics presents information that many others have cited to provide another possible explanation. After discussing the Early Church, Bercot discusses the eventual corruption and apostasy of the Church, and the valiant efforts of the Reformers to root out that corruption. Bercot then traces the development of several Restorationist branches of Christianity using language that will ring familiar to Mormons:

Whereas Luther had sought to reform the existing church-state establishment, others concluded that such an establishment was beyond reforming. So they worked to restore primitive Christianity apart from the church-state institution. Since the days of Luther, there have been numerous such movements to restore early Christianity. Real Heretics, p. 149.

Although Bercot does not identify Mormonism as one of those Restorationist movements, he does identify one of Mormonism’s cousins, the Stone-Campbellite Movement, as being one of the more successful Restoration movements:

Another movement to restore primitive Christianity sprung up in America in the early 1800s out of the Presbyterian church. . . . Barton W. Stone, a Presbyterian minister, began a movement in Kentucky to restore apostolic Christianity. Stone’s chief objective was to restore the holy living and separation from the world that had marked early Christianity.

In the 1820s, Stone’s movement merged with a separate movement begun by Thomas and Alexander Campbell, who were also seeking to restore primitive Christianity. One of Alexander Campbell’s primary objectives was to achieve unity among all Christians, forsaking all man-made creeds and traditions and returning to the forms, structures, and doctrines of the apostolic church. Real Heretics, p. 151.

Both Stone and the Campbells published journals urging a Restoration of the Early Church in the early 1800’s (The Christian Baptist, Millennial Harbinger, and The Christian Messenger).

Those familiar with Mormon history will recognize the names of Thomas and Alexander Campbell as the founders of the “Campbellite” Restoration movement that Sidney Rigdon, Parley Pratt, Edward Partridge, Isaac Morley, and at one point a majority of all Mormons belonged to before converting to Mormonism. When Sidney Ridgon read the Book of Mormon in 1830 while he was a Campbellite preacher, he converted to Mormonism as did many other Campbellites.  This enormous influx of former Campbellites into Mormonism doubled the Church’s membership in three weeks and resulted in Joseph Smith relocating the Saints’ gathering place by joining the former Campbellite converts in Kirtland, Ohio.

Why was Mormonism so appealing to Campbellites?  Starting in 1823, Campbell’s publication The Christian Baptist advocated an abandonment of all creeds and sects that divided Christendom and a restoration of a unified Church in which the “original gospel and order of things” are present.  (Source.) Alexander Campbell explained the Campbellites’ “distinguishing views and practices” as follows:

They regard all the sects and parties of the Christian world as having, in greater or less degrees, departed from the simplicity of faith and manners of the first Christians, and as forming what the apostle Paul calls “the apostasy.” . .  .

They look for unity of spirit and the bonds of peace in the practical acknowledgment of one faith, one Lord, one immersion, one hope, one body, one Spirit, one God and Father of all; not in unity of opinions, nor in unity of forms, ceremonies, or modes of worship. . . .  

Thus while they proclaim faith and repentance, or faith and a change of heart, as preparatory to immersion, remission, and the gift of the Holy Spirit, they say to all penitents, or all those who believe and repent of their sins, as Peter said to the first audience addressed after the Holy Spirit was bestowed after the glorification of Jesus, “Be immersed every one of you, in the name of the Lord Jesus, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

The immersed believers are congregated into societies according to their propinquity to each other, and taught to meet the first day of every week in honor and commemoration of the resurrection of Jesus, and to break the loaf which commemorates the death of the Son of God, to read and hear the living oracles, to teach and admonish one another, to unite in all prayer and praise, to contribute to the necessities of saints, and to perfect holiness in the fear of the Lord.

Every congregation chooses its own overseers and deacons, who preside over and administer the affairs of the congregations; and every church, either from itself or in co-operation with others, sends out, as opportunity offers, one or more evangelists, or proclaimers of the word, to preach the word and to immerse those who believe, to gather congregations, and to extend the knowledge of salvation where it is necessary, as far as their means extend.  (Source.)

Although the Campbellites and Mormons held many other beliefs in common, the above provides a sampling of the types of similarities that have presented religion historians with a fascinating chicken-or-the-egg question:  did Joseph Smith’s teachings resemble the Early Church’s “original gospel and order of things” because Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God whose authentic revelations enabled him to restore the true Church of Jesus Christ, or because contemporary Restorationists like Alexander Campbell first identified correct Early Christian beliefs and practices that were later adopted by Joseph Smith? In other words, did God use the broader Restoration movement of the American frontier as an “Elias” that prepared Rigdon and eventually thousands of souls to embrace the true Church of Jesus Christ restored later by Joseph Smith, or was Joseph Smith’s success in duplicating many Early Christian beliefs and practices the result of his simply mimicking the beliefs and practices of contemporary Restorationist preachers who got it right first?  Because Campbellite converts to Mormonism such as Parley Pratt reported that they were converted Mormonism because they were inspired by the truthfulness of the doctrine contained in the Book of Mormon (Source), it seems the answer to that question depends on whether the Book of Mormon is an accurate translation of an authentic record compiled by Early Christians living on the American continent, or is a fabrication cobbled together by Smith and possibly others inspired by the Restorationist ethos that pervaded the American frontier when it was published.  (We know where Alexander Campbell stood on that question: in 1831 he denounced the Book of Mormon as a fraud because it all-too-coincidentally addressed “every error and every truth discussed in New York for the last ten years.”)  (Alexander Campbell, “The Mormonites,”  Millenial Harbinger 2, (January 1831): 93.)

Regardless of the answer, Will the Real Heretics Stand Up suggests that the modern Christian denominations that most resemble the pre-Nicene Church’s beliefs and practices (i.e., Anabaptists and offspring of Restorationist movements) are relatively obscure groups that are popularly regarded as being on the outskirts (or on the outside) of Christianity today.

[Pictured below, left to right: Alexander Campbell, Sidney Rigdon, and Joseph Smith.]

And translation accuracy is very important to us. After all, we have an article of faith devoted to it.

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

But even with this 8th article of faith, it doesn’t necessarily preclude the use of other translations. And it certainly doesn’t preclude any other official translations from the church.

I guess it would make sense if we pointed out that the reason we use the King James Version (or, again, a version based heavily off of it) is simply because of tradition and heritage. After all, Joseph Smith was inevitably most familiar with it. Most of the popular translations nowadays (NIV, NRSV, etc.,) weren’t even dreamed of back then.

And as the First Presidency Statement on the King James Version notes (sorry, you have to scroll down this page):

While other Bible versions may be easier to read than the King James Version, in doctrinal matters latter-day revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations. All of the Presidents of the Church, beginning with the Prophet Joseph Smith, have supported the King James Version by encouraging its continued use in the Church.

(Emphasis added.)

Still, it seems like tradition and heritage are insufficient to keep us tied so closely to the KJV. After all, while the King James Version may have an almost lyrical quality that reminds us of Shakespeare, is it the most understandable? To the 21st century reader, no. English has changed so much since King James’s time that even though the KJV’s Jacobean English is called “modern” and is technically readable (the same as Shakespeare — none of these are “Middle” or “Old” English, which are unintelligible languages to us without having a class in them) it still takes time and energy to understand some idioms and to decipher words whose meanings have changed on us since then! Certainly, we learn that charity=love and suffer=permit or allow, but isn’t it strange that we have to learn the language to read our own scriptures in (and those aren’t the only archaisms within)?

Do we forget (or sometimes never learn) of the very humane connotation of the holy “breath,” because “spirit” and “ghost” (which are indeed faithful translations of the concept) don’t quite have those connotations in English? And what confusion must translation cause, since in some instances, words have changed to mean the opposite of what they once did?

I find it very curious what the First Presidency had said before the part I quoted:

Many versions of the Bible are available today. Unfortunately, no original manuscripts of any portion of the Bible are available for comparison to determine the most accurate version. However, the Lord has revealed clearly the doctrines of the gospel in these latter-days. The most reliable way to measure the accuracy of any biblical passage is not by comparing different texts, but by comparison with the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelations.

…Because personally, I would like to see different texts of the Book of Mormon as well, but I recognize we don’t have a whole lot of options here either.

It just seems strange to me…why couldn’t we take the autographs or manuscripts that we have (even if they are copies of copies) and then work on a translation from whole cloth with them? After all, the Evangelicals basically did that with the New International Version (although, that makes it problematic for any non-Evangelicals who don’t want spin). Couldn’t the church authorize a more understandable modern translation of the Bible in accordance to the 8th article of faith so that we could say this one is translated correctly? (or, if translations aren’t the problems but sources are, couldn’t we note that instead, as the First Presidency Statement notes?)

What’s good in a Bible translation? Have any of you ventured outside of the King James microcosm (so the New KJV doesn’t count!)? If you have, was it only for personal study, or did you read along with your family or use in classes? What did others think or say? What do you think when someone relates to you a verse from another translation?

See Also: Nitsav’s post on other translations at Faith-Promoting Rumor. or Jack’s post with LDS-Evangelical interfaith viewpoint.