Good or evil.  Material or immaterial.  Mind or matter.  Spiritual or physical. Even male or female. As this article from the Jewish Virtual Library describes, many of these “dualism” classifications have been used as the bases of philosophy and religions since primitive times. They seem to constantly reemerge after being subordinated to religious and philosophical principles of “monism” (oneness or wholeness).

Duality instead has nothing to do with two different aspects of reality.  In contrast, it focuses on recognizing that a single, inseparable “monist” reality does almost always have two (or more) entirely separable “dual” descriptions.  It is the descriptions of reality that are dual — like two languages used to describe the same concept — and not the reality itself.

In a way, duality was the key to the anomaly that sparked the entire quantum revolution in physics at the beginning of the 1900′s.  Light had been understood as electromagnetic waves since the work of James Maxwell, published in 1864.  The existence of such waves was a mathematically required consequence of the basic laws of electricity and magnetism that had been easily verified in the laboratory.

But as the 20th Century dawned, observations about light were beginning to pile up that could not be explained by any wave model.  Instead, depending only on the question an experiment tested, light seemed to betray either wave-like or particle-like behavior. Look for wave properties, and the experiment would find them; look for particle properties, and the experiment would find them instead. Even notions of everyday common sense would break down to maintain the insistence on light being both wave and particle.

Worse, when the wave experiments grew sophisticated enough to be applied to good-old-rock-solid matter, matter showed exactly the same stubborn insistence on being both particle and wave-like, too.  Everything in the material world turned out to exhibit the properties of these seemingly contradictory physical models.  Reality could not be so neatly compartmentalized according to the mental constructs humanity had available.

For a time, there was even a trendy word to describe things — “wavacle” — until people realized that giving something a new name didn’t mean we understood it any better.  Quantum mechanics, the science that developed out of these early shocks to our conceptual system, has only one reality.  But it can be described in at least two mathematical languages: the mathematical language of waves, and the mathematical language of “matrices”.

The languages were proven to be translatable from one to another before 1930, and so they must always make exactly the same predictions.  But the value in the notion of duality is that — just as some things are easy to say in German that are extraordinarily difficult to say in Japanese, and vice versa — the difficulty in making predictions in one description is easy for some situations, yet impossibly hard in the other description.  And in some other situation, the utility of the two descriptions is completely reversed.  Scientists needed two conceptually different languages to describe this one reality in which we live.

New examples of duality showed up with increasing frequency as people began to appreciate the explanatory power of the approach.  Some of the dualities that have been recognized are even more bizarre than the wave-particle duality.

Many of today’s best candidate theories for “quantum gravity” that would unite relativity and quantum mechanics into a “theory of everything” are collectively known as “string theory”.  They often have a property called “T-duality”.  In particular, T-dual theories predict that a universe, such as ours appears to be – of vast extent and expanding in size – is absolutely indistinguishable from an infinitesimally small universe which is shrinking toward nothingness. The laws of physics would dictate that exactly the same electrical and gravitational signals would enter our brains in either case.

If these string theories are correct, large and small are alternative languages to describe the same reality.  In fact, for all we can tell, we could all be living in an ultramicroscopic reality right now, with our brains arbitrarily choosing to interpret things so that the universe appears infinite in extent.

Then there’s the “holographic principle”. This idea seems to suggest that there are deep connections between modern information theory — the science that underlies telecommunications, including the internet — and the structure of spacetime itself. In addition to the way we describe reality, there appears to be an entirely equivalent way to describe it using one less spatial dimension. There are even reports that an unexpected effect predicted by the second description has been seen in equipment accidentally optimized for its detection.

So duality is not going away from physics anytime soon, regardless of what the philosophers and theologians have to say about monism versus dualism. Might it be fruitful for the theologians to consider what the concept of duality has to add to their debate?

In a way, duality as the existence of multiple descriptions of a single reality, Jesus Christ – “fully man, yet fully God” — is almost too obvious within Christian history. Indeed, the connection between the Father and the Son, with the Holy Ghost thrown in as a third description for good measure, is another application ripe for exploration.

However, what I’d like to explore in this and future posts is the question of whether and where we can replace the notion of dualism between the physical and spiritual in Restoration theology with the notion of duality, so that we can begin to conceptualize the physical and spiritual realms not as separate arenas of reality, but as two translatable descriptions of a single all-encompassing reality.

If the physical and spiritual are governed by principles of duality, not dualism, then things we do on earth may not just affect what happens in heaven, they may actually be the things that happen in heaven, and vice versa.

For example, in LDS theology, certain significant acts are directly sealed — made spiritually real and binding — through covenants marked by rites, while in CofChrist theology, ordinances are viewed as helps in the physical realm for spiritual purposes. But what if reality is put together to be more than these options? What if every moment of life is inherently sealed into the spiritual realm? If every relationship we enhance here is enhanced there. If every relationship we marginalize here is automatically diminished there as surely as gravity drags us toward the earth?

And what, from the other perspective, if the spiritual is acting as well in an ever present way, to seal the purposes of God into the physical realm?

The objective of all who are baptized by water should be to receive the baptism of the Spirit. Otherwise, our baptism is incomplete. Baptism has two parts: baptism by water and baptism by the Spirit. (Please reread these three sentences several times.)

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

He also stated, “The baptism of water, without the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost attending it, is of no use; they are necessarily and inseparably connected” (History of the Church, 6:316).

Speaking to missionaries on this subject, Elder Boyd K. Packer said:

“Missionaries sometimes think they are only to do half the work; they are to teach and then baptize by water, and that concludes their work. In many cases the other half, the teaching about the baptism of fire, never really gets done… Get that idea in your mind with those two fixed together so tightly that, as one, it becomes part of you. Then we will not have the first half done, as is often the case at present, and the other half left undone” (Elder Boyd K. Packer, Ensign, Aug 2006, p. 50).

Elder Packer apparently feels we can do a better job teaching about the baptism of the Spirit.

Before going on, I would like to make sure that the terms being used are understood by the reader. Baptism of the Holy Ghost, baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, baptism of fire, and baptism of the Spirit are used to mean the same thing by some writers. However, others, myself included, feel they mean something related but have important differences. I’ll explain what I mean later on.

To understand what baptism of fire is, we can turn to the scriptures. Before doing so, it’s important to understand what the Lord provided us with when He gave us the scriptures. The scriptures are not like an encyclopedia or a dictionary containing precise, easy-to-understand definitions of terms. Apparently, the Lord intends for His followers to search the scriptures to gain understanding. The scriptures contain revelations, which are the key to understanding the mind and will of the Lord. Revelation is given “line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little… ” (2 Nephi 28:30). This revelatory process, in some instances, can lead to difficulty for those searching the scriptures because each prophet is different in how he understands and teaches doctrine. With that said, let’s search the scriptures for understanding about baptism of fire.

The Savior taught, “Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day” (3 Nephi 27:20).

The Savior is teaching that repentance, faith in His name, baptism, and reception of the Holy Ghost will make His followers spotless at the judgment day. This verse is a general statement of the entire plan of salvation. It contains all of the elements of the fourth Article of Faith, with the addition of the doctrines of sanctification and last judgment.

In another verse the Savior gives more detail about the Holy Ghost, saying:

…“The Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one” 3 Nephi 11:36.

Studying the scriptures this way is like constructing a building with bricks; each brick adds one more part towards the completion of the structure.

Let’s consider other scriptures the Savior gave on this subject, 3 Nephi 12:1, 2, 6.

1. … After that ye are baptized with water, behold, I will baptize you with fire and with the Holy Ghost…

2. Yea, blessed are they who shall believe in your words, and come down into the depths of humility and be baptized, for they shall be visited with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and shall receive a remission of their sins…

6. And blessed are all they who do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled with the Holy Ghost.

In verse 1, the Savior introduces the term “fire and the Holy ghost,” saying He will baptize with fire and the Holy Ghost after we’re baptized with water.

In verse 2, we learn that fire and the Holy Ghost bring a remission of sins.

In verse 6, we learn that if our desire for righteousness is equivalent to hungering and thirsting (food and water) we can be filled with the Holy Ghost.

These three verses of scripture provide additional understanding. However, they also raise questions. One question that comes to my mind, is there a difference between “fire and the Holy Ghost,” and the Holy Ghost? Also, what does a remission of sins mean. Is it the same as forgiveness?

To answer these questions we can turn to the account of King Benjamin found in the book of Mosiah.

King Benjamin was nearing the end of his life and was visited by an angel.  He and his people already knew about the coming of the Savior (having the plates of brass and also the plates of Nephi in their possession, see Mosiah 1:16). The angel provided additional details. King Benjamin gathered his people into a group to teach them what he’d learned from the angel. He taught them about the Lord Omnipotent, Jesus Christ, taking on Himself a tabernacle of clay, working mighty miracles, and suffering death to atone for the sins of mankind. He also taught them the doctrine of the Fall, teaching, “I would that ye should remember, and always retain in remembrance, the greatness of God, and your own nothingness…” (Mosiah 4:11). His words were carried into the hearts of his people by the power of the Holy Ghost to the extent that they were overcome and had fallen to the ground:

AND now, it came to pass that when king Benjamin had made an end of speaking the words which had been delivered unto him by the angel of the Lord, that he cast his eyes round about on the multitude, and behold they had fallen to the earth, for the fear of the Lord had come upon them.

2 And they had viewed themselves in their own carnal state, even less than the dust of the earth.  And they all cried aloud with one voice, saying: O have mercy, and apply the atoning blood of Christ that we may receive forgiveness of our sins, and our hearts may be purified; for we believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who created heaven and earth, and all things; who shall come down among the children of men.

3 And it came to pass that after they had spoken these words the Spirit of the Lord came upon them, and they were filled with joy, having received a remission of their sins, and having peace of conscience, because of the exceeding faith which they had in Jesus Christ who should come, according to the words which king Benjamin had spoken unto them. (Mosiah 4:1–3)

The people of King Benjamin were a righteous people. They were described as “a diligent people in keeping the commandments of the Lord” (Mosiah 1:11), and a “highly favored people of the Lord” (Mosiah 1:13). They had constructed a temple (Mosiah 1:18), and there were many holy men among them (The Words of Mormon 1:17). Yet, prior to the experience recorded above, most or all of them had not received a remission of their sins! They had been baptized with water, but not with fire and the Holy Ghost.

Prior to this experience, the people of Benjamin were much like church members today: they had faith in Jesus Christ, they repented, were baptized by immersion for the remission of sins, and they received the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Let’s stop here and consider a few things:

As the scripture above teaches, the people of King Benjamin were baptized by the Spirit, receiving a remission of their sins, thus completing their baptismal covenant. I love reading this account. However, it raises at least two important questions:

1. Is this their first experience with the Holy Ghost?
2. Is this their first experience with repentance?

To answer Yes to either of these questions leads to difficulty. How could a people be described as a diligent people in keeping the commandments, a highly favored people of the Lord, and having many holy men among them, and at the same time conclude this is their first experience with the Holy Ghost and repentance? This conclusion runs counter to what the Book of Mormon tells us about King Benjamin and his people.

To answer No to either of these questions requires us to conclude that they already had the Holy Ghost and had experienced repentance. If this is the case, then why did they have the outpouring of the Spirit recorded in Mosiah 4:1–3?

The advantage of blogging the SS lessons instead of teaching them is that I get to cover the chapters that are totally skipped by correlation. (This one [Joshua 5] probably for good reason, but it deserves a mention SOMEWHERE.)

Everyone knows that good Jews are circumcised. God instituted the covenant with Abraham, and faithful Jews have been performing this ordinance on their 8-day-old males ever since, right?

WRONG!

Immediately after Israel crossed the Jordan into the Promised Land under their new leader, Joshua, they were given a commandment. They were told to again circumcise the entire company of the children of Israel.  This was necessary because none of the people who were born during the 40 years in the wilderness had been circumcised.  All the males who left Egypt over the age of 20 had been circumcised but had died in the wilderness.  Joshua circumcised their children, whom Jehovah had raised up in their place. They stayed at the Hill of Foreskins a while to heal.  God told Joshua, “Today I have rolled away (galal) the reproach of Egypt from you” and thus the place was called Gilgal. Gilgal means “heap of stones” or “stone circle”; it sounds similar to galal (“to roll away”).

Given that circumcision was commanded in the Torah, and also a necessary prerequisite to participation in the Passover celebration, why weren’t the Israelites circumcised during that 40-year period?  I think the answer has to do with Moses’ attitude toward circumcision.

Though Moses was born into an Israelite family, it is not certain that he was ever circumcised as a baby.  At least, it is not included in his birth narrative in the scriptural record.  To correct this oversight, some commentators have even tried to assert that Moses was “born circumcised.”  Whether or not this is true, we know that his sons did not inherit this genetic trait!  After marrying and having two sons in the land of Midian, Moses went back to Egypt with his wife and children.  We read about this incident in Exodus 4:18-26:

And Moses went and returned to Jethro his father in law, and said unto him, Let me go, I pray thee, and return unto my brethren which are in Egypt, and see whether they be yet alive. And Jethro said to Moses, Go in peace.  And the Lord said unto Moses in Midian, Go, return into Egypt: for all the men are dead which sought thy life.  And Moses took his wife and his sons, and set them upon an ass, and he returned to the land of Egypt…

And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him, and sought to kill him.  Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.  So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

It appears that Moses and his wife recognized that the Lord was preventing Moses from proceeding because one of his sons had not been circumcised.  We can speculate that Moses circumcised his firstborn son at the proper age, and that Zipporah was appalled at the bloody act.  Perhaps that was why they decided not to circumcise the other son.  When the Lord chose Moses to lead the nation of Israel out of the land of Egypt, it was necessary that he make a decision: circumcise his son, or die!  Zipporah relented, but was not happy about it.  I think that this incident made Moses very conflicted about the practice of circumcision.  He himself may even have been circumcised later in life, a painful experience!  No wonder he was not strict about making sure the nation of Israel complied with this ordinance while in the wilderness.  But when Moses died and the new generation entered Canaan, a ritual was enacted as a type of the plan of salvation.

Tony Badillo explains the symbolism of the events which took place at the crossing of the Jordan and at Gilgal.  A careful reading of Joshua 4:8-9 shows that twelve stones were taken out of the river and placed on the new land as a memorial, and twelve stones were also taken from the dry land and placed in the midst of the Jordan.  The twelve smooth, rounded river stones symbolized Israel circumcised, analogous to the smoothness of the male reproductive organ after circumcision; a new spiritual beginning in a new land.  The twelve rough stones taken from the dry land represented the uncircumcised male organ; placed in the Jordan to signify death to sin.

Reading these OT passages with our SS lesson gives us the opportunity to reflect on the rich symbolic meanings which lie behind the violent act of circumcision.  I tend to identify with Zipporah on this matter, shrinking from the bloody, brutal deed.  But in the latter-day we are asked to circumcise the foreskin of our hearts, removing our pride and exposing our tender, inner selves to the influence of the Spirit.  We have to be “strong and of a good courage” to do this!   It can be more painful and difficult even than the physical act of circumcision.  As Badillo puts it: “Outer circumcision of the flesh may be done by anyone skillfully using a knife; but inward circumcision of the heart can be done only by the Lord’s spirit , and it is this type circumcision (for subduing the sinful inclination ) that Joshua’s men received at the crossing of the Jordan.”

A worthy Sunday School lesson, even if it didn’t make the manual!

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

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

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

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

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

Here are two stories from my Jewish experience.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Delegation Takes No Action on Human Sexuality Issues: Church Will Continue Dialogue.”

Headline  by John Hamer on BCC on Thursday, April 15, 2010:

“Gay Rights Revelation Added to The Community of Christ D&C”

———-

The two headlines above generally cover the spectrum of opinion about what happened at the Community of Christ World Conference as it completed the process of canonization of a new Section 164 for its D&C. The spectrum of opinions about whether what happened was a good thing or bad thing, of course, runs even more broadly. Indeed, I’m not at all certain that we’ll even be able to see how intense the various “colors” of that spectrum will prove until information about the conference filters down to the bulk of the North American church that maintains no real connection to the World Church in the “Blogitorium”. As in many churches on the Christian left in North America, that membership tends to be somewhat more traditionalist than its leadership.

Nevertheless, I’ll give my view as someone from one part of the peanut gallery, focusing on what was in each portion of Section 164 and the effects of associated legislation passed to begin implementation. A future post will provide a similar analysis on legislation considered by the Conference not specifically addressed by Section 164 and suggest something about the overall direction of the Community of Christ in the future.

SECTION 164, PARAGRAPHS 1-4

President Veazey describes the experiences of meditation, particularly on portions of Galatians 3:27-29, that led him to offer the Section. After commending the church for similarly seeking to discern the Spirit in a structured process that has been going on for well over a year, he makes explicit an understanding of the church and its sacraments which has been implicit in CofChrist theology for a number of years.

“…Instruction given previously about baptism was proper to ensure the rise and cohesiveness of the church during its early development and in following years. However, as a growing number have come to understand, the redemptive action of God in Christ—while uniquely and authoritatively expressed through the church—is not confined solely to the church. God’s grace, revealed in Jesus Christ, freely moves throughout creation, often beyond human perception, to achieve divine purposes in people’s lives.”

The Community of Christ is to see itself as “one true church”, not as the “one and only true church”. How serious is this theological intent was earlier signaled by something I haven’t seen commentators note elsewhere. The first sessions of Conference always feature certain speeches of welcome. One is usually a non-CofChrist speaker. This speaker is often a local Congressman or a Missouri Senator. The speech is strictly non-political even then, but the identity is interesting because trends over time seem to show the direction of the church leadership’s interest.

This year that slot went to the Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon, General Secretary of the National Council of Churches. Kinnamon unabashedly spoke of the Community of Christ having unique gifts that should be seen as adding to bodies such as the NCC, rather than as a body going its own way. Ironically, contacts between the RLDS and the NCC were among the suspicions cited by fundamentalist opponents of the church circa 1970 as evidence of apostasy. Thus, such a speech 40 years ago might itself have been too controversial to occur.

Section 164 then lays out specific instruction (that will be followed quickly by formal administrative policy guidance to become effective by September 1, 2011). These policies will result in acceptance into membership into the Community of Christ upon confirmation by CofChrist priesthood – without requiring rebaptism if the original baptism: a) involved water;  b) was performed by an ordained Christian minister;  and c) as a personal expression of faith in Christ. In particular, we will not require someone to present proof of their baptism or the baptizing minister’s credentials, since that would be impossible in many places throughout the world. This clearly expands the notion of true priesthood authority beyond the boundaries of those called through the priesthood line passed to Joseph Smith.

The phrase “using water” also allows for baptisms done by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling, while upholding the church’s own standard practice of baptism by immersion at the age of accountability. There is also some additional specific guidance regarding the substance of the prayer of confirmation (Baptism of the Spirit) that is now the means by which one moves from being part of the Body of Christ into membership within the denomination. And preparation for confirmation will now be a formal requirement for the ordinance to occur.

Paragraph 3 contains a call for all members to serious consider and live the meaning of their baptismal covenants (water and Spirit). Paragraph 4 ties this call to consideration of the role the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper should play in renewing, witnessing, and amplifying our covenant. (Portions of the preamble specifically warn us to NOT make the meaning of the covenants atrophy even as we broaden the procedures, because of the concern that in some places this has happened with open communion).

This portion of the Section makes the Community of Christ look very Protestant – if you can call becoming more Protestant through modern revelation a Protestant concept in the first place.

SECTION 164, PARAGRAPHS 5-7

These are the paragraphs whose approval generated the widely divergent headlines above. Their actual content is to call attention to “serious questions about moral behavior and relationships” – but to prioritize those questions not simply as they are listed within the dominant culture of the denomination.

“These issues are complex and difficult to understand outside their particular settings because of strikingly different cultural histories, customs, and understandings of scripture. For example, the issues include female submission, female genital mutilation, child brides, forced marriages, and sexual permissiveness. They include cleansing and exploitation of widows, harsh conflicts over same-gender attraction and relationships, and varying legal, religious, and social definitions of marriage, to name just a few.”

More importantly, the Section calls us to see the solutions for these moral dilemmas as arising from an understanding of Christianity as a community that transcends definitions by economic status, social class, sex, gender, or ethnicity. They simply are no longer primary. Relationships are to be rooted in the principles of Christ-like love, mutual respect, responsibility, justice, covenant, and faithfulness, against which there is no law.

Section 164 then extrapolates that these principles require that the church move the resolution of moral issues to the church in the cultures most affected by them rather than let the dominant North American church decide for the rest of the world. Field Apostles, under the guidance of the Presidency, are authorized to call and set the agenda for field, national, or (non-geographical) cultural groups to deal with issues such as those listed above as they feel directed.

Uncertainty about the nature and timing of these conferences is generating the widely divergent headlines about gay rights. First, everyone in the Community of Christ seems to understand that the leadership feels that it must not expose our leaders and members in cultures where discussion of gay issues is taboo. If so, they can hardly move toward expanded gay rights in the United States unless they can find a way to maintain what the government would call “plausible deniability”.

Second, there is a large body of conservative members in the US church (and non-members in society) whose reaction must be anticipated and allowed for. The LDS experience with Prop 8 shows what happens when the church in the US takes any position on controversial issues in the political arena. Many feel the church has moved too hesitantly and will continue to do so; others are likely to feel the church is moving in the wrong direction entirely.

Finally, there are logistical questions. It seems unlikely that the US church has the resources to assemble a national conference on gay rights issues before the spring of 2012 at the earliest. It will take until September, 2011, simply to implement the new conditions for membership.

The greatest sign of movement toward gay rights comes from something in administrative minutia. It is normal for the church to realign Apostolic Fields following a World Conference (our Apostles retire, so there are usually changes in the Twelve). This time a gerrymandered field has been carved out for Apostle Susan Skoor that stretches from Southern Australia to Eastern Canada – and just happens to cover all of the non-US jurisdictions that proposed World Conference legislation expanding full priesthood and sacramental rites for gays. The extension of rights in that Field or in nations within that Field might be granted while maintaining sufficient distance from the World Church (and prying media) to protect the church in cultures hostile to gay rights.

Expansion to the US is much more difficult to do while maintaining any credibility to foreign governments and religious bodies that “this is just local jurisdictions acting on their own.”

Perhaps more significantly in the long run than the particular moral issues – at least from the perspective of this Washington spectator – is the change these paragraphs make in the legislative rights of mission centers to set the agenda for the church. The Presidency immediately ruled 21 legislative proposals that had been painstakingly brought to the conference as out of order because they reflect National or Regional concerns. These rulings were entirely appropriate under Section 164 guidance.

However, the Conference later passed implementing legislation for the field and national conferences that make them “special conferences”. Such conferences operate under different parliamentary rules than World Conference. In particular,  Mission Centers lack the right to place items on the agenda of special conferences; that agenda is set only by the Apostle who calls the conference with the approval of the Presidency. In short, this revelation makes the Community of Christ less democratic and more theocratic than it was a year ago.

SECTION 164, PARAGRAPH 8

Paragraph 8, by contrast, shows the flexibility and speed with which the Community of Christ can move on organizational issues when it wishes to do so. The Twelve and the Presidents of the Seven Quorums of Seventy have been meeting for several years in response to the immediately previous revelation (Section 163) to consider organizational changes to increase evangelistic effectiveness. Paragraph 8 is taken as authorization to make these changes.

Within 24 hours of Section 164 approval, the number of Quorums of Seventy was increased from seven to ten, the additional Quorum Presidents were named, and they were approved by the Conference and set apart to that calling. Jack Bauer couldn’t have moved faster. Clearly, the outcome of these discussions among the leading quorums was well prepared in advance, while they are still feeling their way around the notion of how and when national conferences will function.

Reorganization of the Twelve, while not fundamental, essentially separates the world into 10 Fields for the moment, each led by an Apostle, with the remaining two Apostles focusing on Headquarters-oriented tasks. For the first time, a single Quorum of Seventy will be aligned with the geographic or other missionary focus of a Field Apostle.

SECTION 164, PARAGRAPH 9

The final paragraph of the document is a benediction of sorts, and a challenge that the rise of Zion is no farther away than the willingness of all of us – all the “beloved children of the Restoration” – to overcome our insecurities and embrace a Christ-like life.

“The mission of Jesus Christ is what matters most to the journet ahead.”

“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

CofChrist Prophet: Baptism in Christ Transcends Culture

“5 It is imperative to understand that when you are truly baptized into Christ you become part of a new creation. By taking on the life and mind of Christ, you increasingly view yourselves and others from a changed perspective. Former ways of defining people by economic status, social class, sex, gender, or ethnicity no longer are primary. Through the gospel of Christ a new community of tolerance, reconciliation, unity in diversity, and love is being born as a visible sign of the coming reign of God.”

With these words, the Prophet/President of the Community of Christ delivered to the church for its consideration as divine counsel on January 17 a document that changes the relationship between its sacraments and its people. Copies of the documents are already posted at http://www.CofChrist.org.

Most stunning to readers on the bloggernacle, the document places resolution of pressing issues of marriage, sexual identity and roles, among others, into the hands of field or national jurisdictions to resolve within the context of their own cultures and secular laws. This appears to mean that the Community of Christ will no longer have a world-wide policy toward these cultural institutions, although what local policies will come into place is left undefined. Thus, jurisdictions in which gay marriage is permitted by the culture may be able to move forward with this practice as a sacrament of the church as well, and the church may continue to forbid discussion of the issue in nations where such discussion is taboo.

In addition, persons baptized by water within other denominations who are led by the Spirit to the Community of Christ are now to be accepted without rebaptism into membership upon confirmation following a period of study.

The headlines will probably not be the most important part of the document in the long run. Take a look at it and see what you think.

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 close friend of mine who wishes to remain anonymous recently saw in the shadow of the temple his story follows

In October, I was fortunate to attend the Portland, Oregon, screening of the movie, In the Shadow of the Temple. http://www.intheshadowofthetemple.com The screening was hosted by the producers, Karen Di Millia and Dennis Lavery. Prior to the screening Dennis and Karen spoke for 10 minutes and explained how they started this project. After the screening they took questions and answers for roughly 30 minutes.

Lavery and DeMillia, who are not–and never have been–LDS, originally planned to make a movie about people who had left the religion of their youth. They attended a meeting of the Portland Humanist Society, explained their project, and asked if anyone had such stories they would be willing to share. In the course of discussing the project with members of the society, they were told that who they really needed to talk to was Sue Emmett, who had left the LDS church. After talking with Sue and others with whom she put them in touch, they decided to re-focus their project on the experience of those who have left the LDS church.

They did hundreds of hours of interviews over two years and edited it down to a 55 minute film. The film is very moving–a tribute to those who shared their stories as well as DeMillia and Lavery’s videography and editing skills.

About two dozen people appear in interviews in the film. Each story is unique, but a common thread runs throughout them all. All faced a similar rejection by family, friends and community. Some of those interviewed have left the church. Others no longer believe, but remain active because of family or community pressure. The latter are filmed in shadows, to obscure their identity. The film refers to these people as “Shadow Mormons.” They define “Shadow Mormons” as those who privately do not accept the exacting doctrine of the Church, but publicly profess to be true believers. They are in shadow to protect their relationships with family, friends and employers.

Someone commented to me after the film, “That’s you. You’re a Shadow Mormon.”

Yes, I’m a Shadow Mormon. Maybe that’s why this film hit me so hard. I haven’t believed in over 20 years – most of my adult life. Yet, during that time I’ve paid my tithing, gone to the temple, served in bishoprics and high councils and done all the things that were expected of me. Why? Because I am tied to the church by family and community.

The story of “Grace” (not her real name) resonated with me because it was so similar to mine. Her pain, and anger, were born of all the energy she has given to a religion that she doesn’t believe in. Finding out that the Church was not true was like a death experience for her. Like me, she tried following the Church’s teachings to fast, pray, read the scriptures and yet never felt she received the “burning in her bosom” that is promised in the scriptures.

What of the families and communities of these people? What are their stories, their experiences with loved ones who go through a process of losing belief and leaving the church. Only one person who was a family or friend agreed to be interviewed for the film. The believing husband that was interviewed told how he still loved his wife, even though she has left the church. What about the others? Are they embarrassed to say that the Church was more important than their relationship with the person who left?

The saddest stories, to me, were of divorce caused by one spouse believing and the other not believing. Michelle (another woman interviewed in the film) said her heart was broken that her husband would choose the Church over her. He told their marriage therapist that if she had not been Mormon he never would have married her. “There was more to me than being a Mormon,” she said. “And I thought that there was more to him.”

The dictionary defines empathy as “the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.” We could all use a little more empathy for those around us. I have had several people tell me, “I can’t imagine how a person could leave the church.” Either they need a better imagination or they need more empathy. Maybe they just need to see this film.

One of the questions at the screening–one that Lavery could not answer–was, “How do we get the right people to see this film?” Sadly, many members of the church would not even consider it. (It screened in Salt Lake City in October and got almost no media coverage.) The film does not try to de-convert anyone or disparage the doctrine of the church. It doesn’t assert that someone is right because he or she believes, or that someone else is right because he or she leaves the church. This film is about accepting people regardless of what they believe, and about how we treat those who believe differently than we do. I wish every member of the church could see this film.

Film Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICbylWK-i2Q&NR=1

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

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

I decided to go ahead and do the work.

Here was my rationale:

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

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

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

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

I am well aware of most of the controversial issues (Book of Abraham, DNA, Book of Mormon historicity, polyandry, etc.). Some of them occasionally bother me. Others do not. Although according to statistics I am very educated, I probably could not win an argument defending the church on any of those points. I could not support the church on Prop. 8, (if you want to specifically comment on that, please go here). I will probably never understand in this life why we are discouraged from praying to our Heavenly Mother, or why women are no longer allowed bless the sick. I am sure I could go on, and so could many of you.

I occasionally get asked or read questions like, “If Joseph Smith made claims that were false, how can you believe any of his claims?” “When you line everything up, how can you still logically believe it to be true?” For anyone questioning the faith, or those who have left the church who may be reading this, feel free to mentally insert other questions here. They are all good and valid in my opinion. I do not fault anyone for asking them, nor for being disturbed enough by them to leave the faith. Although my path is different, I wish you the best.

How do I explain my belief and activity in the church? Have I put “feelings” above reason?

I was raised by a saint of a mother and an intellectual yet very spiritual father. Church books lined the shelves: Quinn, Compton, and even Bagley’s Blood of The Prophets and Southerton’s Lost Tribe made appearances. On hunting trips my father would sometimes shoot his buffalo in the name of Allah (in Turkish) so our good Muslim friends could enjoy it with us. As bishop, he helped countless families regardless of legal status, blessed a neighbor’s sick cat, and was a safe haven for gay members to turn to. My parents left their ward a few years ago to attend a Hispanic branch, where they can do a lot more than debate in Sunday School over gospel minutiae. They taught me by word and example that serving and loving others always trumps theology.

As a priest I loved blessing the sacrament. It was probably the first time I felt a significant sense of the sacred–it was intoxicating. I loved seminary and institute, even when I was taught that Darwin was Satan’s answer to Joseph Smith (that one still makes me smile). I often felt a sense of awe watching the RMs come home. I wanted what they had. My father called it “spiritual muscle.” My mission in Japan was the right place at the right time for me, for many reasons. It was the best investment of time I had ever made (up to that point, of course!).

The Book of Mormon has a special place in my life. One experience reading King Benjamin started what became a small series of nearly indescribable subjective positive spiritual experiences, (I once tried to describe what it was like to an inquiring non-member/acquaintance and was mocked for it, so I hold close what is most sacred–let’s just say that a few of them were more than just a “tingling down the spine” or “warm feelings”). I have also felt what I interpret to be the infinite love and patience of God, for me and for all of his children. These “feelings” are as important and special to me as my “feelings” for my wife and son.

I love having a community wherever I go. I generally enjoy responsibilities at church, (currently the strengthening marriage instructor) and I have found that if I’m prepared and attentive, the meetings are usually more than worthwhile. I love General Conference, and agree with the teachings almost all of the time. Some people (both in and out of the church) seem to think that a prophet is either always right or not a prophet at all. I was not brought up that way, and have a difficult time understanding it now. Like Henry Eyring (Sr.) said, I think that prophets are wonderful because sometimes they speak for God. It is for those special moments of elevation and insight that I respect and listen to them.

Certain aspects of Mormon theology also fit me better than any religion or philosophy I know. This will have to be a later post, but marriage and personal growth are two of the most important things in life to me, and Mormonism fits those quite well, (I am definitely open to other views or ideas on this, if you have some).

I love symbolism, and enjoy the temple ordinances–I expect that they will continue to evolve, and look forward to it. I see Christ and relationships in everything in the temple. It can be different, even awkward at first, but looking deeper provides inspiration and insight that is a moving and a stabilizing force in my life. I believe in Christ. He inspires goodness. He is the answer to the question of evil and tragedy and suffering. He unconditionally loves everyone. That is a God I believe in. His revelations are in the Church, in books, in the rocks, and hopefully in my dissertation in a few years. None of those conduits are free from error.

This is not an argument for Mormonism. I am not telling others how they should approach faith, or activity in the church. This is simply how I am doing it. I could not be more logical: Some stuff bothers me, some of it really inspires me, gives meaning to my life and family, and has been the source of experiences (not always just feelings) and growth that I cannot reject. I do not have my head in the sand. I am not plugging my ears and yelling “faith! faith! faith!” at valid and logical arguments against the church’s claims.

Some people may think that if I have concerns or disagreements I should drop the church. Others may think I should try harder to procure some answers for my questions and concerns. I have pondered the first option and tried out the second for a while. In one of the clearest insights in my life, I found that neither option is even remotely satisfying. I believe in the gospel, and I am not an apologist. So here I am, in the church, good and bad, best and worst, inspiring and awkward.

What is your story?

• How do you handle issues that are difficult or perhaps impossible to reconcile?
• What are the best parts of your experiences in the church?
• Why have you ultimately decided to stay or leave? (Please keep these in a spirit of sharing and mutual understanding.)

Do you know of any good related posts (by those who have stayed OR left–again, written with some humility, please). Next week there will be a guest post by a friend of mine who left the church a while back. Here are a few others, from various perspectives:

• Why I Am Not a Disaffected Mormon
• Not ashamed
• The atheist hiding within the Mormon
• I Have Always Been A Pagan

Since my last post was quite speculative and controversial, I thought I’d go for a change of pace and talk about something we’re all familiar with, or so we thought.  The history of baptism is quite interesting, and much more complex than most people know.  Some have questioned the Book of Mormon’s account of baptism which predates Christ.  So, I wanted to learn more about the history of baptism, and came across a concept of Mikvah.

Mikvah is a ritual in Judaism.  I’ve been trying to track down how far the mikvah (or mikveh) goes back.  The Law of Moses talks about ritual cleansing, so it could date back to then, but I’m not completely sure.  Currently, Mikvah is used for several purposes in Judaism:

• by Jewish women to achieve ritual purity after menstruation or childbirth
• by Jewish men to achieve ritual purity
• as part of a traditional procedure for conversion to Judaism
• for utensils used for food.

Baptism seems to be related to the ancient Jewish rite called “mikvah”.  As we know, John baptized Christ, and at that point it became an important ordinance in Christianity.  I find it interesting that if one chooses to convert to Judaism, one must submit to the mikvah as well to complete the conversion process. If you go to this link at Wikipedia, you can see some ancient and contemporary Mikvah fonts which look quite similar to a modern-day Christian baptismal font.

One of the first questions among earlier followers of Jesus was the question of when to baptize. Christ was certainly was baptized at 30. Prior to Christ’s baptism, there is no evidence that he embarked on starting a religion. I think one could make a case that if he had started his ministry at a younger age, he probably would have been baptized at a younger age. His baptism is one of the first events (if not the first) of the organization of his church.

In the early church, it seems there was no uniform age of baptism, and in fact there were two widely divergent views.  One line of reasoning said that it should be put off as long as possible, in order to wash away all sins. Because if one didn’t wait until deathbed, and one later sinned, there could be no forgiveness of sins.  The Emporer Constantine (Appx 350 AD) often gets a bad rap for waiting until his deathbed to get baptized. However, it was a very common practice for early clergy to support this position. So Constantine was actually following the spiritual advice of the clergy of his day.

So using this logic, Constantine’s baptism makes perfect sense. However, it is not always easy to predict when death will occur, so some people erroneously waited too long, which was also a problem.  Since infant mortality was also a big problem, it made sense to baptize infants. It is unclear when infant baptism was first performed, but it could date to this early church period also.  The doctrine of original sin was being developed in this early time period also. Of course, people who subscribed to infant baptism felt that sins could be forgiven as long as they weren’t “major” sins, such as sacrificing to pagan gods, adultery, fornication, or a few other sins.

Then there were some who said a major sin could be forgiven just once. The dispute on this doctrine became quite contentious.  So, as you can see, when to baptize is not an easy question to answer, and really isn’t addressed well in early christian history.

From that point of view, the Book of Mormon position is quite unique with its’ prohibition on infant baptism.  Some people will ask, is 8 years old the appropriate age? According to revelation in the D&C, it is. I don’t have a problem with the age of 8.

I can understand some people’s position, that “an 8 year old can be manipulated to believe anything.” I think that this is a reasonable position, but I don’t think that “9 year olds are in trouble if they die.”  From an LDS point of view, I think the sin of the 9 year old would be “answered upon the heads of the parents” for not teaching the child properly. I really don’t think God is going to come down hard on a 9 year old for refusing baptism.

Is 8 years old too young? I can appreciate why some people think so, but it is not really that big of a deal to me. I think infants are too young for sure.

All devout christians teach religion to their kids, and want them to join their church. There has never been a consensus on the appropriate age to baptize, so I respect any Christian religion’s right to specify an appropriate age.

From a spiritual point of view, I believe it is an inspired doctrine. From a logical point of view, I have no qualms about it. And from a historical point of view, the matter is open to debate.

What do you think?  Understanding that Constantine was following church policy, do you feel it is appropriate to “cut him some slack”?

Late one night in the middle of it all, I considered my roommate. He was a friend of mine and also the Elders Quorum President. It came to my mind to ask him for a blessing, using consecrated oil. I desperately wanted to be healed from this chain of horrible sicknesses, and the prayer in my heart went something like this: “Lord, I know when I get blessings for these things, they usually don’t work, and I might be selfish to ask. But could you just do me a solid this one time? People got healed constantly of much worse than this in the Scriptures. I’m not testing you, I think. I just want to get better.” My roommate then administered the blessing, and, much to my dismay and anger, it didn’t work.

Let me pause for a moment to say that I have a strong testimony in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I’ve testified time and time again that Joseph Smith is a prophet and that the Book of Mormon is true and comes from God. So it’s moments like this that give me pause. I was a little irritated that the Lord wouldn’t just heal my illness. It had gone on too long, I had missed so many days of work, I had spent a lot of money on doctors and even antibiotics for the sinus infection, and I still wasn’t healed. I was having trouble sleeping, and, during the time I had the throat infection, I couldn’t eat solid food, so I was losing weight. It was all awful. I was doing everything I could in my life, I wasn’t guilty of any grievous sins, so why couldn’t the Lord just throw me a freakin’ bone and heal my illness just once? He healed all kinds of people in the Bible, why wouldn’t he heal me? What’s the point of Priesthood blessings if they don’t work?

In my feverish, angry mind, I went over some possibilities, in this order:

1. Maybe my roommate didn’t do it right? He performed both parts of the blessing, maybe I should have gotten two people to do it?
2. Maybe I simply don’t have the faith to be healed.
3. Maybe blessings are pointless rituals.
4. Maybe we don’t really have the Priesthood like we think we do.
5. Jesus healed many people over His ministry. What happened? Shouldn’t we be able to identify His church based on the miracles that occur?
6. Is this really His church?
7. Will the Universe really end someday in a Big Crunch and take us all with it? How can God stop it?

At this point, needless to say, I wasn’t thinking very clearly, so instead of trying to answer these questions that night, in my frenzied state, I decided to just take some Ny-Quil (sweet, precious Ny-Quil) and go to sleep.

Two weeks later, I woke up and went to work just like any other day. I brushed my teeth like any other day. I ate my morning Pop-Tart (brown sugar and cinnamon, which is the best flavor ever) just like any other day. As the dry pastry went down my throat I remembered for an instant that two weeks previously I couldn’t have eaten such a dry food because it would have been too painful, and it was at that moment that I realized I had been symptom-free for at least three days.

I offered up a prayer to the Lord and thanked Him for my health. With a more complete fullness of joy and gratitude than I’d had for months, I told Him that I was thankful that I felt better, thankful that I could go to work without being faint and queasy from lack of solid food, thankful that I could eat my dry little Pop-Tart for breakfast. I felt so good. In hindsight, let me say that it would have been very unusual for me to offer up a prayer such as this before I got sick, and that’s where the lesson for me was.

The purpose of my blessing at this time was to consecrate my illness unto the Lord. There are so many difficulties in this life, and for me, illness is a difficulty because I hate being sick. As a singer, and as a person who relies on food to stay not dead, I hate it when my throat hurts. I hate congestion, I hate having a fever, I hate aches and pains, I hate not getting a good night’s rest. But this time, asking for a blessing in the middle of my illness caused my thoughts to turn towards the Lord, even if they were confused and angry. It was like fasting, but instead of a fast from food it was a fast from health, and when I returned to full health, my heart was bursting with gratitude.

Am I denying that miraculous healings occur? Absolutely not. But God decided not to heal me during this illness, and that’s why I think that sometimes God gives men the Priesthood, the power to act in God’s name, in order to consecrate illness unto Him. To make our illness and affliction holy.

What if we looked at every hardship in this way? What if we saw every blessing of comfort, strength, and healing as a consecration of our hardships, that we might be open to the lessons God wishes to bestow upon us? Most importantly, and on the flip side of all of this, how do we avoid the strange but very possible temptation of taking too much glory in our affliction?

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

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

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

Big Love episode draws criticism from LDS Church

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

Here

Big Love Series to Show Rites from LDS Temples

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

Here

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

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

Here

‘Big Love’ prompts LDS Church response and analysis

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

Here

Please discuss anything and everything.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But am I wrong here?  Am I misunderstanding something?

End of rant.

What the “only true and living Church” claim does assert is that the LDS Church is the only church possessing the priesthood keys that are necessary to perform saving ordinances (such as baptism) that everyone must receive, either in this life or the next, to obtain exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom of God. Which leads me to the question I’ve pondered for years as an active member of the LDS Church: Why would God choose to create a system of ordinances in the first place? Why not simply determine a person’s worthiness for exaltation by looking into that person’s heart and mind?

In the most recent General Conference, Elder Eyring plainly declared: “This is the true Church, the only true Church, because in it are the keys of the priesthood.” (Henry B. Eyring, “The True and Living Church,” Ensign, May 2008, 20–24.) Elder Eyring went on to explain that priesthood keys are necessary to perform ordinances on Earth that are recognized as being authoritatively binding in Heaven: “it is through the Church and the ordinances which are in it that the blessings of the sealing power reach into the spirit world.” In short, what makes the LDS Church the “only true” church is its exclusive possession of priesthood keys, and what makes those priesthood keys important is that they are needed to perform saving ordinances for all mankind, both living and dead. (See here, for example.)

In LDS doctrine, ordinances are so absolutely necessary to one’s salvation that even deceased persons who did not receive them while alive (even if through no fault of their own) cannot dwell with God unless they first accept the ordinances performed on their behalf by Mormons in LDS temples all over the globe. And when it comes to believing in the absolute necessity of ordinances, Mormons put their money where their mouth is. Every year, the LDS Church spends millions of dollars and man hours constructing and maintaining temples that are mostly devoted to performing ordinances on behalf of deceased persons.

LDS doctrine about ordinances raises a number of questions in the minds of many both inside and outside the Church because it presents an interesting case study in the longstanding theological debate between formalism and informalism, legalism and non-legalism, which virtually every religion and church has confronted. While the Catholic and Orthodox churches taught that God must be approached through the church, subjecting oneself to its leaders’ authority and receiving its ordinances and sacraments, the Protestant Reformation challenged the notion that man could only approach God through a human intermediary, and advocated a more direct, personal, informal, non-legalistic relationship with the divine. When it comes to questions about the necessity of a church, divine authority, and ordinances/sacraments, LDS doctrine is very similar to that of the Catholic and Orthodox churches; of course, the main difference is that Mormons believe they are the ones with the divinely recognized authority and ordinances.

Those who see God as taking a more direct, informal, non-legalistic relationship with his children might ask the following questions about the LDS doctrine of priesthood keys and ordinances:

• Why would an omniscient God need ordinances to determine worthiness for exaltation?: Why would an omniscient God who can discern human hearts and minds need to use our acceptance or rejection of outward ordinances administered by men to determine our worthiness for exaltation?
• Why would a loving God limit the availability of his blessings?: If God wants to maximize the scope of his blessings to his children on Earth (which a loving Father would presumably want), why would God limit access to vital blessings in this Earth-life (e.g., gift of the Holy Spirit) by giving them only to those who have received ordinances at the hands of men who currently constitute less than .1% of the world’s population, who are still unable to perform those ordinances in many nations, and who could not be found on the Earth at all for a space of about 1700 years if the Mormon doctrine of the Apostasy is correct?
• Why would God divert his Church’s limited resources away from the poor and needy?: If God is able to judge deceased persons based not only on what they did on Earth, but also by what God already knows they would have done had they continued to live, why require the living to spend millions of dollars and man-hours performing ordinances on behalf of deceased persons only to give them an opportunity to accept or reject a proxy ordinance that God already knows they would have accepted or rejected had they had the same opportunity while living on Earth? Couldn’t the time and money that is spent researching genealogy and performing ordinances for the dead be better spent feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, administering to the sick, etc.?

Those who see God taking a more formal, legalistic approach in his relationship with mankind by requiring ordinances might answer the questions posed above as follows:

• Ordinances are about making covenants. It may be true that an omniscient God does not need ordinances to judge a person’s spiritual worthiness. God might require ordinances, not because he needs them, but because we do. And why might we need ordinances? Perhaps the answer has to do with the fact that ordinances almost always involve our making covenants with God to strive to live according to his eternal ways. As we live as God lives, we become like him. And the first step toward living as God lives is to make a clear commitment to do so.
• Although an omniscient God doesn’t need ordinances, vacillating humans do. As just noted, the first step toward accomplishing something is to make a commitment to do it. If we didn’t have ordinances to memorialize our commitments to God (e.g., baptism), how would we be able to determine for ourselves whether we had clearly and completely made invisible commitments to an invisible God? Might God create a divine legal system of ordinances for the same reasons that humans have created certain legally-recognized ceremonies and transactions, i.e., to clearly and unquestionably signal to their participants that they have undertaken certain commitments and obligations? When we participate in a marriage ceremony or sign land purchase agreements, we don’t have to wonder whether or not we have committed ourselves and agreed to take on certain obligations; we know we have because we performed a marriage ceremony or deed transfer for the express purpose of demonstrating that commitment. Likewise, God might have us perform ordinances so that we can clearly know for ourselves that we have committed ourselves to him, and as noted, clearly committing ourselves to God is the first step toward becoming like him.
• Although an omniscient God doesn’t need ordinances, forgetful humans do. It’s easy for us to make a commitment, but because of our forgetful natures, we often quickly forget what we’ve committed to do. A system of ordinances gives us a structured way to regularly remind ourselves of those commitments. For example, we take the sacrament each week to remind ourselves of our baptismal covenants. Likewise, performing ordinances on behalf of deceased persons reinforces and reminds us about the covenants that we ourselves have made in the temple.
• Ordinances require us to attain, maintain, and measure personal worthiness. Ordinances require both their administrators and recipients to attain and maintain standards of personal worthiness. Moreover, requirements like periodic temple recommend interviews provide opportunities for us to periodically evaluate how successfully we have been honoring our commitments to God. Thus, ordinances create both an opportunity and need to “raise the bar” above what we might otherwise require of ourselves.
• Ordinances create definable moments of serene reflection. We live in a fast-paced world full of distractions. Although there’s nothing stopping us from forcing ourselves to “be still and know that [he] is God,” I think if I’m honest with myself I have to admit that having ordinances, such as the sacrament or temple endowment, create far more definable moments of serene reflection than I would otherwise be able to carve out for myself. A Protestant neighbor stated as much to me after touring an LDS temple before its dedication. He said he had been longing for serenity and reflection at the churches he’d been attending, but that it seemed they were more focused on creating an “exciting” and “energetic” worship environment. He said as he visited the Celestial Room where Mormons ponder and pray, he wished he had some place similar in his own faith.
• Ordinances create human interdependency. The criticism that ordinances create unnecessary and artificial dependence on human beings for our salvation begs the question: doesn’t God want us to have to depend on other human beings? After all, Christ’s ultimate prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane was that we would “become one”. If there were no such thing as saving ordinances, we wouldn’t need a church to administer and receive them. Of course, if we didn’t need a church to perform ordinances, we might opt to create and join one for other reasons. But would we still feel an equal sense of loyalty and obligation to stick with it through thick and thin, at times sacrificing our own preferences and opinions, for the sake of achieving the unity that Christ wants for us?
• Although the number of priesthood holders is very limited, the availability of ordinances is not. Although it is true that very few persons in the world hold LDS priesthood keys (less than .1%), it does not necessarily follow that God has therefore restricted the availability of his blessings to mankind. For example, in a recent General Conference, Elder Bednar provided an example of how a righteous mother helped heal her child with her faith even though she didn’t hold the priesthood. The lesson: most important blessings don’t require someone to hold the priesthood or to perform or receive an ordinance. Moreover, the fact that relatively few people can perform an ordinance does not mean that only a few people can receive it. Vaccines are likewise possessed and administered by a very small percentage of the world’s population, and yet they are available to virtually all who simply wish to receive them. And as time goes on, the availability of ordinances, like vaccines, will increase.
• Ordinances encourage us to feed the hungry, shelter the poor, administer to the sick, etc. The argument that we should divert money and time away from our ordinances and devote them to humanitarian efforts assumes that you will still have the latter in abundance without the former. However, it could very well be that taking away these regular reminders to sacrifice one’s time, talents, and means to serve others would actually reduce acts of charity. There is a demonstrable link between religious activity, church attendance, and charitable giving. Moreover, the largest charitable organizations have religious affiliations. For example, the largest charitable organization in the U.S. is a religious one: Catholic Charities. There is no question that churches, and in the case of the Catholic church, one with a heavy emphasis on ordinances and sacraments, inspire acts of charity. If Catholics stopped spending their money and time building cathedrals and attending mass, baptisms, confirmations, and other sacraments, would they become even more charitable? Or do ordinances serve as regular reminders to perform charitable acts? Moreover, numerous studies have demonstrated a link between the frequency of one’s church attendance and one’s charitable donations. Although I’m not privy to the records I’d need to examine to prove it, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were a similar correlation between temple attendance and charitable acts and donations amongst Mormons.

If you interpret Oliver’s “gift of Aaron” in Section 8 as a divining rod, it makes for some interesting reading.  Oliver’s gift has told him many things (verse 6).  The gift only works for Oliver because of the power of God (verse 7).  If he has faith in his gift, he will use it to do marvelous things (verse 8).  Oliver’s gift is the work of God (id.).

When I first learned of what “the gift of Aaron” might be, my initial reaction was that it was, well, odd.  I mean, a divining rod?  I knew about Joseph Smith and folk magic, but I sort of put the idea aside.  Then, I read the heading for Section 11 which says, “This revelation was received through the Urim and Thummim in answer to Joseph’s supplication and inquiry.”  And I thought, “Whoa.” 

Faithful Mormons accpet that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim and a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon.  He used the Urim and Thummim to receive revelations that became scriptural passages of the Doctrine & Covenants.  Is a divining rod any stranger than a Urim and Thummim?  At least I have seen a divining rod.  I have heard people talk about divining rods.  I have never seen a Urim and Thummim.  And that got me thinking about revelation.

Divining rods and seer stones and interpreters are certainly outside our daily experience, and it is easy to think them odd.  But weren’t they just aids that Joseph (and perhaps Oliver) used for a while in seeking inspiration and revelation from God?  Don’t we all use tangible objects to help us believe and seek God’s guidance?

I have long thought that part of the power of ordinances is their tangibility.  You know precisely when you were immersed in water, and that meant something to you.  You know when hands are placed upon your head.  When you eat the bread and drink the water, it is a signal to your soul (the tangible and the intangible part) that you are seeking for God’s spirit.  When I think about it, I see lots of examples of tangibility as an aid to revelation and faith.

Easton, a commenter at Gospel Doctrine Underground, raised a couple of interesting ideas.  He referred to a talk by Dallin Oaks who said that reading the scriptures can be like a Urim and Thummim.  By that, Elder Oads meant that we can receive revelation through scripture study, not just on the topic we are reading about, but on any topic.  Easton also referred to a statement by Brigham Young that Joseph Smith had taught that everyone could and should have their own seer stone.  I don’t know if Joseph was speaking literally, but I think we all use tangible things to seek revelation.  The temple might be the ultimate example.  Among other things, don’t lots of people who really need revelation and guidance go to the temple because they believe being in a sacred place, a building, will help them find it?

I guess it is natural to think that things outside our experience, like the Urim and Thummim and seer stones, are kind of strange.  But we have a wealth of tangibility that Joseph and Oliver did not have:  sacrament emblems blessed by the priesthood, the laying on of hands, celestial rooms.  All these things help us find inspiration and direction from God.  Maybe God just finds ways to work through the tools we have.

What do you think?  Can tangible things help us get revelation?  Do you have a “seer stone”?  What is it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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