Translate

Saturday, August 16, 2014

Promises

"In the temple we are taught, we make covenants, and we are promised blessings.


(See Mormon Temple Rituals at LDS.ORG)

Joseph Smith said, "...there is to be a day when all will be judged of their works, and rewarded according to the same; that those who have kept the faith will be crowned with a crown of righteousness; be clothed in white raiment; be admitted to the marriage feast; be free from every affliction, and reign with Christ on the earth, where, according to the ancient promise, they will partake of the fruit of the vine new in the glorious kingdom with Him; at least we find that such promises were made to the ancient Saints.
And though we cannot claim these promises which were made to the ancients for they are not our property, merely because they were made to the ancient Saints, yet if we are the children of the Most High, and are called with the same calling with which they were called, and embrace the same covenant that they embraced, and are faithful to the testimony of our Lord as they were, we can approach the Father in the name of Christ as they approached Him, and for ourselves obtain the same promises."
(See Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith pg 66)


For many Latter-Day Saints, going to the temple and participating in the ordinances practiced therein is a modern day fulfillment of receiving the promises made to the ancients.

The ordinances practiced in the temple purportedly came directly from Joseph Smith, albeit through a decades delayed process that required a hefty amount of Brigham Young's memory.  So, if we accept that what Brigham received is exactly what Joseph conveyed then what I find as interesting and want to point out is that the promises made in the ordinances of the temple -that are freely available to all worthy members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints- come with a catch.
That catch is found in section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants where among many other things it says,

"And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God.


 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.
Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory."
I wonder if this is what it looks like when you are sealed by the HSP?  Regardless I think that  the next Simpson's episode should include Ned Flanders wearing one of these. 

Sealed By The Holy Spirit Of Promise?  
Now I will not even attempt to answer what the Holy Spirit of Promise is; because I really don't have a clue what it is or exactly how or what the promises it brings are.  What I do know is that President Eyring is still trying to understand all of it as well, (See Families under Covenant Apr., 2012 General Conference, where in reference to the need of temple covenants to be sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise he stated, "When Sister Eyring and I were sealed in the Logan Utah Temple, I did not understand then the full significance of that promise. I am still trying to understand all that it means, but my wife and I decided at the start of our nearly 50 years of marriage to invite the Holy Ghost as much as we could into our lives and into our family.")  This gives me a little bit of hope but also a little bit of bewilderment.  Hope in that there is still room for everyone who is "the church" to come to a more full understanding of this topic of which not much is ever stated.  Bewilderment because of a set of ordinances known as "The Second Anointings" that have been practiced selectively and rarely in the temples.
I have heard about the thing/things known as The Second Anointings, since I was in my teenage years.  While serving a two year mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, it came up again when my second mission President informed us that this ordinance was what was referred to by Joseph Smith as the Calling and Election made Sure.  After returning home from that mission I came across a book written by David John Buerger titled, "The Mysteries of Godliness."  Mr. Buerger did a spectacular job, in my estimation, delineating the chronology of these ordinances and why my mission President along with many modern members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints had conflated the two principles.  After reading that book, I became convinced that conflating The Second Anointings and the principle of having ones Calling and Election made sure, is an error.  I could see how they were related but not the same thing.  

Origins Of The Second Anointings  
It's interesting to me that they have come to be known as the Second Anointings.  Originally when issued they were the only anointings that one could receive.  This was in the Kirtland era, prior to the dedication of the Kirtland Temple.  It involved having their bodies being washed with water and anointed with cinnamon scented whiskey and having promises pronounced on their heads accompanied by an anointing of consecrated oil by Joseph (or perhaps another unto whom Joseph had authorized.)  

These promises were not recorded as being conditional upon faithfulness as are the ones performed modernly in the temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  Now it has been a while since I have gone back to read the record delineated by Mr. Buerger, so I don't recall exactly when these ordinances began to change.  

After googling earnestly in the internet for an answer to my petition, I at length arrived at wikipedia.  So inasmuch as you trust wikipedia (because I'm too lazy to go get my copy of the book by Mr. Buerger and scan through it to find the answers I seek) I am informed that the ordinances performed by Joseph in Kirtland remained the same until just prior to his murder.  At which time he began to practice a set of rituals unto a select few men and women which were done in conjunction with what was later termed as the ordinance of "The Endowment."  

Personally, I am reticent to say anything more than that what we do know is Brigham Young called these ordinances, "The Second Anointings."  I believe that what we don't know is what Joseph termed these ordinances.  So other than the fact that there are records that he performed some type of ritual which allegedly involved washing and anointing a select group that had already received the washings and anointings as performed in Kirtland, we don't know a whole lot.  

One of the reasons why I am so cautious to join anything to Joseph's name is because I believe that in the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, there seems to be a significant level of success to justify anything one desires by saying Joseph did it first or at least taught it first.  This is evident in the formation of such beliefs/groups/and practices as the Danites, Polygamy, rejection of blacks from receiving the priesthood, Adam-God, Blood Atonement, etc.  So in trying to parse apart the information that we have available to us with the second anointings, there seems to be much that needs to be weighed in the balance against what derives from records that either are not contemporaneous and/or that which is verifiable directly from Joseph.  

The first factor -and only one that I will focus on in this post- that should be weighed for its importance is the question of whether what Joseph started in Kirtland, -prior to the dedication of the temple- was something he saw as a continuation of but still different than and therefore in need of separation from what he taught in Nauvoo just prior to his death?  Today it is understood that the ordinances of Washings and Anointings are completely separate ordinances from the Second Anointings. 

However, is that the way Joseph saw it or was what he taught in Nauvoo essentially the Washing and Anointing 2.0?  The washing and anointing's that Joseph began performing in Kirtland were, possibly a work in progress.  Evidence to support this can be seen in the material left behind in the records of those who participated in this rituals.  I will restate that David Buerger did a great job at compiling these records and so I commend his book to you if you want to see for yourself how the wording and the ordinances themselves evolved even in the time they were practiced in Kirtland.  

To me, that evolution seems to point to one of a handful of conclusions.  The two basic ones being that #1: Joseph was learning all of the ordinances directly from Heaven and was trying to perfect them on earth.  This seems to be the point of view of most Mormon scholars that I have come across, because it allows them to be able to account for the seeming errors/changes by saying that Joseph didn't fully know exactly what he needed to do until he started putting into practice some things he learned and then went back to God and sought further understanding on the matter.  This means that Joseph's understanding of the ordinances was a evolution instead of a knowledge that he had been given and sought to implement.  
The second main conclusion that I see from all of this is that Joseph did know what the ordinances were and how they were to be implemented.  I guess that is not the conclusion but the premise by which then all of us should ask that if this is what we believe then why the changes over time?  If the ordinances were heaven given, then why would Joseph need to change them as time passed?  

Much We Don't Know  

It is impossible without Heaven's help to parse these things perfectly.  As for me I believe that Joseph knew the ordinances from the beginning.  However, the variables in a given situation undeniably can and will change what can be given and the way they are given.  These variables are the factors that I believe account for the changes in what Joseph was giving.

For example, when first performed the Kirtland temple had not yet been dedicated.  D&C 124 indicates that there are certain ordinances that "[belong] to [the Lords] house and can not be acceptable to [Him]..."  (See D&C 124:30)  The washings and anointings performed in Kirtland were performed inside the Kirtland temple, but the temple as of yet was not dedicated.  Therefore it stands to reason that up to that point it was not yet able to be a spot that could be designated as "The Lord's House.

I realize this brings up the question of why then Joseph even started doing the ordinances before the temple was dedicated, if this ordinance belonged to the Lord's House?  I also recognize that the same verse 30 of Section 124 that I quoted above states that certain ordinances can be performed outside of a consecrated temple, when the time is considered, "..A day of poverty..." by the Lord.  For many that easily justifies the whole situation and leaves them without any need to further inquire regarding the matter. 

For me, it is not so simple.  If you read verse 28 of Section 124 you find this interesting tidbit, "For there is not a place found on earth that he may come to and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away, even the fulness of the priesthood."  There is a lot to consider in this small verse.  I want to focus on the fact that it is pointing out that the fulness of the priesthood can not be given except in a house that He has accepted as His.  We can dedicate edifices all we want, but the second requirement is that He accepts it. 

Then in order to have "The Fulness of the Priesthood"  it can only be given or restored in a house fulfilling those first two requirements otherwise he wouldn't have to wait for a temple to be built.  This then brings up this question: can a man seal other men up to eternal life, without the fullness of the priesthood?  Because, I believe that if you go back and read the promises which Joseph was pronouncing upon the heads of those in Kirtland before the dedication and acceptance of the temple by the Lord, you will find that those who left records of those events say he was promising unconditionally.  So that's at least what those who wrote about the promises all seemed to believe that what they were given were unconditional promises.  

Therein Lies The Rub?  

This then seems to be the problem.  Joseph had an understanding of what he was doing.  His understanding -in my opinion- was informed by Heaven.  By a large factor, those who accepted Joseph's teachings, were informed by a Restorationist background.  (For an EXCELLENT presentation of this information I beg you to go read Daymon Smith's 5 volume set: A Cultural History Of The Book Of Mormon)  

These folks believed they were already God's restored New Testament church, even before they were baptized by missionaries sent out by Joseph.  When they accepted the Book of Mormon, there is not evidence supporting that they had read and been converted to it or any other of Joseph's teachings other than that they used these things as evidence to support their already pronounced claim that they were God's approved church. 

To me, there is no hard stretch of the imagination to see that these folks saw the ordinances that Joseph performed as THE CULMINATION of what they had been living and believing previous to ever encountering Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon.  

They did not seek to understand how to humbly repent as commended by the Book of Mormon in a way that would change their paradigm because as they understood it, there was no need for such a thing.  There was no need to have the evidence of the "signs of believers" proclaimed by both Jesus (see Mark 16:16-18) and Joseph Smith (see D&C 84:65-72), because they had bible words that they attached to the bible things in their life which proved they were on the right trail to salvation and already had these things.  They didn't need to judge whether they possessed the gifts of the spirit because they already had definitions for those things and "knew" exactly what they were and could/would list off to anyone who would listen how they already had those things.  (See D&C 46:7-26) So when they encountered the ordinances that Joseph performed there was no need to question whether if these ordinances given modernly would be better understood as teaching methods, -like those given anciently by Moses- rather than as salvific.    

No Proof  

Now I have no proof or authority to proclaim that the ordinances that Joseph restored were not authorized to bestow salvation upon the recipient.  However, Joseph talked frequently about the privilege of those who had received "The Higher Priesthood" to, "[receive] the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, to have the heavens opened unto them, to commune with the general assembly and church of the Firstborn, and to enjoy the communion and presence of God the Father, and Jesus the mediator of the new covenant."  (See D&C 107:19)  

Receiving the priesthood is an ordinance; that's why we call it an ordination.  If like me you conflate the High Priesthood, with the Fulness of the Priesthood; and that knowing God is salvation itself (See John 17:3); then there are proofs that should be evident in my life -things that I can tangibly point to, for myself- which indicate that as of yet, I have not received an ordinance that has guaranteed me any type of salvation.  (For the moment I am going to leave aside the argument that these things can be received after this life by the majority of people.  You can decide for yourself, but I will state that I have no faith in that concept.)  
David Bowie has magic...and he's creepy.

Now I have not received the ordinance referred to as the Second Anointing, so I do (and so should you) consider the possibility that I don't know what I am talking about.  Maybe if I were to receive that ordinance then maybe therein is the magic voodoo needed to enable me to finally have the promises and blessings seen in the canonized lives that we find in our scriptures.  


At this point, I'm not going to bring up the obvious objection that presents itself in the record of Tom Phillips.  I do find him persuasive but unnecessary and ultimately to polarizing to back up my point.  So instead I will point to the life of nearly every single example that we find in scripture.  

If I were tasked to find an example in scripture to buttress the idea that in order to receive salvation in the highest kingdom of God, -authorized by God, while in the flesh- one could only do so by being a part of some priesthood based, hierachical, earthly (and therefore flawed) institution: I would wilt in the task.  Rather, when I look at the examples given in scripture, the rule seems to be that those who get the promise of salvation, from God, while in the flesh; are those who are outliers and sometimes outsiders to the institution claiming to have God's authority on the earth.  

This does not mean that there aren't examples of those who do record a promise of salvation in the highest kingdom of God that they received from God, while being within the hierarchy of the institution that proclaimed to hold God's authority.  However, to my view this seems to be the exception.  

Mormons Are Big On Rules  


Now it is not my belief nor intention to persuade any to not be true to the covenants made while performing ordinances.  Nor that they should believe anything other than what Joseph said when he proclaimed that faith only comes by hearing one authorized to preach it.  In fact I find in his words an echo of Paul's words to the Romans where he said, "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.  How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?  And how shall they preach, except they be sent?"  (See Romans 10:13-15)


So in my estimation the best way that I believe we should view the ordinances that we have received in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is: #1- A teaching method of our relationship with Jesus Christ/How to come to Him; #2- A authorized, direct invitation to come to Him.  If I were to add to Paul's words above, in the context of the parable of the Wedding Feast, I would state: How can they come unless they be invited?  and how can they be invited unless they be authorized.  

Ordinances Are Invitations  


The quote from Joseph Smith at the beginning of this post is very revealing to his thoughts on the matter.  Salvation comes by, through, from, in and through Jesus Christ.  If we want the promises made to the ancients, then like them we must obtain those promises from Him by approaching Him.  


Receiving the ordinances, authorized by God, in this life is of upmost importance.  However, receiving them is not the same as receiving salvation.  True ordinances, authorized by God will always teach you -among other things- to be humble, where you should look to receive salvation, how you can approach God, and invite you to have the faith to approach God to receive salvation for yourself.  If we look at the ordinances that we have received from Joseph Smith, they all do that.  

For my own experience, I have found that what they don't do (at least not by themselves; which doesn't include what others tell you what they believe they do) is teach that you are ok just the way you are, to follow any man other than Jesus Christ, or purport to be an end in and of themselves.  

The Lectures On Faith  


Because I believe they are still scripture I will end this post with a exhortation to go and read the Sixth Lecture on Faith in order to find out more about how to receive these promises.  

The promises that I quoted Joseph's reference to in the beginning of this post are the very reason and essence for the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  I, -like Joseph- believe that because someone else received, such doesn't empower me to receive any blessing other than the faith to believe their testimony.  Yet if I don't gain the same testimony then how can I be saved by a being that I don't know?  Perhaps this is why Jesus conflated Eternal Life with knowing God.  

The Book of Mormon declares that one of the greatest tasks given to it, would be to bring some few to a memory of the covenants that God made with The Fathers.  In 2nd Nephi, Lehi recounts the prophecy given by Joseph of Egypt about, "A choice seer [which I will] raise up out of the fruit of [Joseph of Egypt's] loins; and he shall be esteemed highly among the fruit of [Joseph of Egypt's] loins. And unto him will I give commandment that he shall do a work for the fruit of thy loins, his brethren, which shall be of great worth unto them, even to the bringing of them to the knowledge of the covenants which I have made with thy fathers."  


Of all the things that the angel could recite to Joseph the night that he prayed for forgiveness of his sins, was a misquote of Malachi.  I find it really interesting what the angel changed: And [Elijah] shall plant in the hearts of the children the promises made to the fathers, and the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers. If it were not so, the whole earth would be utterly wasted at his coming...For behold, the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly shall burn as stubble; for they that come shall burn them, saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.


Joseph's testimony or at least the testimony that came through Joseph about the importance of receiving these promises from God, while in the flesh was consistent.  I believe that Elijah and his cohorts are coming.  If I receive the promise/s, then I shall not be burned and left without root nor branch.  I believe these things.  I am not a preacher who has been sent.  So hearing my words are fairly useless.  So I try to quote scripture.  Because I believe that by quoting scripture you can be empowered to have faith in the right Way: He is the only Way.




Thursday, August 7, 2014

Joseph Smith Knew What He Was Talking About

Joseph's Last Recorded Dream 

"I was back in Kirtland, Ohio, and thought I would take a walk out by myself, and view my old farm, which I found grown up with weeds and brambles, and altogether bearing evidence of neglect and want of culture. I went into the barn, which I found without floor or doors, with the weather-boarding off, and was altogether in keeping with the farm.

"While I viewed the desolation around me, and was contemplating how it might be recovered from the curse upon it, there came rushing into the barn a company of furious men, who commenced to pick a quarrel with me.
"The leader of the party ordered me to leave the barn and farm, stating it was none of mine, and that I must give up all hope of ever possessing it.
"I told him the farm was given me by the Church, and although I had not had any use of it for some time back, still I had not sold it, and according to righteous principles it belonged to me or the Church.

"He then grew furious and began to rail upon me, and threaten me, and said it never did belong to me nor to the Church.

"I then told him that I did not think it worth contending about, that I had no desire to live upon it in its present state, and if he thought he had a better right I would not quarrel with him about it but leave; but my assurance that I would not trouble him at present did not seem to satisfy him, as he seemed determined to quarrel with me, and threatened me with the destruction of my body.




"While he was thus engaged, pouring out his bitter words upon me, a rabble rushed in and nearly filled the barn, drew out their knives, and began to quarrel among themselves for the premises, and for a moment forgot me, at which time I took the opportunity to walk out of the barn about up to my ankles in mud.

"When I was a little distance from the barn, I heard them screeching and screaming in a very distressed manner, as it appeared they had engaged in a general fight with their knives. While they were thus engaged, the dream or vision ended.
" (recorded June 27, 1844)


I post this recorded dream because I have become aware to the fact that those who inherited Joseph Smith's "authority" almost always seem to do so in opposition not only to those who also claim that authority, but also to Joseph, himself.  

A Shift In Paradigm 

As a result of this recognition I have encountered many who are willing to give up on what was restored through Joseph Smith.  I believe this is because they are confronted with carefully parsed and selected tidbits of what Joseph restored.  Most of these tidbits are used to support some dominion of one group or individual over a population of people.  
It seems to me that not only are these tidbits carefully parsed and selected but often times they seem to have no other explanations than wholesale fabrications.  This presents a huge stumbling block for any who seek to find what Joseph is claimed to have restored because nearly anywhere one seeks she is required to accept many things which are either halve truths or complete misrepresentations of the truth.

Joseph Smith Papers 


I applaud the efforts of those who are shoulder deep engaged in the work that is known as The Joseph Smith PapersAlthough it is not without its slant, seeking to uphold positions that I find untenable, this project is nevertheless of tremendous value in opening up, to the sincere seeker, the treasure trove of material that is what Joseph restored.

What Did Joseph Restore? 

I believe that to begin to get a grasp on what Joseph did that was so important it is necessary to understand the difference from what he declared and what other religious leaders declare.  
Joseph breached the wall of Heaven.  He said so plainly, and he declared that it happened on numerous occasions.  He joined his voice with James in proclaiming that if anyone lacked wisdom, let him ask of God.  Because God will give liberally instead of upbraiding.  He declared that the Heavens were open to any.  
You may believe that you have NO evidence to validate such a proclamation in your life.  I believe that the worn out maxim applies here perfectly: Whether you think you can or you think you can't; you're right.  
Let me make things clear by stating, that I personally have never seen an angel.  I've never even been able to hear a sentence formed by the voice of God in my mind, that I have been able to recognize as such.  Therefore I am a terrible witness.  I apologize to you for that.  I wish I was better.  I wish that I were one that was sent from the presence of God to be able to declare to you that I speak by knowledge.  Yet at this point in my life, I can not. 
Allow me also to declare that it is my belief that without this knowledge, it is impossible to enter into the highest of God's kingdoms prepared for us after this life.  Whether you call that the Celestial Kingdom, or Heaven or anything else, it is my belief.  Therefore I currently believe that as of yet, I lack the hope or assurance that I have anything secure in the afterlife. 
Having said that, let me now say that Joseph declares that he received these things.  He is a witness, proclaiming to have entered into the presence of God and returned if nothing else with the testimony that if he could do it, then you can as well.  That Jesus the Christ seeks to reclaim all who will meekly come to Him and learn of Him.  All who will put away whatever it is in this world that they hold fast to, and lay hold on His word, may receive the same witness.  
This is the single most consistent testimony of Joseph Smith.  

But What Of The "Other Stuff" Joseph did or taught?  

Now you may be of the opinion that Joseph was a liar, womanizer, cheat, conman, charismatic charlatan or whatever else there is.  But I want to ask you: how much of what you know about Joseph comes from a source that has or had ulterior motives?  Whether it's one who is/was trying to defend a practice that was their personal choice, and so attached Joseph's name to it..what evidence that would stand in a court of law to support this personal choice exists?  
Whether your hang up is Polygamy, Polyandry, Magical Practices, Masonic rituals, lack of scientific proof, or whatever it is: what evidence could you bring up that isn't based on hearsay or conjecture by one that had a vested interest in the outcome one way or the other?
I'm not saying that evidence doesn't exist.  However, in my research the evidence that exists often times is more nuanced and/or tenuous at best and in matters concerning our relationship with God, everything should be weighed very carefully in the balance.  I commend you to do that for yourself.  I recognize that there are many more arguments than the simplified ones that I have presented here.  I only ask that you treat the matter as carefully as you think your relationship with God should be.

Great Evidence In Defense Of Joseph's Testimony 

For me, I believe that the greatest evidence that supports Joseph's testimony lies in his exposition of the scriptures.  I acknowledge that this "evidence" requires you to believe the scriptures.  So you will need to decide first whether that is something that you can do.  If you can or already do then I intend to give some illustrations of what I find compelling.  If not, then I invite you to read the scriptures and ask God to help you believe them.  He is the one who can do all things, not me.
Now for a case in point: we have no evidence to show in the Old Testament that God or the Israelites anticipated in a clear and evidentiary manner that there would be a Messiah, Jesus the Christ.   Currently this is one of the arguments against the Book of Mormon because within it is presented a narrative that requires the reader to believe that at least some Israelites already knew, believed in and anticipated the life of our Savior as it is presented in the accounts found in the New Testament.  Nothing like that is found to be the case in the Old Testament.  
So either the Book of Mormon is right or the presentation of the Old Testament is, but both can not be right in this one aspect.  (It is beyond my desire to present the evidence that both could be wrong, but that is something that you should decide your personal feelings about.  As I said above, this presentation will require you to believe the scriptures.)  Perhaps this is at least one of the reasons why the Book of Mormon warns us about the Bible that we as Gentiles have inherited. (See 1st Nephi 13:24-29)  

However, despite the contrast found between the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon in at least this one aspect; Joseph Smith demonstrated that there is no such discrepancy on this detail between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon.  
To show the point I will point out the scriptures that Joseph used as proof text.  (See Pg 60 of Teachings of The Prophet Joseph Smith)

First let's go to the Galatians 3:8 where it states, "And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed."
Here Paul declares that Abraham had the Gospel preached to him.  Paul understood what the Gospel was.  He knew that the Gospel is, "The Good News."  The Good News is that Jesus Christ would come to this earth and die for all men, so that we through His death could be redeemed.  Paul would not use the term Gospel (Good News) for anything other than Jesus Christ's death and resurrection, because anything that doesn't contain that, isn't Good News, but is as dead as the law!  This Paul had already declared and should be easy to see.  However, in case you want more evidence we shall next turn to the Gospel of St. John 8:56, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad."  Abraham, in vision was shown the life of Christ; a prophet indeed!  He had seen the mortal ministry of our Savior and was glad.  Why else would he be glad unless he had seen that the Lamb would be slain for all mankind to be redeemed? 
Now perhaps you now accept that Abraham had seen these things; but reject that many if any others had seen or known of them?  
Once again Joseph Smith swoops in with abundant exposition to defend the position demonstrated in the Book of Mormon by going to the Book of Hebrews 3:15-4:2, "While it is said, Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.  For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.  But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?  And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not?  So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.  Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.  For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it."  
Once again that word "Gospel" is used.  And here Paul, directly associates what he and his associates had received with what the Children of Israel in the time of Moses had received!  

Argue it, attack it or leave it, but once again the instructor of Joseph Smith stands forth untarnished in the ability to declare simply and profoundly the truth of a matter so heatedly disputed.  
If you believe that Joseph was able to construct these matters on his own as a preacher does, then I leave you to it.  I don't deny you what is rightfully yours to pursue.  
But I ask you to consider that this is only one of literally thousands of truths restored through Joseph Smith that he left for you so as to embolden you to have faith.  Not faith in Joseph Smith, not faith in an institution or some other fallible man but faith in the being that Joseph had faith in: Jesus the Christ!  If you don't believe that's what Joseph was trying to do, I challenge you to read The Lectures on Faith.  If you don't believe that Joseph authored or at least heavily edited those Lectures, then I invite you first to read the original introduction to those lectures and then also catch up on the evidence brought forth in the Joseph Smith Papers.  They illustrate that Joseph spent MANY HOURS, editing those Lectures for publication.  He left the revelations to the publication committee for editing, but took on the Lectures personally in the realization that, "We do not present this little volume with any other expectation than that we are to be called to answer to every principle advanced, in that day when the secrets of all hearts will be revealed, and the reward of every man's labor be given him."
If like many others, -including the committee that removed the Lectures from the scriptures in 1921- you are offended by some doctrine advanced in those Lectures, I invite you to consider how those doctrines comport with what Joseph actually taught and not with what you have been told Joseph taught.  

My Piss-Poor Witness  

I believe the Book of Mormon is the most correct book in accomplishing the task of getting you closer to God than any other book.  I believe Joseph Smith was a preacher sent by God to help you have faith in God and not in an institution or men.  
I believe if you will use him to do just that, then you will get nearer to God; even to the fulfilling of the New Covenant expressed in Jeremiah 31:31-34.  I believe that the prophesy of Joel recited to Joseph by the angel who visited him on September 21, 1820 will come to pass in your life.  I believe that when they who are coming, come; you will not be burned without root nor branch.
This is my witness, to you. 

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Dust of the Earth

Mosiah 2:25  And now I ask, can ye say aught of yourselves? I answer you, Nay. *Ye cannot say that ye are even as much as the dust of the earth*; yet ye were created of the dust of the earth;

 Everybody wants a purpose

My wife and I were talking recently about what it means to fulfill the purpose of our life.  We talked about how some people find the purpose of life in religion.  Others in civic duty or political office.  Some in their profession.   Others in a hobby.  The list really could extend on for quite a distance.  
However, as we spoke, it made me wonder: Why is it that so many people feel that there is a purpose to life?  I have met a few folks in my journeys who proclaim that they don't believe there is a purpose.  They may profess as much, however I have never met a person who didn't live in such a way so as to indicate that to some degree they feel that they are fulfilling some purpose or obligation to something.  That's not to say that people who live completely without purpose doesn't exist; but just that I haven't met them, yet.  
I surmise this from the detailed actions taken by people that I have observed or recollected in my mind.  In my opinion, a person without a purpose would necessarily be a complete sociopath, and perhaps it's my naivete but I have met some who have been clinically labeled as having sociopathic behaviors.  Yet, even those who I know with conditions that fall in that category still act in at least small degrees towards some form of what they see as a greater collective purpose for society in general.  Never have I met someone completely devoid of this. 

Does everything posses a sense of purpose?

As the conversation continued my mind wandered into a consideration of non-human's.  As I considered both domesticated and wild animals it was apparent in my mind that all things act in faith to some sense of purpose in what they do in their life in this mortal sphere.  All animals seek to breed and protect what they see as their preferable genes in contrast to the inferior genes of their opponents.  Even to the laying down their lives for their offspring, animals are given this inherent purpose for the existence of their life and they are loyal to it, almost to a fault.  

So what about trees?  Rocks?  Earth?  These are harder to observe and measure, but for me there is no difficulty in imagining that even inanimate objects have a sense of purpose.  I realize that there is no discernible proof for such a statement, but even if it's only in my imagination, I can believe it.  


If trees could talk

If you can imagine it, then I invite you to do so.  I invite you to imagine: what do trees feel?  What would a tree want to accomplish?  What would a rock want to accomplish?  What would dust want to accomplish?

In stories like Daniel and the Lion's den, (see Daniel 6) there seems to me to be a recognition among animals when the presence of God is in their midst.  I do not believe that God just waved a magical wand and made the lions friendly for Daniel's sake.  I believe that the lions sensed the presence of God with Daniel when he descended in to their lair.  I believe that they had a sense of obligation to protect this being as a result of the Presence that was with him.  
I believe that animals are naturally much more in tune with God's will for them, than are we.  And if this is true with animals, then why not inanimate objects?  Despite our inability to detect very much from them, do we not have the example from plants like the pre-budded, young sunflowers which testify to us of God's beauty by turning throughout each day to face the sun?  Is there not accounts of rocks splitting apart when our Savior died? (See Matt 27:50-51)  Enoch testified of hearing the Earth groan because of the sins of men. (See Moses 7:45)
If you accept that these are or could be true events, and testimonies by nature of God and His power, then I ask you to consider, what is man's place in all of this?  

For dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return

In the account found in Genesis, The Lord tells Adam that he was made of dust, and that his body would return to dust.  
If God saw fit to make man of the dust, does that then inform us of our purpose?
If dust had a purpose what would it be?  If dust were able to talk, what would she declare her purpose to be?  How would dust judge the measure or worth of her existence?
Would it not be found in what or perhaps who she upholds?  She supports, sustains, upholds people and things; then wouldn't that be how dust would judge herself?  
Man was made of dust.  King Benjamin says that we are not only made of the dust of the earth, but also that we are not even as the dust of the earth.  Meaning we are lower than it.  
Why does King Benjamin insist on insulting us?
Mormon says, "Helaman 12:O how great is the nothingness of the children of men; yea, even they are less than the dust of the earth.  For behold, the dust of the earth moveth hither and thither, to the dividing asunder, at the command of our great and everlasting God."  So he agrees with King Benjamin because the dust of the earth fulfills all of the commands of God, even as God commands.  Yet men are given their own will to choose.  Therefore, in the very day that they are given a gift of eternal life they would rather choose to disobey. 

Why I believe we should look to dust for our purpose


In Ether chapter 12 we find a dialogue between Moroni and God.  Moroni declares that by the Faith of his fathers, God gave a promise that the writings contained in the Book of Mormon would one day come from the Gentiles unto the descendants of the Lamanites and Nephites.  Moroni then declares he was commanded by God to maintain the record for this reason.  
However, because of his charity towards us as Gentiles, Moroni prays for us realizing the obvious reasons that the Gentiles will have to mock the record when it comes forth.  It is here where God states that, "Fools mock, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient for the meek,"  
This teaching seems to be connected to what the Savior taught in His mortal ministry that, whosoever exalteth himself, shall be abased.  And he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.  (see Luke 14:11
The Lord goes on to tell Moroni that, "I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me."  (See Ether 12:27)
From this I declare that God wants us to be humble.  He wants us to be abased.  This because, it is only through our coming down into the depths of humility that we do see our true position before God, as beggars to God.  As no better than the dust of the earth. 
In this we see that our position is to uphold and lift others.  If you want to know the mission or purpose for your life, that God has sent you here to accomplish, then look no further than the dirt beneath your feet.  For this is the same position that all of us are in.  Dust beneath the feet of a merciful God.  

For this reason, I believe the Savior could truly teach that, "he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.  For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as He that serveth."  
In all things He was our perfect example, and in this teaching He did not fail. 


The Book of Mormon's teachings

This teaching is evident in the example and teachings of our Savior.  However, the Book of Mormon time and time again draws out this most sublime principle of one who desires to follow in the pathway of our Lord.  It is the teaching of charity.  It is the teaching of forgiveness.  It is the teaching of redemption.  To get, we must give.  What we give was a gift anyway, and is not our own.  
I believe King Benjamin and Mormon in declaring: We really are not any better than the dust of the earth, yea we are not even as the dust of the earth.  
I believe that life is more fulfilling when we set our life's purpose to allow ourselves to be walked on by the ignorant, the ungrateful, the abusive.  When we take the trampling and return it with upholding and loving them; then we are best fulfilling our mission on earth.  As Alma declares (see Alma 42:30) I pray that these words shall bring you down into the dust in humility.