To correct or not to correct...

When I was first called as a bishop in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I was 27 and very worried. About a lot of things. One of them was knowing when I should correct or not correct someone's doctrine from the pulpit or classroom. And then if I had to correct, how was I to do it, "for how to act I did not know." (JS-H 1:12.)

These are tough questions for bishops and for those that preside over them. It is not an easy thing to lovingly and tactfully correct a fellow member of the ward. I thought that perhaps, now that I am no longer serving as the bishop of my ward, it might be appropriate to share some experiences that occurred to me during my seven year tenure, and perhaps some personal reflections now that I am no longer serving. My hope is that if a bishop, currently serving, stumbles across this blog entry it may be of some small help.

One thing always had to be first and foremost: the principles found in D&C 121 had to be lived. No matter how a leader corrects a member of the congregation, if it happens, it must be done so that the member has no doubt that the correction was made because it was necessary. In my mind, a member will know it was necessary if the leader "shows an increase of love," and knows that the leader's "faithfulness is stronger than the chords of death." But for that to happen, the love that is given is clearly genuine and "unfeigned."

For me, the primary reason for ensuring the doctrinal purity is to always protect the integrity of the congregation. That said, my expression was usually enough to let the membership know I was at least uncomfortable with what was being said. My wife said she could always tell when I didn't like what was being taught because my face look upset or worried. Other times, such as in class, and I was teaching, if someone made a comment that I completely disagreed with, sometimes I wouldn't even bother to respond. Typically, my silence was response enough that I did not approve of what had been taught.

Another factor was that I had to weigh the feelings of the member teaching the false doctrine vs. protecting the integrity of the congregation. It seems to me that members in general don't intend to teach false doctrine. Because of that, for a member of the bishopric to stand up and correct them, can be a very embarrassing experience.

About ten years ago, I was asked to speak in my ward in the fifth Article of Faith. I gave my talk in the course of my remarks I shared an experience from the life of Elder Bruce R. McConkie about buttermilk (for the story, see The Bruce R. McConkie Story: Reflections of a Son, p. 258.). It was designed to demonstrate that we ought not to try to determine if our leaders are exercising unrighteous dominion. I thought it was a good story and illustrated my point quite well. At the conclusion of the meeting the bishop arose and said, "I just want to make a correction in regards to Brother Christensen and Elder McConkie's buttermilk story..." Then he proceeded to make his corrections. Essentially he said that we should never allow someone to exercise unrighteous dominion over us--particularly in the name of the priesthood. He said that far too often husbands do this and such practices must come to an end. I was shocked. I was shocked that I was being corrected. I was shocked that my bishop felt that I had taught something that was objectionable. I was terrified that my bishop perhaps thought that I exercised unrighteous dominion in my home with my wife. I remember the feeling I had as the bishop said that he was correcting me. I had only heard about this happening, but as of yet don't remember ever having seen it done. And not only was it being done, but it was being done to me! I was pretty bothered by it all week. Mostly because I was worried my bishop had misunderstood me and thought I was teaching false doctrine. Finally I resolved to call him. I brought up what happened at the end of Sacrament Meeting and apologized. I also tried to explain what I was teaching. To my surprise he said, "Matt, I have been meaning to call you..." Then he told me he perfectly understood and even agreed with what I had taught. His concern was for the small percentage of members who might not understand and confuse and even take license with the story and excuse their own behavior. He had something happen in the past and was not going to every let it happen again (unrighteous dominion) if he could help it.

Not long after this experience he called me as his second counselor and eventually I replaced him as the bishop of our ward. As we were going over the transition when he was released and I was called, I asked him about correcting people and how to do it. He said he had only done it publicly three times. I asked how they went. He said that only one time ended positively. I asked what happened and he said, "Matt, you ought to remember, it was you."

Another important factor that I weighed was whether or not I could correct the problem without drawing attention to the member or the doctrine. More than anything else, the one thing I tried to quickly assess in my own mind was, did anyone notice and do I need to address this? There was one occasion when a sister was speaking and said that we pray to Jesus. I knew this particular member well enough to know that she did not really believe that. Instead, I think she got flustered at the pulpit, perhaps a bit nervous, and what she meant to say and what she actually said were two different things. I know it has happened to me plenty of times. The other side of the token was I was not sure the members even noticed what was said. But in this case, because it is such a serious matter that some people in the Church don't seem to fully grasp, I felt that I had better say something. The way I determined to handle it was the best way I could in the circumstances. I arose at the conclusion of the meeting and bore my testimony on prayer: "I know that we pray to the Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Ghost." In this way, I was able to correct the falsehood (innocent yet egregious as it may have been) and did not draw attention to it or the sister that gave the talk. In the end, I think that the only people that would have recognized that I made a correction would have been the people that heard what she said earlier in her talk.

The above situation just mentioned is also closely related to the question as to whether the member even realized that what was taught was false or in error. As in the story I shared, and many others, I think that what was said was an accident. If that was the case, as in the example above, that would dictate how I would respond.

Was it worth the time to make the correction was always an important consideration. I have noticed that often, most members don't even realize there has been a statement of false doctrine made. Of course, sometimes that does't matter and if it was egregious the statement still needs to be corrected. But sometimes I realized that it wouldn't be worth it to make the correction. This also happened sometimes when something that I personally believe to be false doctrine, or something that I at least strongly disagree with, was taught. In these cases I had to really determine before hand, when I was first called, what the parameters of what I felt would qualify as worthy of correcting. I will have more on that below.

When I would hear something that I felt was false, I had to ask myself, "could I correct the person afterwards and in private?" I had no sooner been sustained and ordained a bishop, then the following Fast and Testimony Meeting, a member of the ward stood and shared some feelings that were inappropriate. I will share what he said in his "testimony" but I wish to first say that he is a very good man. He meant very well and I know that he meant no harm by what he said. He began by saying that when he and his wife were married, his parents called him, his spouse, and all their siblings and spouses to a special family conference. I remember thinking to myself, that is a good idea. He then said that his parents gave them two pieces of counsel that he has always tried to follow: 1) always stay close to the Lord and His Church, and 2) never do anything to prevent children from coming into this world.  Then this well-meaning brother stated, "I know that many of you in this ward are newly-weds. I know a great many of you have been married for more than one year and you are not pregnant. In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, I command you to repent and begin to fill the measure of your creations." Then he concluded in the usual way and returned to his pew. Needless to say the congregation was shocked (as was their new bishop). As he had been speaking the members all looked at me to see what my reaction was and to see what I was going to do. Like any good newly-called and ordained bishop, I did nothing. I was scared and was absolutely unprepared. I was teaching in Relief Society later that day and knew the sisters were traditionally more sensitive to the kind of remarks he made than the brethren. So I hoped that I could handle it there and make a correction that way. When I was in the Relief Society, when it was my turn to speak, I did not directly address what happened in Sacrament Meeting (I didn't even mention the incident). Instead I told the sisters that Heavenly Father loved them. That in our ward there were sisters from all walks of life and experience. I knew that some sisters have children that have left the house and moved on, and others are just beginning to have children. While others were still waiting and hoping to have children and others might not have the opportunity to have children in mortality. But that no one has the right to judge them and that they just needed to stay close to the Spirit and he would teach and comfort them. Later that week I had this man and his wife in my office for tithing settlement. After they declared their tithing status, I told them we needed to talk about what happened in Sacrament Meeting. I thanked him for his testimony and told him that I felt that what his parents had shared with him and his family was very appropriate in that setting. But that it was absolutely inappropriate to share that in a setting at Church even worse to call the congregation to repentance. The brother was surprised but humble and took the correction well. Especially for the fact that he was old enough to be my father (and for me to be his son). I then asked if he was aware of the policy on birth control as stated in the Handbook. He was not. I shared it with him: no member had the right to judge another member, that the decision as to when and how many children to have was deeply personal and only between the member and the Lord. This good man then said that of course, if I felt it was time for a couple to have children, I could call them in and tell them so. I reminded him what the Handbook said (no member can judge and it is between the couple and the Lord), and indicated that given the way the policy reads, not even a bishop could involve himself in that personal and sacred decision. At this point, his wife began to cry. We both looked at her and asked what was wrong. She said that she has been listening to her husband tell this to people their entire marriage (I think around 35-40 years). She had had four miscarriages and the MD's had told her to stop trying to have children because it was too dangerous for her. But because her husband had been so active in sharing the message, she felt too guilty and never felt she could stop having children (or at least trying). Her husband had no idea this good sister had been going through this agony for so many years. They both wept and some healing began. I wept too. In this case I was very glad that I didn't rebuke from the pulpit, because this healing moment would not have happened.

I am confident that there are other reasons and factors that need to be weighed in making these decisions on whether or not to correct someone in Church. These are just a few of that came to mind as I have reflected on this particular aspect of my service.

As I mentioned above, I had to make some determinations early on as to what I felt constituted "correction" worthy. I personally felt that anything that did damage to, disparaged, or taught contrary to a few central doctrinal points, I would of necessity need to take a stand. These things included some of the following: anything that taught that God was not our Father, Jesus was not the Christ, or we could not worthily maintain the companionship of the Holy Ghost. Also, if someone taught something that was contrary to the Plan of Salvation as revealed in the Last Dispensation would require me to speak up. And if a speaker or teacher taught or spoke out against Joseph Smith or any of his successors, or the General or Local Authorities, or the revealed order of the Priesthood, I would feel compelled to rebuke that person. Finally, if a member were to speak evil or disparage another member of the Church or community (local or global), I would need to correct that member. Now, if something were taught that touched on any of the above points, I would use my best judgment and discretion to determine if I need to involve myself in making a correction.

I am sure there are a host of other things that I could have or should have included. Perhaps I will think more on this and include an additional entry later. Perhaps not. My worst fear is that someone who presides over me will read this and find something that is out of line or in need of correction. Of course, if that happens I pray that I am willing to take the correction.

mbc

Favorite Book of 2011 (is it too soon to judge?)

I recently finished the latest book by Terryl Givens and Matthew Grow, Parley P. Pratt: The Apostle Paul of Mormonism. I believe I can say with some degree of certainty that (so far) it is my favorite book of the year. I posted a review on Amazon.com which states: 


"A marvelously written book. I wondered how much of this would be in PPP's Autobiography. There was some usage of the Autobiography (which is to be expected and required). However, there was a great deal of new information. The authors also did a great job of incorporating PPP's writings into the narrative and gave context to them in relation to his life. The biography of Brother Parley is a worthy companion to the Autobiography. It was clear to me that there is a genuine affection that the authors have for their subject. On the one hand, they did not seek to only share the perspective of PPP that you get from his Autobiography. On the other hand, they are willing to share the other side and what his contemporaries felt, wrote, and said about him. A very honest book. A book written with admiration. I felt it was in the same vein as John Adams by McCullough. I highly recommend reading this book."


I had the chance to have lunch with Terryl yesterday (October 13) with a few other people at the Wheatley Institution. It was a great experience and the conversation was fun. I am sure that I will post my review of my favorite books of the year soon (let's get at least closer to the end of year), but so far, this book is it! I cannot recommend it highly enough. The read was fast and exciting. If you read it, let me know what you think.

Covenants

This last Sunday was my first time speaking as a high councilor. It was a bit strange to speak to a different ward after having given so many talks in my ward as the bishop. But I think it went well. Just for fun, I am posting my talk. I believe I took about 14 minutes and didn't use everything I prepared (as usual).

My usual pattern is to study everything I can on the assigned topic, think and pray about it, create an outline with some of the doctrines that I want to include along with scriptural references and statements from the Brethren, then I write everything out. After that I spend substantial time reading and rereading the talk. Once I get up to give the talk, I may refer to the talk but usually I have become familiar enough with the material that I am not absolutely reliant on my written talk. Of course, I still use it but my dependence is lessened.

"Covenants"

August 21, 2011

Matthew B. Christensen

Provo Peak 2nd Ward, High Council Speaking Assignment, Provo East Stake

I bring with me the love and greetings of the Stake Presidency. I have worked with them for several years in various capacities and have always been impressed with the depth of affection and concern each of them possess for each of us. I know it is made possible in part because of the lives they live and in a larger measure because of the priesthood keys President Christiansen carries in righteousness.

As you know, the Stake theme for this year is based around 2 Nephi 31:20. “Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men.” My assignment from the Stake Presidency is to focus on the monthly sub-theme for August: “making and keeping Temple covenants.”

I have always found it instructive to note that the word “religion” has its roots in two words, RE and LIG. The LIG is the same root that gives us the word ligament. Of course a ligament is what attaches or binds or connects bones to bones. And so, using that idea, RE-LIGION is a way that re-attaches or binds or reconnects us to God. And nowhere does that happen with more validity and power than in the making and keeping of sacred Temple covenants.  

God our Father has required us to enter into covenants, while other religions and the world asks us to make commitments. Covenants have the force of heaven, commitments are authored by man. Covenants are scriptural, while the word commitment does not find place in the scriptures or ordinances. For example, for many decades there has been a movement in the United States that asked its adherents to “make a commitment for Christ.” I believe these people are honest and devoted to what they believe. However, in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is not a commitment that we are asked to make. Rather, God has required that we make a covenant. It is a covenant relationship with our Redeemer and His Father that will save us, not a manufactured commitment.

Covenants are an evidence of the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel. In fact, from the various accounts of the First Vision we learn that the Lord told Joseph Smith that “I must join none of [the churches], for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt because all of them were mistaken in their doctrine and not recognized by God as his church and kingdom [because] the Everlasting Covenant was broken.” (Christensen, “Music Ringing,” emphasis mine, p. 14.)

And then in a process to correct that “brokenness,” those “everlasting covenants,” were restored to the earth by Joseph Smith. I testify that on that early spring morning in 1820, God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith. It was real and it really happened. The more I testify of its reality the more it becomes a part of who I am and informs how I approach the restored gospel and the world.

The Lord’s People Are a Covenant People

We are the Lord’s people. His people have always been a covenant people. Of course, in order to become His people, we must first enter into a covenant.

The Lord desires that we go to the Temple and enter into sacred covenants through the ordinances there. The Lord told Joseph Smith, “Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem.” (D&C 84:2, emphasis mine.) Or in other words, the Lord says that one of the reasons for the restoration of the gospel in the last days was to bring people to the Temple to make covenants with God. It is as simple and as important as that!

Covenants and Blessings of the Temple

It is no accident that salvific covenants are always associated with the ordinances of salvation. Indeed, the only way to enter into a covenant is through a saving ordinance. In the Bible Dictionary we are taught, “God in his good pleasure fixes the terms [of the covenant], which man accepts.” With that knowledge, coupled with the realization that ordinances and covenants are related, there is no reason for us to manufacture our own covenants in an attempt to bind God to them (or us). Indeed, I cannot imagine a covenant and its associated blessings that is not already encompassed in the covenants God has proscribed.

President Gordon B. Hinckley once taught: “If our people could only learn to live by these [baptismal and temple] covenants, everything else would take care of itself, I am satisfied. We would not have to worry about sacrament meeting attendance. We would not have to worry about willingness to serve missions. We would not have to worry about divorce and the many requests for cancellation of temple sealings. We would not have to worry about any of those things.” (Meeting with General Authorities and Wives, April 10, 1996.)

Remember, President Hinckley said these things would not be a worry if we as Latter-day Saints could learn to live our covenants. That is a “bold saying” as the scriptures would tell it. (D&C 128:9.)

While I served as the bishop of the 5th ward, I would have the opportunity to counsel with members. I was able to see first-hand the blessings that came from making and keeping Temple covenants as well as the devastation that followed the breaking of the same covenants.

On one occasion a couple came in and taught me something that I have never forgotten. I had been bishop for about two years. Usually, the member making the confession would come in alone and then, if married and appropriate, I would encourage that the spouse come in the next time. But on this occasion, the husband and wife came in together in the first place. I eventually asked why she came in with her husband—she was of course welcome, I was just not used to it—and her response was profound and sincere, “I made covenants in the Temple with my husband and God. We are in this together. How can I hope that he would help me keep my covenants if I am not willing to help him keep his? I love him and our covenants. They will keep us together.”

I know that because of her willingness to live her covenants, she was able to assist him in the process of applying the atoning blood of Christ in his life and overcome his sin and fully repent. As President Howard W. Hunter taught, “Whatever Jesus lays His hands upon lives. If Jesus lays His hands upon a marriage, it lives. If He is allowed to lay His hands on the family, it lives.” (1979 General Conference.) I believe that one of the most profound ways Jesus can “lay his hands” on us is through the making and keeping of Temple covenants.

An important exercise might be to consider the covenants entered into and their direct relationship with the blessings that will eventually be obtained. For example:

• As we keep the Law of Obedience there is the promise of a Messiah and forgiveness of our sins.
• As we keep the Law of Sacrifice and give everything up, we will one day receive everything and become omnipotent.
• As we keep the Law of Chastity we are promised one day to have eternal increase of seed and posterity, becoming omnipresent.
• And finally as we keep the Law of Consecration and dedicate all that we are and have to the Kingdom of God and its cause, we will one day have the Father of us all dedicate all that He has to us.

Wlder Bruce R. McConkie has taught: “With reference to temples, it would be a good thing to have a good perspective, which is this: temples are for the living. Now we think that temples are for the dead… but primarily temples are for the living. Temples are so that I can get married for eternity, and my children can get married for eternity. That’s what temples were for from Adam to Christ. There was no work for the dead [during that time]. The thing that’s wonderful about a temple to me is first: that it’s for me. That’s where my interests lie. It’s second that it’s for my dead ancestors. [We would] build temples if we couldn't find a single name anywhere to do work for, because you’ve got to have temples for the living.” (A Man Raised Up: The Teachings of Bruce R. McConkie, 10:362, emphasis in original transcription.)

We often talk about “being born in the covenant,” but rarely talk about what that means. To explain this, President Joseph Fielding Smith taught there were three blessings associated with being “born in the covenant”:

“It may be asked, what is the advantage coming to those born under the covenant? Being heirs they have claims upon the blessings of the gospel beyond what those not so born are entitled to receive. [1] They may receive a greater guidance, [2] a greater protection, [3] a greater inspiration from the Spirit of the Lord.” (Doctrines of Salvation 2:90.)

It is a magnificent blessing that in the Temple when parents are sealed to their children, they are promised everything “as if they had been born under the covenant.”

How We Keep Covenants

There is safety in the covenants of the Temple. Elder Neal A. Maxwell said, “If we will keep our covenants, the covenants will keep us spiritually safe” (Ensign, May 1987, p. 71). When I was serving as the bishop of my ward, I cannot think of a single instance when a confession of sin was not associated with the breaking of a covenant. On the other hand, some of the greatest joys and happiness’s I ever experienced during those seven years was witnessing the manner in which members prepared for, made, and kept sacred Temple covenants.

We are also expected to keep covenants when it comes to callings in the Church. We keep them by sustaining our brothers and sisters as well as accepting them from our leaders.

[IF TIME PERMITS (it did not): President Boyd K. Packer has shared the following story on a couple of occasions:

“Several years ago I installed a stake president in England. In another calling, he is here in the audience today. He had an unusual sense of direction. He was like a mariner with a sextant who took his bearings from the stars. I met with him each time he came to conference and was impressed that he kept himself and his stake on course.

“Fortunately for me, when it was time for his release, I was assigned to reorganize the stake. It was then that I discovered what that sextant was and how he adjusted it to check his position and get a bearing for himself and for his members.

“He accepted his release, and said, ‘I was happy to accept the call to serve as stake president, and I am equally happy to accept my release. I did not serve just because I was under call. I served because I am under covenant. And I can keep my covenants quite as well as a home teacher as I can serving as stake president.’

“This president understood the word covenant.

“…He… had learned that exaltation is achieved by keeping covenants, not by holding high position.

“The mariner gets his bearing from light coming from celestial bodies—the sun by day, the stars by night. That stake president did not need a mariner’s sextant to set his course. In his mind there was a sextant infinitely more refined and precise than any mariner’s instrument.

“The spiritual sextant, which each of us has, also functions on the principle of light from celestial sources. Set that sextant in your mind to the word covenant or the word ordinance. The light will come through. Then you can fix your position and set a true course in life.” (“Covenants,” April 1987 General Conference, emphasis in original.)]

I believe that it takes faith to accept a call and sometimes more faith to accept a release. But because we have made covenants that is precisely what is expected of us and is what we do. I have wondered what it means about our understanding of covenants when we refuse or moan about our callings. It would seem that the manner in which we serve in our callings reflects our personal understanding of covenants—particularly those of the Temple.

A Challenge/Charge to Make & Keep Covenants

There is no question that at times it is a challenge to not only keep our covenants but to live them. I feel I am being tested right now. It is nothing too serious but for me it is a test and I hope I pass. One of the things that I believe is involved in my own personalized tutorial from the Lord is to see if I am willing to really keep the covenants I have made. For the last seven years of my life, I asked and helped others keep their covenants; and because of the visible and demanding nature of my previous calling it was been relatively easy for me to keep my covenants.

But now, when no one is looking, when no one is expecting me to keep them because I am not under the same scrutiny, will I do it? Will I keep them? Of course, I will keep the “big” covenants (such as chastity, Word of Wisdom, etc.). But will I keep what I consider to be the highly personalized covenants (meeting attendance in relation to my calling, Temple worship, three-hours at Church, consecration)? I hope so. My hope and prayer is to one day gather my family together and look each of them in the eyes and tell them that I have been true and faithful in keeping my covenants. All of them!

President Howard W. Hunter taught: “Let us truly be a temple-attending and a temple-loving people. We should hasten to the temple as frequently, yet prudently, as our personal circumstances allow. We should go not only for our kindred dead but also for the personal blessing of temple worship, for the sanctity and safety that is within those hallowed and consecrated walls. As we attend the temple, we learn more richly and deeply the purpose of life and the significance of the atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. Let us make the temple, with temple worship and temple covenants and temple marriage, our ultimate earthly goal and the supreme mortal experience.” (“A Temple-Motivated People,” May 1995 Ensign, emphasis added.)

Because we are a covenant people, and we make covenants together in front of witnesses and angels and even God, we are also a covenant community. It is proper that covenants are personal. However, it also seems right that covenants are a community experience and as such we have an obligation to help our covenant partners and neighbors keep them. This does not mean we break down doors and check to see if people are properly wearing garments. It does not mean that we demean or unrighteously judge someone when they do not appear to be living their covenants. It does not mean that we take advantage of others because they have entered into the same covenants as us. This is not appropriate behavior for members of a covenant community such as ours.

To live in a covenant community means when a couple we love has a marriage that is falling apart and appears to be salvageable, we encourage them to keep their covenants. When a youth we know is struggling we express love and encouragement. When a dear friend is having a hard time with his or her calling, we step in and offer support and help. And finally, if we are aware that someone in our community we made a covenant to comfort, to mourn with, or to strengthen is falling down in any way—we not only offer our assistance but perhaps go to a priesthood key holder and in love, offer our assistance in the loved ones behalf. This is all part of living in a covenant community.

I know of a group of sisters who regularly attend the Temple in a ward in our stake. They invite sisters that perhaps haven’t been to the Temple in a long time, or a sister that is struggling with the Temple itself to attend with them. A wonderful thing has happened, the sisters (both those who organize the weekly outing and the sisters that are invited to attend) have begun to love one another and the Temple to a greater degree and they attend the Temple often together. From my perspective, all of these sisters understand their covenants and know what it is to make and keep them—both individually and collectively in a community.  

In the end, when I am asked, “What do you remember when you have forgotten everything about covenants,” I can at least say:

• Covenants are the means by which God places you and me under formal contract that if we keep the covenant, He will exalt us.
• That we “will receive all that the Father hath.” (D&C 84:38.) That nothing will be withheld from us.
• That we will be “joint-heirs with Christ” (Romans 8:17) and “to commune with the general assembly and church of the Firstborn.” (D&C 107:19.)
• That by being true and faithful to our covenants we may be chosen, called up, and anointed Kings and Queens, Priests and Priestesses to the Most High God.

That we may all make and keep our Temple covenants is my determined prayer, in the sacred and redeeming name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Why the Prophet is so important to LDS

My wife and I and our family are visiting a different state and attended Church today with some extended family. The gospel doctrine instruction was quite good. Though I was surprised by the confusion generated when, in the context of Church organization and government, the teacher asked who would be the most important person. The question (and answer) seemed straight-forward enough): the Prophet, the one who holds and exercises all priesthood keys. Members starting giving the most random answers that the most important person is a child, or the humble, or... Now, these are all good answers, but they are not in context with the lesson (Church administration) and don't answer the question. When the instructor clarified his point (again restating that he is referring to the Church organizationally), some people then said that it would be followers that are the most important in the Church, the idea being you can't have a prophet without followers. I tossed in my two cents, trying to explain the fallacy of such an argument (no followers = no prophet). If anything else, I felt that perhaps this was worth an entry.

I used Joseph Smith as my example. I said that if he didn't have any followers, it would not change the fact that the Father and the Son appeared to him. If no one sustained him as the prophet, it would not change the fact that Peter, James, and John, as well as John the Baptist and many other angels (later) came to Joseph and gave him priesthoods, authorities, and keys. And so it seems that if the Prophet Joseph Smith didn't have any followers, it would not mean that he was no longer a prophet; rather it would mean that he wouldn't have any followers. More likely, if Joseph Smith had't been sustained or upheld by his followers, he could not have been their president. But in the extremely unlikely (and clearly moot) event that this would have happened (for arguments sake), Joseph and Oliver would have been lead by the Lord to another group of people who would have sustained them both as their duly authorized leaders.

Another part of this argument (again, no followers = no prophet) that is inherently mistaken in its line of thinking, is the seeming absence of an understanding of priesthood keys. I wish I had had time to explain this, but not being the teacher, obviously it was not my place. The whole LDS position is based on the principle that there was a general and universal apostasy after the Twelve Apostles were taken from the earth in the Meridian Dispensation (and in the Last Dispensation those priesthood keys were restored to Joseph Smith). With the absence of the Apostles, priesthood keys were also removed from the earth. I do not believe that the sincerity of the early Christians in general wavered. However, sincerity does not make up for the loss of priesthood keys and authority. And so to contend that in a Church administration and discussion on priesthood government, the followers are key is a contention that betrays a lack of understanding of the doctrine of priesthood keys. At best.

Now, of course, it is more likely that the other members of the class simply misunderstood the instructors' question. In fact, it seems that if he had restated his question, or even said it differently, everyone in the room would have nodded their heads and we would have moved on. Instead, people weren't listening and we spent too long going over something that we have all known and understood since we were in Primary. Probably.

In the end, regardless of the reasons for the confusion, it was a very good opportunity to once again think about the reasons for the Restoration and the truthfulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ restored through his prophet, Joseph Smith, Jun.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

The Scriptures are the Standard

It has been my experience that when the Lord wants to hide something from His people, He puts it in the scriptures.

In any case, it is wise to remember the words of our leaders regarding the use of the Standard Works. President Joseph Fielding Smith once said,

"It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teaching of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.
"You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the reveled word of the Lord, then it should be accepted." (Doctrines of Salvation, 3:203-4.)

Furthermore, President Harold B. Lee has taught,

"All that we teach in this Church ought to be couched in the scriptures.… We ought to choose our texts from the scriptures, and wherever you have an illustration in the scriptures or a revelation in the Book of Mormon, use it, and do not draw from other sources where you can find it here in these books. We call these the standard Church works because they are standard. If you want to measure truth, measure it by the four standard Church works.… If it is not in the standard works, you may well assume that it is speculation. It is man’s own personal opinion, to put it another way; and if it contradicts what is in the scriptures, you may know by that same token that it is not true. This is the standard by which you measure all truth. But if you do not know the standards, you have no adequate measure of truth." (Teachings of Harold B. Lee, p. 148-9.)

And on another occasion he said,

"We have the standard Church works. Why do we call them standard? If there is any teacher who teaches a doctrine that can’t be substantiated from the standard church works—and I make one qualification, and that is unless that one be the President of the Church, who alone has the right to declare new doctrine—then you may know by that same token that such a teacher is but expressing his own opinion. If, on the other hand, you have someone teaching a doctrine that cannot be substantiated by the scriptures, and more than that, if it contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know that that person is teaching false doctrine, no matter what his position in this church may be. The President of the Church alone may declare the mind and will of God to His people. No officer nor any other church in the world has this high and lofty prerogative. When the President proclaims any such new doctrine, he will declare it to be a revelation from the Lord.” (Teachings of Harold B. Lee, p. 149.)

Brigham Young, once speaking on the principle of the revealed word of the Lord to His people said,

"When God speaks to the people, he does it in a manner to suit their circumstances and capacities. He spoke to the children of Jacob through Moses, as a blind, stiff-necked people, and when Jesus and his Apostles came they talked with the Jews as a benighted, wicked, selfish people. They would not receive the Gospel, though presented to them by the Son of God in all its righteousness, beauty and glory. Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings. If the people are stiff-necked, the Lord can tell them but little." (JD 9:311.)

The need for modern revelation cannot be understated. When speaking to a BYU audience in 1959, Elder Spencer W. Kimball said that “Revelation today is common, continuous, and compelling.” (That You May not be Deceived, n.p., emphasis mine.) When considering the importance of the Revelations of the Restoration and their place in the Standard Works, it would be well for us to remember an experience from Church History, as recorded by Parley P. Pratt:

"While visiting with brother Joseph in Philadelphia, a very large church was opened for him to preach in, and about three thousand people assembled to hear him. Brother Rigdon spoke first, and dwelt on the Gospel, illustrating his doctrine by the Bible. When he was through, brother Joseph arose like a lion about to roar; and being full of the Holy Ghost, spoke in great power, bearing testimony of the visions he had seen, the ministering of angels which he had enjoyed; and how he had found the plates of the Book of Mormon, and translated them by the gift and power of God. He commenced by saying: ‘If nobody else had the courage to testify of so glorious a message from Heaven, and of the finding of so glorious a record, he felt to do it in justice to the people, and leave the event with God.’
The entire congregation were astounded; electrified, as it were, and overwhelmed with the sense of the truth and power by which he spoke, and the wonders which he related. A lasting impression was made; many souls were gathered into the fold. And I bear witness, that he, by his faithful and powerful testimony, cleared his garments of their blood. Multitudes were baptized in Philadelphia and in the regions around; while, at the same time, branches were springing up in Pennsylvania, in Jersey, and in various directions.” (Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, 260.)

I know those are just a bunch of quotes. But they are really really good quotes. I wish that our teachers would feel more comfortable with reading and teaching from the scriptures. I think the teachers in my ward are actually really good about this. In fact, I think that the more comfortable the teachers are with the scriptures, the more often they will be in the scriptures. I have absolutely noticed that when there is a lesson in my ward that has been doctrinally rooted and scripturally founded, the stronger the Holy Spirit is in the classroom.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad