I have had the privilege of weekly praying about callings in my ward for nearly eight years while I have served in the bishopric. Almost seven of them has been as the bishop. I have always maintained an awareness of the importance of obtaining the mind and will of the Lord in regards to callings. I know I was “called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands,” and it is my feeling that each and every member of our ward should expect to have the same assurance. (Article of Faith 5.) Likewise, I am constantly impressed that God cares about each of us, even in what some may mistakenly consider minor things such as callings. The Author of the Plan of Salvation, the Architect of worlds without end, the very Father of Christ has time and concern enough to involve Himself in the affairs and lives of the members of the Provo Peak 5th Ward.
Sometimes I am asked why it is that we are to keep the announcement of the call or release private, even from close family members, until it is publicly announced over the pulpit. Some presume this to be a tradition in the Church and is not very important. I have thought about this question for a long time and have come to a few conclusions which deal with authority, revelation, and Priesthood Keys. The following will use callings as the example, but releases from callings should be equally applied. It has been my experience and observation when calls and releases are announced in the proper place and time it promotes increased faith in local leaders and the calling process and that to do so otherwise damages or at least impairs a member’s faith in those same things.
Because the generality of callings in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are done with the approval of the bishop of a ward, or president of a stake, they are necessarily done under the direction of Priesthood Keys. When a key holder kneels in prayer and exercises the Priesthood Keys given him by one having authority under the direction of the President of the Church, and inquires of God as to what to do about a certain calling and potential candidates that might serve in that calling, he is entitled to and receives revelation. I am a witness of this choice and sacred experience and testify that it is common practice in my ward.
Acting on that revelation and in harmony with counselors, the calling is prepared to be extended. When the key holder establishes that a candidate is worthy and willing to keep covenants, he extends the calling. In my experience, I cannot recall a time when a calling was not accepted when I extended it. I do not know if my experience has been unusual in this regard. I have heard of some bishops who extend a calling and it is declined. I am grateful that my experience has been so positive and give credit to the members of our ward who love, live, keep, and understand their covenants. And so, as is customary and barring any unusual and unforeseen circumstances, the brother or sister accepts the opportunity to serve and thereby recognizes personal and intimate revelation at work in his or her life.
Just as callings ought to be extended with dignity and respect and tact and love, so should the sustaining be conducted. And as the calling is extended by the right authority so should it be announced and asked for a sustaining vote by the same. Any effort to circumvent the Lord’s approved order and channel is at best clumsy, displaying a lack of understanding the doctrines at hand, and at worst a usurpation of ill-gotten authority that really never existed with that person in the first place. When a calling is announced over the pulpit by the right person, exercising the proper authority, under the direction of Priesthood Keys and revelation, it provides each member the opportunity to receive in their hearts the confirming witness of the Holy Ghost that the individual is indeed called by God. When this opportunity is deprived the members, because a member feels the need to share the impending call with friends that have no right to know yet, the Spirit is not given the opportunity to testify to the congregation that the individual being sustained is indeed called of God. A revelation to Joseph Smith teaches us that when someone is called to serve, “he that is ordained of me shall come in at the gate” (D&C 43:7). On another occasion Christ taught, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.” (John 10:1-2.) There are a couple of ways this could be taught, but for our purposes and in this context, all callings must come in through the front door and if it is by any other means the Lord is not pleased.
We are blessed to live in a day when we possess the Gift of the Holy Ghost and can receive personal revelation. We also live in a day when Priesthood Keys are on the earth and in our stake and ward boundaries, providing for us the privilege to have institutional revelation. It should be remembered that the Law of Common Consent—the privilege to manifest a sustaining vote—is not a democratic vote but rather a vote to demonstrate confidence in our leaders’ ability to receive revelation and speak for God. It ought to be seen as an opportunity to express our willingness to abide by and follow and accept institutional revelation in the Provo Peak 5th Ward (cf. D&C 26:2.)
Each of us individually and collectively have entered into covenants in sacred moments “to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places” (Mosiah 18:9). We have covenanted to love and serve the Master and in turn our families and fellow Saints. We covenanted to accept calls to serve and to magnify those callings to the best of our abilities. We likewise covenanted to sustain one another. Part of that covenant is to allow callings and sustainings to be conducted by those duly authorized to do so. Thus, it is not our place to discuss callings and releases until they have been properly conducted. Rather we should “waste and wear out our lives” serving God. (D&C 123:13).
There are beautiful blessings promised to those who accept callings (no matter the station or location) and do all in their power to see them fulfilled. One of the promises of the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood is that those who are faithful in “magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies.” (D&C 84:33.) It takes faith to accept a calling or to sustain someone. Sometimes it takes just as much, if not more faith, to accept a release.
If this work wasn’t true and these principles didn’t matter, then respect for Priesthood Keys and confidentiality wouldn’t matter. It is my conviction that the Church is true and is God’s Kingdom on earth. We have many reasons to rejoice. Though it was first recorded in the Book of Mormon, and I feel it is just as true in our day in our ward, “surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God.” (4 Nephi 1:16.) My sisters and brothers, the Gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored in its fulness. Priesthood Keys are on the earth and operative in our part of the Lord’s Vineyard. Let us thank God that the heavens are open and pour out blessings upon us the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
- Posted from my iPad
Monday, July 11, 2011
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Naming and Blessing an Infant
It has been my privilege for the last (nearly) seven years to participate in every baby blessing in my ward (when I was not traveling, which is not often on Sunday). My stake president encouraged me, and I agree, that as the "father of the ward" it is a right and a privilege to stand in each baby blessing. It has also been my custom before the baby blessing, to sit down with the Priesthood holder who will be performing the blessing to go over the steps and give some words of counsel and encouragement. I do this with all fathers, regardless of their first time or their tenth. I find it good practice and helpful.
There are a few things that the Handbook encourages and a few things it discourages. One is that large groups are discouraged. In my mind, seven men is the high end of the circle. Ironically, when my oldest was blessed, I counted seventeen men in the circle. Truly, it was ridiculous. There were men in the circle that I didn't even know, men that were invited by other men. Kind of strange. It seems that a small group of Melchizedek Priesthood holders is a better way of doing things. In my mind, it implies a reverence and dignity that the holders possess of the priesthood.
The current (2010) Handbook of Instructions gives five steps to the blessing of a child in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They are:
1. Addresses Heavenly Father.
2. States that the blessing is performed by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood.
3. Gives the child a name.
4. Gives words of blessing as the Spirit directs.
5. Closes in the name of Jesus Christ.
Authority vs. Power:
Even though the instructions in the Handbooks, at least the last two [check this out with the others], state that the ordinance is to be done by the "authority" of the Melchizedek Priesthood and not the "power" of the same, I will still often hear priesthood holders invoke the "power." Is this a big deal? I would say that is a definite maybe. We have been taught that authority is something that all holders of the Melchizedek Priesthood bear. But power is synonymous with righteousness and to state that we are performing the ordinance (and this is true of blessings as well) is to presume that we are righteous when that is a privilege only God Himself can determine. This has been taught most recently by President Boyd K. Packer: "Authority in the priesthood comes by way of ordination; power in the priesthood comes through faithful and obedient living in honoring covenants. It is increased by exercising and using the priesthood in righteousness." ("The Power of the Priesthood," April 2010 General Conference.)
Common ways of the language preceding the naming of the infant:
We often hear something along the lines of, "The name he/she will be known on the records of the Church and throughout his/her mortal life shall be..." There is really no reason to say that. There is no problem with saying that, but it has become more of a customary thing to say rather than something that is proscribed in the instructions. Or at least the Handbooks don't give any preference to this kind of language. On the other hand, a priesthood holder could simply say, "The name we give you is..." With my own children, I have done it both ways.
Either way a father or priesthood holder says it, it seems that we don't really give the infant a blessing. Instead, we state the name of the infant. I don't know that it is a big deal, but it is a little interesting. I wonder if we ought to be giving the name of the baby? It has been my custom when conducting a meeting and I have instructed my counselors to do that same: we announce that the baby will be blessed by the father (or whomever will be performing the blessing), but we do not announce the name of the baby. It seems that if the father has not "given" the name to the baby, it is not my place to preemptively make that declaration.
Blessing or Prayer:
This is the area that I hear the most differing opinions. I must state at the outset that I know good men who see this very differently and I believe that is okay. It is my feeling that good men can disagree on a whole host of things and still enjoy the approbation of Heaven. Having said that, I feel very strongly in one direction over the other. It is my sense that the ordinance of blessing an infant has two parts. The first part is when the father directs his voice to Heavenly Father. Obviously, when he invokes His Holy Name at the beginning of the ordinance, this could be viewed in no other way. But when the father gets to the portion of the ordinance when he is to bestow a blessing, it seems wholly proper for the father to now turn his direction to his child. The language in the 2006 Handbook for this portion of the ordinance is that the man giving voice to the ordinance, "gives a priesthood blessing as the Spirit directs." [check language.] In my mind, this concept was more perfectly illustrated by Elder Bruce R. McConkie. As his son told me the story, when Elder McConkie would travel the Church and speak in Stake Conferences, he would be sometimes asked if, in a baby blessing, the father directs himself to the Father the whole time or half-way through directs his comments of blessing to the infant. I am told that Elder McConkie would respond by saying, "Well, if you want to say a prayer then you had better hand the baby to the mother, because she will give a much better prayer than the father ever will. On the other hand, if you want to give the baby a blessing, you'd better let the father who holds the priesthood do it." Elder McConkie's son, Joseph Fielding McConkie understood this to mean (from other discussions on the topic as well) that when the father begins to give "words of blessing" (2010 Handbook), he is directing himself to the infant, as any priesthood holder would do in any blessing. Another way to look at it is to say the Priesthood is not needed to say a prayer but it is needed to pronounce a Priesthood blessing. If you were the infant which would you rather your father do?
When:
The Handbook (both current and past) also indicates that baby blessings should take place on Fast Sundays. I have been occasionally asked why this is the case. As I have thought about it, I have determined that it is principally a logistical decision. By that I mean because of the flexible nature of a Sacrament Fast and Testimony Meeting; and because a baby blessing often brings larger gatherings and sometimes take a bit of time, Fast Sunday is a better Sunday to do this rather than another Sunday. I am confident there are other reasons, but I cannot think of what they may be at the moment. Another aspect of this is that the ordinance is normally to take place at Church in the Meetinghouse during a regularly scheduled Sacrament Meeting. There are of course exceptions to this, but they are rare and in my opinion should not be sought out. I think the reason they are to be performed at Church in the presence of the ward (other than that is how the Lord told Joseph Smith and the Church members to do it--D&C 20:70), but it is to serve as a reminder to each member present of the purity and primacy of infants and children in the Plan of Salvation.
Therefore, what?:
Beyond all of these rules, policies, regulations, interpretations, and guidelines, there is one question that I get more than any other: why do we do this? Or in other words, what is the doctrine that is involved in giving an infant a name and a blessing? This is an excellent question. In Doctrine and Covenants 20:70 we are commanded to bring infants to the elders of the Church, to have them presented and then blessed. Both the New Testament and the Book of Mormon have many stories of Jesus Christ blessing little children and reminding us "adults" to be more like children. And so, beyond offering the infant a blessing, perhaps the ordinance is to also serve as a reminder to us of the special place babies have in the Lord's Gospel.
It has been an absolute pleasure and one of the highlights of my time as the bishop in our ward to participate in these sacred moments. Each father blesses his infant in different ways. However, there has been a consistency that is wonderful: they are always done by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood. They are always done in love. And I have always felt the presence of the Holy Ghost. The blessing of infant in the Lord's True Church is a blessing not only to the infant, but also to the father and mother and indeed the entire congregation.
- Posted using my iPad
There are a few things that the Handbook encourages and a few things it discourages. One is that large groups are discouraged. In my mind, seven men is the high end of the circle. Ironically, when my oldest was blessed, I counted seventeen men in the circle. Truly, it was ridiculous. There were men in the circle that I didn't even know, men that were invited by other men. Kind of strange. It seems that a small group of Melchizedek Priesthood holders is a better way of doing things. In my mind, it implies a reverence and dignity that the holders possess of the priesthood.
The current (2010) Handbook of Instructions gives five steps to the blessing of a child in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They are:
1. Addresses Heavenly Father.
2. States that the blessing is performed by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood.
3. Gives the child a name.
4. Gives words of blessing as the Spirit directs.
5. Closes in the name of Jesus Christ.
Authority vs. Power:
Even though the instructions in the Handbooks, at least the last two [check this out with the others], state that the ordinance is to be done by the "authority" of the Melchizedek Priesthood and not the "power" of the same, I will still often hear priesthood holders invoke the "power." Is this a big deal? I would say that is a definite maybe. We have been taught that authority is something that all holders of the Melchizedek Priesthood bear. But power is synonymous with righteousness and to state that we are performing the ordinance (and this is true of blessings as well) is to presume that we are righteous when that is a privilege only God Himself can determine. This has been taught most recently by President Boyd K. Packer: "Authority in the priesthood comes by way of ordination; power in the priesthood comes through faithful and obedient living in honoring covenants. It is increased by exercising and using the priesthood in righteousness." ("The Power of the Priesthood," April 2010 General Conference.)
Common ways of the language preceding the naming of the infant:
We often hear something along the lines of, "The name he/she will be known on the records of the Church and throughout his/her mortal life shall be..." There is really no reason to say that. There is no problem with saying that, but it has become more of a customary thing to say rather than something that is proscribed in the instructions. Or at least the Handbooks don't give any preference to this kind of language. On the other hand, a priesthood holder could simply say, "The name we give you is..." With my own children, I have done it both ways.
Either way a father or priesthood holder says it, it seems that we don't really give the infant a blessing. Instead, we state the name of the infant. I don't know that it is a big deal, but it is a little interesting. I wonder if we ought to be giving the name of the baby? It has been my custom when conducting a meeting and I have instructed my counselors to do that same: we announce that the baby will be blessed by the father (or whomever will be performing the blessing), but we do not announce the name of the baby. It seems that if the father has not "given" the name to the baby, it is not my place to preemptively make that declaration.
Blessing or Prayer:
This is the area that I hear the most differing opinions. I must state at the outset that I know good men who see this very differently and I believe that is okay. It is my feeling that good men can disagree on a whole host of things and still enjoy the approbation of Heaven. Having said that, I feel very strongly in one direction over the other. It is my sense that the ordinance of blessing an infant has two parts. The first part is when the father directs his voice to Heavenly Father. Obviously, when he invokes His Holy Name at the beginning of the ordinance, this could be viewed in no other way. But when the father gets to the portion of the ordinance when he is to bestow a blessing, it seems wholly proper for the father to now turn his direction to his child. The language in the 2006 Handbook for this portion of the ordinance is that the man giving voice to the ordinance, "gives a priesthood blessing as the Spirit directs." [check language.] In my mind, this concept was more perfectly illustrated by Elder Bruce R. McConkie. As his son told me the story, when Elder McConkie would travel the Church and speak in Stake Conferences, he would be sometimes asked if, in a baby blessing, the father directs himself to the Father the whole time or half-way through directs his comments of blessing to the infant. I am told that Elder McConkie would respond by saying, "Well, if you want to say a prayer then you had better hand the baby to the mother, because she will give a much better prayer than the father ever will. On the other hand, if you want to give the baby a blessing, you'd better let the father who holds the priesthood do it." Elder McConkie's son, Joseph Fielding McConkie understood this to mean (from other discussions on the topic as well) that when the father begins to give "words of blessing" (2010 Handbook), he is directing himself to the infant, as any priesthood holder would do in any blessing. Another way to look at it is to say the Priesthood is not needed to say a prayer but it is needed to pronounce a Priesthood blessing. If you were the infant which would you rather your father do?
When:
The Handbook (both current and past) also indicates that baby blessings should take place on Fast Sundays. I have been occasionally asked why this is the case. As I have thought about it, I have determined that it is principally a logistical decision. By that I mean because of the flexible nature of a Sacrament Fast and Testimony Meeting; and because a baby blessing often brings larger gatherings and sometimes take a bit of time, Fast Sunday is a better Sunday to do this rather than another Sunday. I am confident there are other reasons, but I cannot think of what they may be at the moment. Another aspect of this is that the ordinance is normally to take place at Church in the Meetinghouse during a regularly scheduled Sacrament Meeting. There are of course exceptions to this, but they are rare and in my opinion should not be sought out. I think the reason they are to be performed at Church in the presence of the ward (other than that is how the Lord told Joseph Smith and the Church members to do it--D&C 20:70), but it is to serve as a reminder to each member present of the purity and primacy of infants and children in the Plan of Salvation.
Therefore, what?:
Beyond all of these rules, policies, regulations, interpretations, and guidelines, there is one question that I get more than any other: why do we do this? Or in other words, what is the doctrine that is involved in giving an infant a name and a blessing? This is an excellent question. In Doctrine and Covenants 20:70 we are commanded to bring infants to the elders of the Church, to have them presented and then blessed. Both the New Testament and the Book of Mormon have many stories of Jesus Christ blessing little children and reminding us "adults" to be more like children. And so, beyond offering the infant a blessing, perhaps the ordinance is to also serve as a reminder to us of the special place babies have in the Lord's Gospel.
It has been an absolute pleasure and one of the highlights of my time as the bishop in our ward to participate in these sacred moments. Each father blesses his infant in different ways. However, there has been a consistency that is wonderful: they are always done by the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood. They are always done in love. And I have always felt the presence of the Holy Ghost. The blessing of infant in the Lord's True Church is a blessing not only to the infant, but also to the father and mother and indeed the entire congregation.
- Posted using my iPad
Sunday, June 05, 2011
Did Joseph Smith use a 17-point Checklist for the Restoration?
I was asked recently, by one of my Young Men that is preparing to enter the Mission Field (he has received his call to serve in a mission in Texas) about the Seventeen Points of the True Church. He wanted to know what I knew about it and what I thought. I first encouraged him to read it and give me his perceptions. After he reported back, I gave him my perception. First of all, I am not necessarily knocking the man who authored the Seventeen Points, nor am I downgrading the experience of people who have enjoyed reading the story and the Points and have been strengthened by doing so. However, I wonder sometimes if we are thinking this through very well.
When I think of the Seventeen Points, I don't look at them from the authors perspective. Rather, I look at it from Joseph Smith’s perspective. When he asked which church to join, he was told none of them. in fact, in one of the accounts of the First Vision he is told that “the everlasting covenant was broken” and that he would be a part of restoring it. Interesting. Then, four years later, he prays again to know where he stands with God and this time God sends Moroni to teach Joseph Smith. Moroni quotes almost entirely from the Old Testament. Interestingly, among the New Testament scriptures that he does quote to Joseph, none of them are part of the Seventeen Points. Then, when he begins the translation of the Book of Mormon, he is told (and we are too, on the Title Page of the Book of Mormon) that there are three reasons for the Book of Mormon:
1. To remind us the great promises God has given to our fathers,
2. The importance of the Abrahamic Covenant, and
3. That Jesus is the Christ.
Again, none of the Seventeen Points are mentioned. Rather, we are taught the reason for the Book of Mormon is to point the seeker of truth to Covenants, the Temple, Joseph Smith, and Christ.
So, there may be nothing wrong with the Seventeen Points per se, but I think they miss the point. And yes, it is interesting that these guys that had the original Seventeen Points experience used the Bible to determine what was true. It is kind of neat actually. But I hope they moved beyond that. My concern is that I have seen missionaries use the Seventeen Points as a method to try to convince people that the Church is true. How sad. The thing is, anyone can take those Seventeen Points and set up a church. But they would be missing the one major thing that both Christ and Moroni and Joseph Smith all perfectly understood: the Covenants. This important doctrine is taught in the Book of Mormon.
In reality, we could go through the scriptures and find 10, 21, 50, or 100 points of the true Church. Now that I think about it, I remember a guy in my home ward in Seattle gave me a big print out before I left for the MTC. He told me that he had found something like 150 “points of the true church,” and that these guys didn’t find enough. Any evidence or checklist that someone is looking for is always going to come up short. I would worry just as much that someone might be looking for archeological evidence of the Book of Mormon and hang their testimony on that.
So I wonder, if the Seventeen Points are so critical, why didn’t Moroni tell Joseph Smith the Seventeen Points? Or better yet, why didn’t the Father and the Son tell them to Joseph? He was really interested in finding the true Church. Christ could have revealed to Joseph the checklist in the first place, then sent the angels to restore the various doctrines with Joseph and Oliver simply checking the list off, one by one. But as we know, that is not how it worked. Instead, the Lord sent Joseph angelic ministrants to give him Priesthood Keys and restore the doctrines and authorities line upon line. But the doctrines always dealt with covenants and would eventually lead Joseph (and us) to the inevitable: the Temple.
In fact, one more interesting fact: any idea what the missionary lesson plans were in the earliest days of the Restoration? The Gathering of Israel to the New Jerusalem (the Temple) to make covenants with Christ. Interesting that the early missionaries, along with Joseph Smith (not to mention Christ and Moroni), never thought of teaching the Seventeen Points.
So I guess my thought is that there is nothing inherently wrong with the Seventeen Points of the True Church. It's just that, at best, they the wrong Seventeen Points.
- Posted using my iPad
When I think of the Seventeen Points, I don't look at them from the authors perspective. Rather, I look at it from Joseph Smith’s perspective. When he asked which church to join, he was told none of them. in fact, in one of the accounts of the First Vision he is told that “the everlasting covenant was broken” and that he would be a part of restoring it. Interesting. Then, four years later, he prays again to know where he stands with God and this time God sends Moroni to teach Joseph Smith. Moroni quotes almost entirely from the Old Testament. Interestingly, among the New Testament scriptures that he does quote to Joseph, none of them are part of the Seventeen Points. Then, when he begins the translation of the Book of Mormon, he is told (and we are too, on the Title Page of the Book of Mormon) that there are three reasons for the Book of Mormon:
1. To remind us the great promises God has given to our fathers,
2. The importance of the Abrahamic Covenant, and
3. That Jesus is the Christ.
Again, none of the Seventeen Points are mentioned. Rather, we are taught the reason for the Book of Mormon is to point the seeker of truth to Covenants, the Temple, Joseph Smith, and Christ.
So, there may be nothing wrong with the Seventeen Points per se, but I think they miss the point. And yes, it is interesting that these guys that had the original Seventeen Points experience used the Bible to determine what was true. It is kind of neat actually. But I hope they moved beyond that. My concern is that I have seen missionaries use the Seventeen Points as a method to try to convince people that the Church is true. How sad. The thing is, anyone can take those Seventeen Points and set up a church. But they would be missing the one major thing that both Christ and Moroni and Joseph Smith all perfectly understood: the Covenants. This important doctrine is taught in the Book of Mormon.
In reality, we could go through the scriptures and find 10, 21, 50, or 100 points of the true Church. Now that I think about it, I remember a guy in my home ward in Seattle gave me a big print out before I left for the MTC. He told me that he had found something like 150 “points of the true church,” and that these guys didn’t find enough. Any evidence or checklist that someone is looking for is always going to come up short. I would worry just as much that someone might be looking for archeological evidence of the Book of Mormon and hang their testimony on that.
So I wonder, if the Seventeen Points are so critical, why didn’t Moroni tell Joseph Smith the Seventeen Points? Or better yet, why didn’t the Father and the Son tell them to Joseph? He was really interested in finding the true Church. Christ could have revealed to Joseph the checklist in the first place, then sent the angels to restore the various doctrines with Joseph and Oliver simply checking the list off, one by one. But as we know, that is not how it worked. Instead, the Lord sent Joseph angelic ministrants to give him Priesthood Keys and restore the doctrines and authorities line upon line. But the doctrines always dealt with covenants and would eventually lead Joseph (and us) to the inevitable: the Temple.
In fact, one more interesting fact: any idea what the missionary lesson plans were in the earliest days of the Restoration? The Gathering of Israel to the New Jerusalem (the Temple) to make covenants with Christ. Interesting that the early missionaries, along with Joseph Smith (not to mention Christ and Moroni), never thought of teaching the Seventeen Points.
So I guess my thought is that there is nothing inherently wrong with the Seventeen Points of the True Church. It's just that, at best, they the wrong Seventeen Points.
- Posted using my iPad
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
The Sacrament
This last Sunday was our fifth Sunday, combined Priesthood and Relief Society lesson. As is usually the case when I teach or speak, I usually feel pretty confident about my choice in topic until the last moment. Then I change. Luckily, that realization hit me sooner than later and I had time to really think about the doctrine that I felt impressed to teach.
So, as the title of the entry suggests, I determined to speak on the Sacrament. My hope was to get a little deeper than we usually do and help the members of my ward (including myself) really appreciate what we are doing each in week when we partake of the Sacrament. I will only mention a thing or two that I learned, and incidentally, didn't have time to teach or share on Sunday.
I read the transcript of a class that Elder Bruce R. McConkie taught at the University of Utah Institute of Religion in 1970 on the Passover and the Sacrament. One of the points he makes is on the use of the bread and water. He rhetorically asks why is it that we use traditionally bread and water and not something else? He goes on to explain that from the time of Adam to Christ, animal sacrifice was used Biblically as the Passover or Sacrifice to point the minds of the pre-Meridian Saints to the Great and Last Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. He reasons that for those 4,000 years our ancestors live in tribal and familial clusters. They primarily raised their own animals and grains for food. Their who survival, for the most part, was based on and around an animal. Therefore, what better way to typify Heavenly Father's Sacrifice of His Only Begotten Son, than to ask His followers to offer a main source of sustenance as a type of Christ? In the same way, in the 3,000-4,000 years after the Meridian of Time (depending how long you look at the "little space of time" when Satan will be unleashed), we now live very different styles of life. We are in largely urban communities. For the most part, we do not raise our own food but rather buy or barter. However, we still require bread and water (or some form of beverage) for sustenance. And because we require bread and water as the most basic source of our survival, what better way than to point our minds back to the Great and Last Sacrifice of Jesus Christ?
The other aspect that I wish I had more time to develop was the doctrinal reasons for the Sacrament and its immediate benefits for our salvation. The key part of the Sacrament prayers is that the end result is that we will have His Spirit to be with us, always. In the Doctrine and Covenants we are promised that with the reception of the Holy Ghost, comes a remission of sins. To me that means in the Sacrament, when partaken of worthily, we can receive a literal forgiveness of sins. Which of course is the whole point of the Sacrament and its pointing us to the Atonement of Jesus Christ.
- Posted using my iPad
So, as the title of the entry suggests, I determined to speak on the Sacrament. My hope was to get a little deeper than we usually do and help the members of my ward (including myself) really appreciate what we are doing each in week when we partake of the Sacrament. I will only mention a thing or two that I learned, and incidentally, didn't have time to teach or share on Sunday.
I read the transcript of a class that Elder Bruce R. McConkie taught at the University of Utah Institute of Religion in 1970 on the Passover and the Sacrament. One of the points he makes is on the use of the bread and water. He rhetorically asks why is it that we use traditionally bread and water and not something else? He goes on to explain that from the time of Adam to Christ, animal sacrifice was used Biblically as the Passover or Sacrifice to point the minds of the pre-Meridian Saints to the Great and Last Sacrifice of Jesus Christ. He reasons that for those 4,000 years our ancestors live in tribal and familial clusters. They primarily raised their own animals and grains for food. Their who survival, for the most part, was based on and around an animal. Therefore, what better way to typify Heavenly Father's Sacrifice of His Only Begotten Son, than to ask His followers to offer a main source of sustenance as a type of Christ? In the same way, in the 3,000-4,000 years after the Meridian of Time (depending how long you look at the "little space of time" when Satan will be unleashed), we now live very different styles of life. We are in largely urban communities. For the most part, we do not raise our own food but rather buy or barter. However, we still require bread and water (or some form of beverage) for sustenance. And because we require bread and water as the most basic source of our survival, what better way than to point our minds back to the Great and Last Sacrifice of Jesus Christ?
The other aspect that I wish I had more time to develop was the doctrinal reasons for the Sacrament and its immediate benefits for our salvation. The key part of the Sacrament prayers is that the end result is that we will have His Spirit to be with us, always. In the Doctrine and Covenants we are promised that with the reception of the Holy Ghost, comes a remission of sins. To me that means in the Sacrament, when partaken of worthily, we can receive a literal forgiveness of sins. Which of course is the whole point of the Sacrament and its pointing us to the Atonement of Jesus Christ.
- Posted using my iPad
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
A testimony of Joseph Smith...
One of the great things about my life so far, besides my wife and children, is the incredible people I have had in my life. When I first came to BYU ten years ago, a friend of mine was taking a Masters course in Religious Education. At the time he was taking a class from Joseph Fielding McConkie. My buddy encouraged me to come. It was wonderful. JFM taught me things from the scriptures I didn't know were there (which is not really a surprise). He ended up teaching two different courses that I attended.
After sometime I approached JFM and asked him for a job as his research assistant. Thus began what was for me a wonderful and singular experience. I helped him on book projects, we traveled to the East Coast twice for research and paper presentations, and even taught some of his classes. He taught me the tools I needed to read the scriptures, listen to the Spirit, and understand the doctrines of the restored gospel.
Since graduating and leaving his official employ, I have continued to help him on book and writing and research projects. We have become close and I treasure our friendship. The reason for the entry is to share something he taught me a couple of years ago that has had a lasting impact on me.
In sharing this experience, I will be a little vague, but will share the main point that has affected me deeply. I hope that it will you as well.
After returning from a vacation and arriving from a red-eye, he called me when he got home before he went to bed. He met a man while on vacation that shared an experience he had in the mission field. The man had two mission presidents. His first president had a rule to bear witness of the reality of the living Christ with every personal contact. His second president didn't have a rule. But the man reported that he noticed something. His second mission president would begin and end every talk and interview with a testimony of the First Vision. It wasn't long before the missionaries started following suit. Then something really interesting happened: obedience increased, as did baptisms and retention.
After JFM shared this story, he said, "Matt, there is a power when we testify of Joseph Smith. The Holy Ghost will always accompany a testimony of the Prophet." Then he hung up and went to bed. I started thinking. I thought about this experience for days. JFM was so excited when he called, ecstatic. After much pondering, I made a determination that has changed my life.
I decided that I would bear witness of the First Vision in every appointment, every lesson, every talk I give. Because I am the bishop in my ward, I get that opportunity often. I have been doing this for the last three years or so. Everything has changed for me. Everything. Because I am bearing witness of the First Vision, I am necessarily doing three things: I am testifying of the reality of a living God, a redeeming Christ, and a seeing Prophet. I feel the Spirit stronger each time I discuss the First Vision. And because of this, the Spirit is a staying power in my life and I am becoming a better disciple. The reality of the First Vision has become fact and knowledge for me. JFM was right: "There is a power when we testify of Joseph Smith. The Holy Ghost will always accompany a testimony of the Prophet." Furthermore, I have noticed members of my ward doing the same thing. The many members that have been doing this have experienced similar feelings.
If you are reading this, and you have a even a small testimony of the First Vision, or want it to grow, I invite you to do what I have done. Bear your witness of the reality of what took place. Because it is real and really did happen. God the Father was there in the Grove. Our Savior Jesus Christ was there, too. Joseph Smith was there and was called to be a Prophet. They spoke to him, and he spoke to Them.
- Posted using my iPad
After sometime I approached JFM and asked him for a job as his research assistant. Thus began what was for me a wonderful and singular experience. I helped him on book projects, we traveled to the East Coast twice for research and paper presentations, and even taught some of his classes. He taught me the tools I needed to read the scriptures, listen to the Spirit, and understand the doctrines of the restored gospel.
Since graduating and leaving his official employ, I have continued to help him on book and writing and research projects. We have become close and I treasure our friendship. The reason for the entry is to share something he taught me a couple of years ago that has had a lasting impact on me.
In sharing this experience, I will be a little vague, but will share the main point that has affected me deeply. I hope that it will you as well.
After returning from a vacation and arriving from a red-eye, he called me when he got home before he went to bed. He met a man while on vacation that shared an experience he had in the mission field. The man had two mission presidents. His first president had a rule to bear witness of the reality of the living Christ with every personal contact. His second president didn't have a rule. But the man reported that he noticed something. His second mission president would begin and end every talk and interview with a testimony of the First Vision. It wasn't long before the missionaries started following suit. Then something really interesting happened: obedience increased, as did baptisms and retention.
After JFM shared this story, he said, "Matt, there is a power when we testify of Joseph Smith. The Holy Ghost will always accompany a testimony of the Prophet." Then he hung up and went to bed. I started thinking. I thought about this experience for days. JFM was so excited when he called, ecstatic. After much pondering, I made a determination that has changed my life.
I decided that I would bear witness of the First Vision in every appointment, every lesson, every talk I give. Because I am the bishop in my ward, I get that opportunity often. I have been doing this for the last three years or so. Everything has changed for me. Everything. Because I am bearing witness of the First Vision, I am necessarily doing three things: I am testifying of the reality of a living God, a redeeming Christ, and a seeing Prophet. I feel the Spirit stronger each time I discuss the First Vision. And because of this, the Spirit is a staying power in my life and I am becoming a better disciple. The reality of the First Vision has become fact and knowledge for me. JFM was right: "There is a power when we testify of Joseph Smith. The Holy Ghost will always accompany a testimony of the Prophet." Furthermore, I have noticed members of my ward doing the same thing. The many members that have been doing this have experienced similar feelings.
If you are reading this, and you have a even a small testimony of the First Vision, or want it to grow, I invite you to do what I have done. Bear your witness of the reality of what took place. Because it is real and really did happen. God the Father was there in the Grove. Our Savior Jesus Christ was there, too. Joseph Smith was there and was called to be a Prophet. They spoke to him, and he spoke to Them.
- Posted using my iPad
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)