The subject of the Prophet Joseph Smith is important to me and I claim no spiritual, academic, or special authority on his life or teachings. But I do love him and I know he is a prophet.
I am sometimes asked by members of my stake and family and friends what books I would recommend to learn more about his life. That is an interesting question because it ought to be easy enough and yet as I have thought about it I have realized it is quite a complex answer. I suppose it all depends. It depends on the kind of study or learning you want to do. I should state from the outset that if you are looking for someone who is critical of Joseph I won't be able to recommend anything for you. I am not scared off by anything negative about him. In fact, I have read everything I can get my hands on. However, when recommending books to others I am suggesting they build a foundation of faith and testimony first. Get to know him from the perspective of his family, his friends, his followers, and himself. That has been my path. Now when I read the critical or "warts and all" histories, or the anti- publications (those two things are not the same thing), or anything else a faithful member of the LDS Church may find challenging, I can process them through my filter: Joseph Smith saw the Father and the Son, he translated the Book of Mormon, he was a prophet of God. So please know that as you read on, that is the bias from which I approach Joseph Smith.
Stories and biographies have taught me a great deal about moments in the life of Joseph Smith. However, it is in reading his revelations and teachings that have done more to help me learn about the Prophet Joseph. In other words I feel I actually know Joseph Smith and literally consider him a friend because I am familiar with his teachings and revelations. It is because of my familiarity with his mind that I feel I can recognize his motivations in his actions. And so when I hear strange things told about him or attributed to him, because I feel like I know his mind and heart, I feel like I can get to the bottom of it. Sometimes I don't fully understand the situation but because my foundation is solid I don't get rocked.
For books about his life, I would recommend Truman Madsen’s talks and his book based on his talks. They are excellent and engaging talks. Truman clearly has a passion for Joseph and it excites my own.
I also really like the Joseph Smith Papers Project books. Particularly the Journals. (Volume one and two are already out, volume three will be released later this year or early next year.) The Histories volumes are good, too. These are great because they have a very raw and real feeling to them. You can begin to get a sense of the man and the prophet in them.
Another excellent book is Joseph Smith the Choice Seer by Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert L. Millet. The book is sadly out of print but if you can find it, get it. The book is a kind of spiritual biography--thought it doesn't claim to be. They are looking at the doctrines and understandings and teachings Joseph Smith restored.
Also, a book called, Remembering Joseph, edited and compiled by Mark McConkie is very good. It contains thousands (seriously) of recollections, organized by topic, by friends, followers, and even enemies of Joseph Smith. A very fascinating book.
There are several biographies of his contemporaries that also provide a wonderful insight into the life of the Prophet. At the top of my list is the standard, Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt. If you haven't read it you should, and if you've already read it you should read it again. There are some admittedly long and drawn out places (the Missouri conflict being one of them) but his confidence and affection for Joseph Smith is unmistakable. Also, Wilford Woodruff by Matthew Cowley is excellent. If you can get Wilford Woodruff's Journals they are a treasure trove of insights into the Prophet. The Life of John Taylor by Orson F. Whitney is another great book.
Like I mentioned above, more than anything else, reading his teachings and revelations have helped me understand and know him tremendously. So the Doctrine and Covenants is great, as is Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith edited and compiled by President Joseph Fielding Smith and Words of Joseph Smith edited by Lyndon Cook and Andrew Ehat.
I hope that is helpful for someone who may read this. The discerning reader will notice that I left off some books that perhaps you would expect to see in my list. I included the books that have helped me get to know Joseph Smith the best. I would be interested in hearing if you (the cyber-reader if there be any) have the same books or different.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Friday, July 06, 2012
Sunday, June 03, 2012
Ethics and Morals Are Not Independent of Doctrines
Occasionally I hear that the reason some members like the Church is the good ethics and morals it teaches. In almost the same breath the person also indicates that the doctrines and the Joseph Smith story, the Book of Mormon, and the teachings of the Temple are less appealing. When I hear this I am dumbfounded at best.
From my standpoint, it is our doctrines and core beliefs that inform the ethical way in which we live. Indeed, there is not a single moral or ethic that is not connected with the restored doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Right now the Church is receiving unprecedented attention. This is occurring not only because of the 2012 Presidential Election, but because there have been an increased number of reports in the news about members of the LDS faith. In many of the reports in the media the Church is pointed out as being known for its strong family values and neighborly way in which it behaves around the world. In fact, I have heard commentators of other faiths discuss these very positive attributes and in the same breath indicate that they think our beliefs are absolutely absurd. They say we behave like Christians but aren't really Christian. Or, we are Christian in deed but not in doctrine.
From my perspective that absurd thing is that they fail to see the connection between our Christian attributes and our belief in a restored doctrine of Christ. I wish to outline just three (of the myriad of choices) Christian attributes that have been identified in the press and by those I have had discussions with and then connect them directly and unmistakably to the doctrines we uphold to be restored and true and salvific.
Family Values Ethics and Morals and Temple Doctrine
The Church is often given commendations for its emphasis on families, family time, and strong marriages. The divorce rate is lower in LDS marriages (though it should be noted that divorce is on the rise in the LDS Church and is trending toward the national trend--though it is still lower from what I understand). There is a strong sense of togetherness and sticking things out. This is not to say everything is perfect; LDS couples and families deal with the same struggles and trials that the rest of society deals with. But for outsiders (non-LDS) there is a remarkable demonstration of working through issues. Indeed, I remember hearing about a study or a national poll that was conducted that stated that when asked about Mormons most people could identify their strong sense of family values. Community members readily see their LDS friends and neighbors as having good children.
But herein lies the irony. What many non-LDS see as strong family values, LDS will (I hope) testify that there is a principle that lies under the visible surface behaviors. For me there is no question that what makes me feel my marriage is one of the most important aspects of my life and the answer is simple: Temple. Even more to the point it is my Temple Covenant. This is the same answer for my strong focus on my family. I believe that most Latter-day Saints when pressed will answer the same way. It is the Temple and its associated Covenants that cause Latter-day Saints to put so much emphasis on the family. Indeed, we believe that because we enter into a Covenant with God and one another in the Temple, there is a spiritual force that--when LDS live worthy of it--will bind and seal us together. It is in these covenants that we become "eternal families." Because we see the family as extending--not "until death do you part" but well beyond that passing moment and into the eternities, we do everything and anything to preserve and hold sacred our marriages and families. Much more could be said on this topic and writers and teachers more capable than myself have already done a better job of explaining this key doctrine. I will leave the read to study their words rather than attempt to re-explain.
Suffice it to say that the LDS belief on the family is a result of the restored doctrine of Temple Covenants. If those that laud our strong stance on the family could lower their blind bias against our doctrines they would see why our family relationships are so strong and so highly prized.
Charity and Humanitarian Outreach and the Revelations of the Restoration
The LDS Church receives a great deal of attention from the outside world about its phenomenal humanitarian outreach. And for good reason. The Church does not make public the amount of money (either in cash or in goods and services) it delivers to humanitarian aid each year. Given the scope and the reports that are made public I imagine the amount in sheer cash value to be staggering. Our leaders have been nationally and internationally recognized for the good it has done here in the U.S. and all over the world. When President Gordon B. Hinckley was recognized by the President of the United States a few years ago he said that he accepted the award in behalf of all the members of the Church. He said that "it really belongs to those men and women" (click here to read the story). The resources for this humanitarian goodness comes as freely given donations from the rank and files of the Church. The point I am trying to make is that the Church and its members are known for their charity--though it has never been done to be recognized (I believe the Church would be very satisfied if we never received any honor--in the press, in terms of awards, or otherwise). But what fascinates me is that those same people will recognize the goodness we do and criticize the very doctrines and beliefs that propel our goodness.
I believe that the goodness we do and feel a responsibility to do is a result of our understanding of scripture, our testimony of the importance of tithing, and (again) Temple Covenants. Of course the Bible and the Lord's teachings there give powerful emphasis on helping the needy and downtrodden. However, the Bible is available to all Christian peoples and yet their giving is not nearly as organized and effective as the LDS Church (in fairness the Catholic Church do a tremendous amount of good and have for many centuries). It is our additional revealed words (the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price) and the words of Christ in these canonized scripture that gives additional emphasis on charitable giving. It is in the Doctrine and Covenants that we learn about tithing. Indeed, it is in the Doctrine and Covenants that the doctrine of tithing was restored. In section 115 we are taught that members are to give 10% of their income (I believe this to gross income) to the Church. In addition to tithing we are also asked to give "a generous offering" once a month when we come to Church fasting (completely abstaining from food or drink for 24 hours). Finally in the Temple we make covenants to sacrifice and consecrate (two separate covenants) our temporal blessings as well as our spiritual blessings to God, His Church, and by extension of these things to one another.
And so for me it is interesting to see that people will speak kindly about our humanitarian efforts and yet ignore the doctrines that are at the core of collective and individual giving.
Community Leadership and the Example of a Prophet
LDS members are commonly recognized as being leaders or pillars of citizenship and decency in their communities. All over the world members are coming to the forefront and becoming the example of strong, capable elected and non-elected officials. While the media and others see the goodness Mormon men and women are trying to accomplish in their neighborhoods, we are at the same time being criticized for what they perceive as strange doctrines and aspects of Church history. Yet it is the very doctrines and historical events and figures they criticize that give members of the LDS Church their drive and moral standing to become those very same leaders.
Again, the irony lays in the fact that an area in which we are complimented is at the same time an area where people find fault. There are many areas of our beliefs that I could point to and say "that is the example to which we point." But in order to dramatize the point, I will use none other than Joseph Smith, the man we claim to be a Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and Translator. It was him that John Taylor quoted as saying, "I teach [Mormons] correct principles and they govern themselves." It was Joseph that led thousands of men, women, and children from Ohio to Missouri and from Missouri to Illinois. It was the testimony of Joseph that caused thousands to leave Europe to come to America. Books are full of examples of the leadership qualities of the Prophet Joseph Smith (I recommend this one). The legacy that Joseph left, that it was possible to believe in a higher principle and follow it all hazards has inspired countless Latter-day Saints into doing the same.
However, lest the reader fall into the same false notion that many others have in giving lip service to understanding our beliefs but really having no intention in doing so, let me clarify one major point. Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God. He was called by Jesus Christ, the Son of God. This means that all that he did as he lead the Mormon people, was in harmony with the teachings of the Savior. As a prophet in every sense of the word he communed personally with Jesus Christ and the Father. Christ taught him personally. It is my firm conviction--and the conviction of 14 million other members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--that Joseph Smith, when acting as a Prophet of God, was simply and solely following the commands of the Master Jesus Christ.
Occasionally there are members of the Church that do not follow the teachings of the Church and could not be considered a good Christian, never mind a good Latter-day Saint. There are sometimes men and women who call themselves Mormon that behave grotesquely, or illegally, or inhumanly. I believe these to be terrible examples of what a Mormon could and should be. I also believe that in contrast with the millions (literally) of good members of the Church doing all they can to live as descent upstanding Latter-day Saints should live, these bad seeds are few and far between.
I hope this brief entry will help those seeking understanding. I hope that we (both LDS and non-LDS) begin to understand that our ethics and morals that are so highly praised are simply extensions of our doctrines. We believe them to be true doctrines. We believe them to be restored doctrines in the latter-days. We believe them to be revealed by God and Jesus Christ to modern day Prophets and Apostles. I know they are and I am not ashamed of the doctrines (or morals) of Jesus Christ restored in this day--or any day.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
From my standpoint, it is our doctrines and core beliefs that inform the ethical way in which we live. Indeed, there is not a single moral or ethic that is not connected with the restored doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Right now the Church is receiving unprecedented attention. This is occurring not only because of the 2012 Presidential Election, but because there have been an increased number of reports in the news about members of the LDS faith. In many of the reports in the media the Church is pointed out as being known for its strong family values and neighborly way in which it behaves around the world. In fact, I have heard commentators of other faiths discuss these very positive attributes and in the same breath indicate that they think our beliefs are absolutely absurd. They say we behave like Christians but aren't really Christian. Or, we are Christian in deed but not in doctrine.
From my perspective that absurd thing is that they fail to see the connection between our Christian attributes and our belief in a restored doctrine of Christ. I wish to outline just three (of the myriad of choices) Christian attributes that have been identified in the press and by those I have had discussions with and then connect them directly and unmistakably to the doctrines we uphold to be restored and true and salvific.
Family Values Ethics and Morals and Temple Doctrine
The Church is often given commendations for its emphasis on families, family time, and strong marriages. The divorce rate is lower in LDS marriages (though it should be noted that divorce is on the rise in the LDS Church and is trending toward the national trend--though it is still lower from what I understand). There is a strong sense of togetherness and sticking things out. This is not to say everything is perfect; LDS couples and families deal with the same struggles and trials that the rest of society deals with. But for outsiders (non-LDS) there is a remarkable demonstration of working through issues. Indeed, I remember hearing about a study or a national poll that was conducted that stated that when asked about Mormons most people could identify their strong sense of family values. Community members readily see their LDS friends and neighbors as having good children.
But herein lies the irony. What many non-LDS see as strong family values, LDS will (I hope) testify that there is a principle that lies under the visible surface behaviors. For me there is no question that what makes me feel my marriage is one of the most important aspects of my life and the answer is simple: Temple. Even more to the point it is my Temple Covenant. This is the same answer for my strong focus on my family. I believe that most Latter-day Saints when pressed will answer the same way. It is the Temple and its associated Covenants that cause Latter-day Saints to put so much emphasis on the family. Indeed, we believe that because we enter into a Covenant with God and one another in the Temple, there is a spiritual force that--when LDS live worthy of it--will bind and seal us together. It is in these covenants that we become "eternal families." Because we see the family as extending--not "until death do you part" but well beyond that passing moment and into the eternities, we do everything and anything to preserve and hold sacred our marriages and families. Much more could be said on this topic and writers and teachers more capable than myself have already done a better job of explaining this key doctrine. I will leave the read to study their words rather than attempt to re-explain.
Suffice it to say that the LDS belief on the family is a result of the restored doctrine of Temple Covenants. If those that laud our strong stance on the family could lower their blind bias against our doctrines they would see why our family relationships are so strong and so highly prized.
Charity and Humanitarian Outreach and the Revelations of the Restoration
The LDS Church receives a great deal of attention from the outside world about its phenomenal humanitarian outreach. And for good reason. The Church does not make public the amount of money (either in cash or in goods and services) it delivers to humanitarian aid each year. Given the scope and the reports that are made public I imagine the amount in sheer cash value to be staggering. Our leaders have been nationally and internationally recognized for the good it has done here in the U.S. and all over the world. When President Gordon B. Hinckley was recognized by the President of the United States a few years ago he said that he accepted the award in behalf of all the members of the Church. He said that "it really belongs to those men and women" (click here to read the story). The resources for this humanitarian goodness comes as freely given donations from the rank and files of the Church. The point I am trying to make is that the Church and its members are known for their charity--though it has never been done to be recognized (I believe the Church would be very satisfied if we never received any honor--in the press, in terms of awards, or otherwise). But what fascinates me is that those same people will recognize the goodness we do and criticize the very doctrines and beliefs that propel our goodness.
I believe that the goodness we do and feel a responsibility to do is a result of our understanding of scripture, our testimony of the importance of tithing, and (again) Temple Covenants. Of course the Bible and the Lord's teachings there give powerful emphasis on helping the needy and downtrodden. However, the Bible is available to all Christian peoples and yet their giving is not nearly as organized and effective as the LDS Church (in fairness the Catholic Church do a tremendous amount of good and have for many centuries). It is our additional revealed words (the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price) and the words of Christ in these canonized scripture that gives additional emphasis on charitable giving. It is in the Doctrine and Covenants that we learn about tithing. Indeed, it is in the Doctrine and Covenants that the doctrine of tithing was restored. In section 115 we are taught that members are to give 10% of their income (I believe this to gross income) to the Church. In addition to tithing we are also asked to give "a generous offering" once a month when we come to Church fasting (completely abstaining from food or drink for 24 hours). Finally in the Temple we make covenants to sacrifice and consecrate (two separate covenants) our temporal blessings as well as our spiritual blessings to God, His Church, and by extension of these things to one another.
And so for me it is interesting to see that people will speak kindly about our humanitarian efforts and yet ignore the doctrines that are at the core of collective and individual giving.
Community Leadership and the Example of a Prophet
LDS members are commonly recognized as being leaders or pillars of citizenship and decency in their communities. All over the world members are coming to the forefront and becoming the example of strong, capable elected and non-elected officials. While the media and others see the goodness Mormon men and women are trying to accomplish in their neighborhoods, we are at the same time being criticized for what they perceive as strange doctrines and aspects of Church history. Yet it is the very doctrines and historical events and figures they criticize that give members of the LDS Church their drive and moral standing to become those very same leaders.
Again, the irony lays in the fact that an area in which we are complimented is at the same time an area where people find fault. There are many areas of our beliefs that I could point to and say "that is the example to which we point." But in order to dramatize the point, I will use none other than Joseph Smith, the man we claim to be a Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and Translator. It was him that John Taylor quoted as saying, "I teach [Mormons] correct principles and they govern themselves." It was Joseph that led thousands of men, women, and children from Ohio to Missouri and from Missouri to Illinois. It was the testimony of Joseph that caused thousands to leave Europe to come to America. Books are full of examples of the leadership qualities of the Prophet Joseph Smith (I recommend this one). The legacy that Joseph left, that it was possible to believe in a higher principle and follow it all hazards has inspired countless Latter-day Saints into doing the same.
However, lest the reader fall into the same false notion that many others have in giving lip service to understanding our beliefs but really having no intention in doing so, let me clarify one major point. Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God. He was called by Jesus Christ, the Son of God. This means that all that he did as he lead the Mormon people, was in harmony with the teachings of the Savior. As a prophet in every sense of the word he communed personally with Jesus Christ and the Father. Christ taught him personally. It is my firm conviction--and the conviction of 14 million other members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--that Joseph Smith, when acting as a Prophet of God, was simply and solely following the commands of the Master Jesus Christ.
Occasionally there are members of the Church that do not follow the teachings of the Church and could not be considered a good Christian, never mind a good Latter-day Saint. There are sometimes men and women who call themselves Mormon that behave grotesquely, or illegally, or inhumanly. I believe these to be terrible examples of what a Mormon could and should be. I also believe that in contrast with the millions (literally) of good members of the Church doing all they can to live as descent upstanding Latter-day Saints should live, these bad seeds are few and far between.
I hope this brief entry will help those seeking understanding. I hope that we (both LDS and non-LDS) begin to understand that our ethics and morals that are so highly praised are simply extensions of our doctrines. We believe them to be true doctrines. We believe them to be restored doctrines in the latter-days. We believe them to be revealed by God and Jesus Christ to modern day Prophets and Apostles. I know they are and I am not ashamed of the doctrines (or morals) of Jesus Christ restored in this day--or any day.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Speculation Principles...
From time to time, I hear that we ought not to speculate on the doctrines of the kingdom. For the longest time, I felt that was the right course. In many ways it still is. On the other hand, I also feel that healthy speculation can be very good in learning of spiritual things. It is evident that the prophets in both ancient and modern times have received revelation (indeed some of the important revelations came this way) after some time conducting healthy speculation.
Some examples of prophetic speculation are Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon when they received what is commonly referred to as "The Vision" (D&C 76); or Joseph F. Smith when he received his vision of the Spirit World (D&C 138). Another good example of scriptural speculation is Alma when he is speaking to his son Corianton about the resurrection (Alma 40:20.) Here Alma is teaching his son many principles on this all important doctrine. But then he gets to a question that in his day had not yet been revealed. He says "I give it as my opinion..."
However, in the Church we don't call what the prophets have done "speculation," but instead call it pondering. But the manner in which I think about things it is the same. I like the word speculation because it is helps the speculator really consider what is really taking place and reminds him or her that we only accept established doctrine as our foundation. In other words, personal speculation is not a foundation on which we should build our testimonies and there should be a noted difference between the two.
Speculation by an average member of the Church should never be considered the same as that done by the prophets. But in order for a member of the Church to conduct what I call healthy speculation, I firmly believe there are some rules that must be followed in order for it to be done safely. The worst thing that could happen to a faithful and active member of the Church when speculating on points of doctrine, is to allow it to take them into fields that are not ripe and certainly not prepared to harvest. In this entry, my plan is to share my thoughts and views on how doctrinal speculation can be conducted safely and wisely and hopefully in a healthy manner.
My primary principle of safe doctrinal speculation is that each of the Articles of Faith ought to be considered as questions (instead of statements) that the speculator can respond to in the affirmative. In other words the speculation cannot cause the speculator to deny any of the canonized Articles of Faith.
That bit of counsel ought to be enough, but in the interest of fleshing things out a bit, I will add a few more ideas that may help the reader. They have certainly been an aid to me.
1. The speculative idea cannot cause damage to the revealed knowledge of Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, or the Holy Ghost.
2. The speculative idea must do no harm to the revealed principles and doctrines of the restored gospel (ie. Plan of Salvation, canon, etc.)
3. The speculative idea must NOT harm or damage your own testimony.
4. Ask yourself: Will this speculation increase my faith in Jesus Christ and His appointed and authorized servants?
5. Rinse, repeat. (Then repeat again!)
There have been times when my speculative ideas have found themselves in contradiction with the principles above. When that has happened I immediately toss them out and go back to the drawing board (aka the scriptures). It is repulsive to my soul to believe anything that the Holy Spirit is not going to confirm as truth. He will only confirm as true that which is in alignment with already established and revealed knowledge. Indeed, a "house divided against itself shall stand" (Matthew 12:25).
Perhaps a good question to address is how do I speculate? I have found that when I ponder (aka speculate) on a principle of the restored gospel, I make a list of all my questions and proceed to answer them with brief answers. Sometimes I list a verse (or verses) of scripture next to the question in hopes that it will lead me to an answer. Once I have exhausted (in my own mind) my grasp on the relevant scriptures, I turn to my book collection and attempt to find books that may shed light on my question(s). As I study "out of the best books" (D&C 88:118) I continue to make my list. When I have read everything I can find on that given topic of speculation, I turn to my loved ones and trusted friends. Everyone needs a circle of men and women they can turn to and safely and freely discuss their ideas. This sharpens my thoughts and introduces new and insightful ways of thinking about this idea. Finally, I often will begin a kind of research paper in the form of a talk. I write down what I understand on the topic. Then an interesting thing takes place. As I type thoughts and ideas flow into my "heart and mind" (cf. D&C 8:2-3) and I realize that I am being taught from the Spirit. For me this is when things get exciting. I have found that writing my thoughts down in an organized fashion gives articulation to my ideas.
Sir Francis Bacon, an English author, courtier, & philosopher (1561-1626) once wrote, “Reading maketh a full man, conference a ready man, and writing an exact man.” As I demonstrated above, I find some terrific principles in thinking about speculative ideas in Bacon's assessment. It was only after I had discovered my own way of approaching speculative ideas that I read Bacon's analysis. Certainly I agree.
When it comes to speculating about doctrinal ideas I found found no substitute for reading and studying and pondering the scriptures. Members of the Church used to approach Elder Bruce R. McConkie and ask him what his secret to scripture was and how they could do the same. His response usually disappointed members. He would reply by saying that the secret to scripture study is that there is no secret. He said the secret was not in a color coding system, reading chronologically or topically, or early in the morning or late at night. Instead he said that the secret lies solely in the intensity and consistency in which we engage in the scriptures. I believe people were disappointed because Elder McConkie's response indicated that scripture study involved paying a price.
I love the scriptures and enjoy their study. It is when I am studying most intently that my speculation is the most rewarding. Again, let me emphasize that when I say speculate I am doing so in consideration of the principles I outlined above. For the most part, the speculative things that I learn are just for me--the are personal. I don't preach them from the pulpit nor do I lobby them with members or allow them to become unhealthy and fanatical gospel hobbies. Instead when I learn something from the Spirit after much study, discussing, and writing, I allow that idea to percolate in my soul. It then becomes a part of me and my learning and studying and researching continues. Some of my most treasured spiritual knowledge has come to me as a result of healthy speculation and adhering to my personal principles above. As long as my personal ideas are in harmony with revealed doctrines and principles of the restored gospel I allow them to take root. I am always aware of what the approved doctrines are of the Church and do all I can to keep those separate and yet complimentary to my own thoughts. In doing this I am giving priority to the teachings of appointed and ordained prophets, seers, and revelators over my own.
There is much more I would like to say on this topic but I need to speculate some more. Perhaps I will have something to add later. Perhaps.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Some examples of prophetic speculation are Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon when they received what is commonly referred to as "The Vision" (D&C 76); or Joseph F. Smith when he received his vision of the Spirit World (D&C 138). Another good example of scriptural speculation is Alma when he is speaking to his son Corianton about the resurrection (Alma 40:20.) Here Alma is teaching his son many principles on this all important doctrine. But then he gets to a question that in his day had not yet been revealed. He says "I give it as my opinion..."
However, in the Church we don't call what the prophets have done "speculation," but instead call it pondering. But the manner in which I think about things it is the same. I like the word speculation because it is helps the speculator really consider what is really taking place and reminds him or her that we only accept established doctrine as our foundation. In other words, personal speculation is not a foundation on which we should build our testimonies and there should be a noted difference between the two.
Speculation by an average member of the Church should never be considered the same as that done by the prophets. But in order for a member of the Church to conduct what I call healthy speculation, I firmly believe there are some rules that must be followed in order for it to be done safely. The worst thing that could happen to a faithful and active member of the Church when speculating on points of doctrine, is to allow it to take them into fields that are not ripe and certainly not prepared to harvest. In this entry, my plan is to share my thoughts and views on how doctrinal speculation can be conducted safely and wisely and hopefully in a healthy manner.
My primary principle of safe doctrinal speculation is that each of the Articles of Faith ought to be considered as questions (instead of statements) that the speculator can respond to in the affirmative. In other words the speculation cannot cause the speculator to deny any of the canonized Articles of Faith.
That bit of counsel ought to be enough, but in the interest of fleshing things out a bit, I will add a few more ideas that may help the reader. They have certainly been an aid to me.
1. The speculative idea cannot cause damage to the revealed knowledge of Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, or the Holy Ghost.
2. The speculative idea must do no harm to the revealed principles and doctrines of the restored gospel (ie. Plan of Salvation, canon, etc.)
3. The speculative idea must NOT harm or damage your own testimony.
4. Ask yourself: Will this speculation increase my faith in Jesus Christ and His appointed and authorized servants?
5. Rinse, repeat. (Then repeat again!)
There have been times when my speculative ideas have found themselves in contradiction with the principles above. When that has happened I immediately toss them out and go back to the drawing board (aka the scriptures). It is repulsive to my soul to believe anything that the Holy Spirit is not going to confirm as truth. He will only confirm as true that which is in alignment with already established and revealed knowledge. Indeed, a "house divided against itself shall stand" (Matthew 12:25).
Perhaps a good question to address is how do I speculate? I have found that when I ponder (aka speculate) on a principle of the restored gospel, I make a list of all my questions and proceed to answer them with brief answers. Sometimes I list a verse (or verses) of scripture next to the question in hopes that it will lead me to an answer. Once I have exhausted (in my own mind) my grasp on the relevant scriptures, I turn to my book collection and attempt to find books that may shed light on my question(s). As I study "out of the best books" (D&C 88:118) I continue to make my list. When I have read everything I can find on that given topic of speculation, I turn to my loved ones and trusted friends. Everyone needs a circle of men and women they can turn to and safely and freely discuss their ideas. This sharpens my thoughts and introduces new and insightful ways of thinking about this idea. Finally, I often will begin a kind of research paper in the form of a talk. I write down what I understand on the topic. Then an interesting thing takes place. As I type thoughts and ideas flow into my "heart and mind" (cf. D&C 8:2-3) and I realize that I am being taught from the Spirit. For me this is when things get exciting. I have found that writing my thoughts down in an organized fashion gives articulation to my ideas.
Sir Francis Bacon, an English author, courtier, & philosopher (1561-1626) once wrote, “Reading maketh a full man, conference a ready man, and writing an exact man.” As I demonstrated above, I find some terrific principles in thinking about speculative ideas in Bacon's assessment. It was only after I had discovered my own way of approaching speculative ideas that I read Bacon's analysis. Certainly I agree.
When it comes to speculating about doctrinal ideas I found found no substitute for reading and studying and pondering the scriptures. Members of the Church used to approach Elder Bruce R. McConkie and ask him what his secret to scripture was and how they could do the same. His response usually disappointed members. He would reply by saying that the secret to scripture study is that there is no secret. He said the secret was not in a color coding system, reading chronologically or topically, or early in the morning or late at night. Instead he said that the secret lies solely in the intensity and consistency in which we engage in the scriptures. I believe people were disappointed because Elder McConkie's response indicated that scripture study involved paying a price.
I love the scriptures and enjoy their study. It is when I am studying most intently that my speculation is the most rewarding. Again, let me emphasize that when I say speculate I am doing so in consideration of the principles I outlined above. For the most part, the speculative things that I learn are just for me--the are personal. I don't preach them from the pulpit nor do I lobby them with members or allow them to become unhealthy and fanatical gospel hobbies. Instead when I learn something from the Spirit after much study, discussing, and writing, I allow that idea to percolate in my soul. It then becomes a part of me and my learning and studying and researching continues. Some of my most treasured spiritual knowledge has come to me as a result of healthy speculation and adhering to my personal principles above. As long as my personal ideas are in harmony with revealed doctrines and principles of the restored gospel I allow them to take root. I am always aware of what the approved doctrines are of the Church and do all I can to keep those separate and yet complimentary to my own thoughts. In doing this I am giving priority to the teachings of appointed and ordained prophets, seers, and revelators over my own.
There is much more I would like to say on this topic but I need to speculate some more. Perhaps I will have something to add later. Perhaps.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Location:Zion National Park
Friday, March 16, 2012
Worship and Learning at Church
From time to time I hear members of the Church complain that they are not being fulfilled during the three-hour block. Most typically, the assertion is that the talks and lessons are not stimulating enough--spiritually and/or intellectually. I once felt like this as well. This is an embarrassing memory to relive, but in hopes that it will help someone else that is entertaining similar thoughts or having an experience that mirrors mine, it is worth the pain.
My wife and I were living in the Seattle-area at the time and I, along with work, school, and another ward calling, was teaching early morning seminary. Other than the fact that I am not really a morning person and on some days early morning seminary felt very early, I loved my experience teaching the youth and found it remarkably rewarding. Every day I would spend a great deal of time studying and preparing for my lessons. I learned doctrine and Church History at a level I had not done previously. It was an extremely stimulating and exciting time for me. Like many returned missionaries, I came home from the mission field and (unfortunately) didn't really continue my study habits that had become so refined while serving in Brazil. I regret that I didn't continue my scripture study behavior but nevertheless I became distracted by everything else. Gratefully, teaching early morning seminary forced me to get back into the scriptures. It didn't take long before I was right back to my habits and becoming spiritually and intellectually rejuvenated. Unfortunately there was an unexpected (and unwelcome) side-effect.
I became proud. Because I was learning so much and making so much progress (in my mind), I became dissatisfied with my three-hour block experience. I felt cheated in some way because the instructors and speakers weren't teaching and speaking at the same level as I felt and perceived my progress was making. I found myself becoming critical about the talks that were given. I would begin writing my own talk in my head and felt that I could do better. I even began thinking that it was too bad the bishop in my ward didn't have me speak frequently in Sacrament Meeting and teach Gospel Doctrine. After all, I thought, I am the smartest member here. I know more than anyone else. Who is more qualified than me? I sincerely felt that I was not being spiritually or intellectually stimulated anymore and wondered if I ever would again. No one could teach me anything that I don't already know, I thought. I actually remember thinking that! I am fundamentally ashamed these were my feelings.
I am grateful to a dear friend that heard about my proud and sinful feelings. He immediately called me and gave a well deserved rebuke. Of course, he was gentle and loving, but it was very clear he was disappointed in me. In retrospect I think it was his disappointment that caused me to reflect more seriously on my attitude. I told him how I felt and asked what I should do. He looked at me and said, "Matt, we don't come to Church to learn. The primary reason we come is to worship."
I must say that that word, worship, changed my whole outlook on my Church experience. My friend was absolutely right. Less I be misunderstood, I am fully aware that when we come to Church we do learn. But learning, I have realized, is a blessing that is associated with worship, almost a side-effect. I changed my misguided thinking and something wonderful happened. (I might add this wonderful thing has continued to happen.)
As I began attending my three-hour block with the idea of worship in mind instead of attempting to prove how much I knew or silently challenging others to try to teach me everything changed. Because I was coming to worship my heart became humble. I was no longer fixating on myself and what members were (or weren't) doing for me in order to spiritually stimulate me. Instead I was just focusing on the Redeeming sacrifice of Jesus Christ and the gift His Father gave to us. In my hymn singing, in my prayers and meditations, and as I listened to my fellow saints speak and teach, I was focused on the Godhead and expressing my eternal and boundless gratitude for them. My hope was to be worthy of the Holy Spirit and find ways to keep the covenants and commandments better. What happened next was unexpected: as a result of my change of heart I began to learn. In fact I began to learn more from my fellow congregants than I ever had alone. I still maintain that the purpose of our Church experience on Sunday is primarily to worship, however I also know that as we are humble the Spirit will allow us to be spiritually stimulated.
And so back my original reason for writing this. When I hear that members are feeling the same way I once felt, I feel sad for them and wish they had a friend like I once had. Perhaps this will serve that same function. I hope so.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
My wife and I were living in the Seattle-area at the time and I, along with work, school, and another ward calling, was teaching early morning seminary. Other than the fact that I am not really a morning person and on some days early morning seminary felt very early, I loved my experience teaching the youth and found it remarkably rewarding. Every day I would spend a great deal of time studying and preparing for my lessons. I learned doctrine and Church History at a level I had not done previously. It was an extremely stimulating and exciting time for me. Like many returned missionaries, I came home from the mission field and (unfortunately) didn't really continue my study habits that had become so refined while serving in Brazil. I regret that I didn't continue my scripture study behavior but nevertheless I became distracted by everything else. Gratefully, teaching early morning seminary forced me to get back into the scriptures. It didn't take long before I was right back to my habits and becoming spiritually and intellectually rejuvenated. Unfortunately there was an unexpected (and unwelcome) side-effect.
I became proud. Because I was learning so much and making so much progress (in my mind), I became dissatisfied with my three-hour block experience. I felt cheated in some way because the instructors and speakers weren't teaching and speaking at the same level as I felt and perceived my progress was making. I found myself becoming critical about the talks that were given. I would begin writing my own talk in my head and felt that I could do better. I even began thinking that it was too bad the bishop in my ward didn't have me speak frequently in Sacrament Meeting and teach Gospel Doctrine. After all, I thought, I am the smartest member here. I know more than anyone else. Who is more qualified than me? I sincerely felt that I was not being spiritually or intellectually stimulated anymore and wondered if I ever would again. No one could teach me anything that I don't already know, I thought. I actually remember thinking that! I am fundamentally ashamed these were my feelings.
I am grateful to a dear friend that heard about my proud and sinful feelings. He immediately called me and gave a well deserved rebuke. Of course, he was gentle and loving, but it was very clear he was disappointed in me. In retrospect I think it was his disappointment that caused me to reflect more seriously on my attitude. I told him how I felt and asked what I should do. He looked at me and said, "Matt, we don't come to Church to learn. The primary reason we come is to worship."
I must say that that word, worship, changed my whole outlook on my Church experience. My friend was absolutely right. Less I be misunderstood, I am fully aware that when we come to Church we do learn. But learning, I have realized, is a blessing that is associated with worship, almost a side-effect. I changed my misguided thinking and something wonderful happened. (I might add this wonderful thing has continued to happen.)
As I began attending my three-hour block with the idea of worship in mind instead of attempting to prove how much I knew or silently challenging others to try to teach me everything changed. Because I was coming to worship my heart became humble. I was no longer fixating on myself and what members were (or weren't) doing for me in order to spiritually stimulate me. Instead I was just focusing on the Redeeming sacrifice of Jesus Christ and the gift His Father gave to us. In my hymn singing, in my prayers and meditations, and as I listened to my fellow saints speak and teach, I was focused on the Godhead and expressing my eternal and boundless gratitude for them. My hope was to be worthy of the Holy Spirit and find ways to keep the covenants and commandments better. What happened next was unexpected: as a result of my change of heart I began to learn. In fact I began to learn more from my fellow congregants than I ever had alone. I still maintain that the purpose of our Church experience on Sunday is primarily to worship, however I also know that as we are humble the Spirit will allow us to be spiritually stimulated.
And so back my original reason for writing this. When I hear that members are feeling the same way I once felt, I feel sad for them and wish they had a friend like I once had. Perhaps this will serve that same function. I hope so.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Saturday, January 14, 2012
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
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
Saturday, October 15, 2011
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.
"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.
Saturday, August 27, 2011
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.
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.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
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
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
Thursday, July 28, 2011
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
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
Friday, July 15, 2011
Thoughts on Priesthood Keys
A week before (July 3, 2011) I was released as the Bishop of my ward (July 10, 2011), our Elders Quorum President invited me to teach a lesson on Priesthood Keys. What follows is my lesson outline. You will notice that I had a forward that asked that the brethren in the Quorum not make comments. I had not done that before and don't that I will ever do it again. However, because of my limited time that day (and ultimately as bishop of the ward) I felt that questions would be more appropriate in this case rather than comments. I hope that there may be something useful here that will benefit you.
Forward:
I am going to ask that you not make comments. Rather, if you have an honest question please feel free to pose it. Otherwise I will ask that you please refrain from making comments. My time is more limited than we realize and I want to be sure I express myself wholly and completely on this vital topic.
Scriptural Foundation
D&C 43:7 – Keys holders and all others that minister to the Saints must come in at the gate. This is similar in principle to John 10:1-2, though Christ’s words in John are more to the point.
Joseph Smith taught: “The fundamental principles, government, and doctrine of the Church are vested in the keys of the kingdom.” (HC 1:338.)
Definitions
- Key: locks or unlocks doors.
- Priesthood: the power and authority of God.
- Priesthood Key: the power and authority to lock and unlock Gods blessings. They are the “right of presidency” (D&C 107:8) or the right to preside.
- Key Holder: one who presides (a president) by right of authority, who oversees and authorizes the specific saving ordinances over which he presides in a geographic area.
- It is important to note that Priesthood Keys are geographic. This is why it is so important to observe ward boundaries, as silly as that may seem.
Why Priesthood Keys
- I believe that Keys were lost in the Great Apostasy
- Keys are what were restored to Joseph Smith (always with a witness)
- Keys are what enables us to access the redemptive powers of the Atonement of Jesus Christ
- Without Keys we would just be another Christian church that teaches good things
- Keys ensure that the Lord's house is always a house of order. Without Keys confusion would reign (D&C 132:8)
Some Examples of Correct Principles
- Sacrament Meeting (Can all men hold a sacrament meeting? What about when traveling? What if your wife suggests you stay home and hold a nice romantic sacrament meeting?)
- Revelation (counsel, blessings, direction, etc.)
- Callings and Announcements—and why they ought to be kept confidential (Law of Common Consent and who has the right to extend calls and releases)
- Bishops says one thing and Stake Primary Presidency says another… (What to do?)
- Elders Quorum and High Priest Group Leaders are stake callings, yet they must absolutely check all callings through the Bishop… (Why?)
What does it mean to me to hold keys?
· Paul and Ananias (Acts 9:1-18) “Jesus had come from the courts of glory to chasten and reprove Saul. Why, then, did not the Lord tell his future minister how to turn from the error of his ways? Why appear to him without delivering the whole message? Simply because the Lord had a servant named Ananias whose commission and work it was to teach and baptize Paul. The presiding officer of heaven and earth would not overstep the bounds of his own laws. He had delegated power to his local officer to handle matters of this sort and to him even the future apostle to the Gentiles must apply for counsel and direction.” (DNTC 2:90.)
· It means the Lord has asked that I be His steward for a time and a season to act in his behalf for the salvation (both temporal and eternal, both short-term and long-term) of the members of our ward.
What does it mean to me that others do not hold keys?
· Rights of revelation are limited to spiritual and physical geography.
· Wilford Woodruff: “The spirit of revelation belongs to the priesthood” (Collected Discourses, April 8, 1894)
· Joseph Smith, “I will inform you that it is contrary to the economy of God for any member of the Church, or any one, to receive instruction for those in authority, higher than themselves; therefore you will see the impropriety of giving heed to them; but if any person have a vision or a visitation from a heavenly messenger, it must be for his own benefit and instruction; for the fundamental principles, government, and doctrine of the Church are vested in the keys of the kingdom.” (Teachings, p. 21)
· What do you do if an angel appears? What should his message be? (The same as Christ’s to Paul to go find Ananias.)
How should we treat those that hold keys?
· They are men, imperfect and more aware of their own faults than anyone else could point out.
· With respect and deference to the keys and office and calling that relate to those keys.
· With prayers and sustaining (D&C 107:22)
· President John Taylor said with typical boldness, “You cannot say that you submit to the law of God while you reject the word and counsel of his servants.” (Journal of Discourses 7:325.)
Not Observing Priesthood Channels and Keys can lead to apostasy:
· President Kimball taught the following:
Apostasy usually begins with question and doubt and criticism. It is a retrograding and devolutionary process. The seeds of doubt are planted by unscrupulous or misguided people; and seldom directed against the doctrine at first, but mete often against the leaders.
They who garnish the sepulchers of the dead prophets begin now by stoning the living ones; they return to the pronouncements of the dead leaders and interpret them to be incompatible with present programs. They convince themselves that there are discrepancies between the practices of the deceased and the leaders of the present….
Apply this to modern times…. Many budding apostates follow the pattern progressively. They allege love for the gospel and the Church but charge that leaders are a little “off the beam.” Soon they claim that the leaders are making changes and not following the original programs. Next they say that while the gospel and the Church are divine, the leaders are fallen. Up to this time it may be a passive thing, but now it becomes an active resistance and frequently the blooming apostate begins to air his views and to crusade. He is likely now to join [others and perhaps] groups who are slipping away. He… is flattered by the evil one that he knows more about the scriptures and doctrines than the Church leaders who, he says, are now persecuting him. He generally wants all the blessings of the Church: membership, its Priesthood, its temple privileges, and expects them from the leaders of the Church, though at the same time claiming that these leaders have departed from the path. He now begins to expect persecution and adopts a martyr complex and when finally [Church discipline] comes he associates himself with other apostates to develop or strengthen cults. At this stage he is likely to claim revelation for himself; revelations from the Lord directing him in his interpretations and his actions. These manifestations are superior to anything from living leaders, he claims. He is now becoming quite independent.
He fails to recognize that if the Church had gone astray, and if its authorities were “off the beam,” that he could get no authority from them or from anywhere else….
Some of these people disappointed, perhaps ignored in their ambitions, hungry for leadership, are deceivers of the first order. To them there is little help we can give. (That You May Not Be Deceived, BYU Devotional, November 11, 1959, n.p.)
- Elder Dallin H. Oaks taught: “Some members or former members of our church fail to recognize the importance of the priesthood line. They underestimate the importance of the Church and its leaders and its programs. Relying entirely on the personal line [of revelation], they go their own way, purporting to define doctrine and to direct competing organizations contrary to the teachings of prophet-leaders. In this they mirror the modern hostility to what is disparagingly called “organized religion.” Those who reject the need for organized religion reject the work of the Master, who established His Church and its officers in the meridian of time and who reestablished them in modern times.” (Two Lines of Communication.)
- D&C 124:45-46 – if we do not hearken to the First Presidency and those they have appointed, we “shall not be blest.” This is the same principle found in D&C 1:38 (“whether by my own voice or the voice of my servant it is the same.”)
Keys are Designed to Bless Us
- Baptism (both of water and fire)
- Sacrament (D&C 20:77, 79)
- Repentance (D&C 13)
- Revelation and Counsel (Heavens continue to be Open and Accessible to us through Keys)
In the end, all keys belong to God. At the last day, all keys will be given back to Christ. For example Elder Joseph Fielding Smith, then a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, taught:
“This gathering of the children of Adam, where the thousands, and the tens of thousands are assembled in the judgment, will be one of the greatest events this troubled earth has ever seen. At this conference, or council, all who have held keys of dispensations will render a report of their stewardship. Adam will do likewise, and then he will [surrender] to Christ all authority. Then Adam will be confirmed in his calling as the prince over his posterity and will be officially installed and crowned eternally in this presiding calling. Then Christ will be received as King of kings, and Lord of lords. We do not know how long a time this gathering will be in session, or how many sessions may be held at this grand council. It is sufficient to know that it is a gathering of the Priesthood of God from the beginning of this earth down to the present, in which reports will be made and all who have been given dispensations (talents) will declare their keys and ministry and make report of their stewardship according to the parable. Judgment will be rendered unto them for this is a gathering of the righteous, those who have held and who hold keys of authority in the Kingdom of God upon this earth. It is not to be the judgment of the wicked. When all things are prepared and every key and power set in order with a full and perfect report of each man’s stewardship, then Christ will receive these reports and be installed as rightful Ruler of this earth. At this grand council he will take his place by the united voice of the thousands who by right of Priesthood are there assembled. This will precede the great day of destruction of the wicked and will be the preparation for the Millennial Reign” (The Progress of Man, 3rded. [1944], 481–82; see also Bruce R. McConkie, The Millennial Messiah: The Second Coming of the Son of Man [1982], pp.578–88).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)