Today marks the 164th anniversary of the martyrdom of the Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum. This is always a difficult anniversary for me because of the manner in which it happened. It seems that each year as this anniversary rolls around, and I refresh my memory of the events by reading in the D&C or History of the Church, I continue to be touched as I read the events.
Elder John Taylor, an eyewitness to the events, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and later the 3rd President of the Church wrote the following which is now verse 7 in Section 135 of the Doctrine & Covenants:
“They were innocent of any crime, as they had often been proved before, and were only confined in jail by the conspiracy of traitors and wicked men; and their innocent blood on the floor of Carthage jail is a broad seal affixed to “Mormonism” that cannot be rejected by any court on earth, and their innocent blood on the escutcheon of the State of Illinois, with the broken faith of the State as pledged by the governor, is a witness to the truth of the everlasting gospel that all the world cannot impeach; and their innocent blood on the banner of liberty, and on the magna charta of the United States, is an ambassador for the religion of Jesus Christ, that will touch the hearts of honest men among all nations; and their innocent blood, with the innocent blood of all the martyrs under the altar that John saw, will cry unto the Lord of Hosts till he avenges that blood on the earth. Amen.”
As I think about the events of that day and those following, I can’t help but think of how it all could have been avoided if it weren’t for the actions (or lack thereof) of the Governor of Illinois. I don’t know a lot about Governor Thomas Ford, but my thoughts on him mirror a similar sentiment he said about himself in his book History of Illinois, as quoted in Carthage Conspiracy:
“In his history Ford lamented the possibility that the names of “Nauvoo, and the Carthage Jail, may become holy and venerable names, places of classic interest, in another age; like Jerusalem, the Garden of Gethsemane, the Mount of Olives, and Mount Calvary to the Christian…” Ford wrote that, if this were to be the case, he felt “degraded by the reflection, that the humble governor of an obscure State, who would otherwise be forgotten in a few years, stands a fair chance, like Pilate and Herod, by their official connection with the true religion, of being dragged down to posterity with an immortal name, hitched on to the memory of a miserable imposter.”
I am a little unsure about the statement “miserable imposter”, whether he means himself or Joseph. If he means himself, it’s a pretty accurate statement seeing as how his pretended protection and cowardly acts brought about the martyrdom; however, if he is referring to Joseph, then I guess he considers the Savior a “miserable imposter” as well, since he is comparing himself to those men who helped bring about the Savior’s death.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Haply Fighting Against God
For the past several months I have participated in and observed “discussions” (to put it nicely) between members of the Church and those who oppose it. Among their many reasons for attacking the church, they cite scriptures that seemingly command them to “attack” the church, like the following scripture:
“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” (Jude 1:3)
So, our critics feel like they have a need to “earnestly contend” with us constantly, instead of just preaching what they believe. I think there is a distinction between preaching what you believe and attacking what others believe. It’s fairly obvious that the LDS Church has an extensive missionary program, and some might see that as “attacking” others’ religious beliefs. Actually, the Church is very respective of others’ beliefs, and does not proselyte in countries where it is forbidden, and trains missionaries to respect those laws. LDS Missionaries go out to preach the gospel, and not to attack others. Now, there may be some who feel they need to ignore this advice, but they are acting of their own accord and contrary to established Missionary rules.
So why do critics of the LDS Church feel they have to attack our beliefs instead of simply preaching theirs? I’m not sure, but there was a non-Christian who had a pretty good alternative solution almost two thousand years ago.
In Acts, chapter 5, the apostles Peter and John are (yet again) cast into prison and are miraculously delivered from prison by an angel, who then tells them to “Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life.” The next day, the two apostles go to the Temple and preach the gospel. The High Priest and his council, after discovering that they are not in the prison, and “the keepers standing without before the doors” as they had been the night before, send forth to have the apostles brought before the council. After asking why they continued to preach the gospel after being “straitly commanded” not to, Peter stated that he would obey God, not man and then indicted the council with the death of Jesus. Upon hearing this, “they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them”.
At this point a man “in the council” stood up to defend the apostles; “a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people”. In other words, this man was a very intelligent and respected man among his peers in the Sanhedrin. In fact, Gamaliel was the Saul’s teacher, before he became Paul the Apostle.
Gamaliel recited two incidents from the past of people who had drawn many men unto them and their cause, and ended up failing and losing their followers. The first he mentions is Theudas. Josephus describes who Gamaliel may have been referring to.
“Now it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus's government.” (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, 5:1)
The next example was Judas of Galilee. Again, according to Josephus, Judas “became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity.”
Judas resented the fact that some Roman rulers came into Judea to “take an account of their substance”. Most of the Jews would have normally despised the idea of taxation, too, but because of the teachings of Joazar, a high priest, they submitted to the taxation; all except for Judas and his group of followers. On the surface, Judas fighting against taxation seems like a justifiable action. However, revolting against taxation wasn’t his only “crime”.
“They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one another in such councils as might be successful, and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same so men received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height. All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; one violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends which used to alleviate our pains; there were also very great robberies and murder of our principal men. This was done in pretense indeed for the public welfare, but in reality for the hopes of gain to themselves; whence arose seditions, and from them murders of men, which sometimes fell on those of their own people, (by the madness of these men towards one another, while their desire was that none of the adverse party might be left,) and sometimes on their enemies”. (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, 1:1)
These men were robbers pure and simple. They hid their atrocities behind their so-called religious beliefs. We are not told how Judas dies or how his sedition is crushed, but we know from Gamaliel’s words (and history, really) that he did fail in his attempt.
Gamaliel’s reasons for describing the outcomes of these seditionists was that, eventually, they were discovered for what they purported to be; charlatans and deceivers. Applying this same concept to the apostles, he states “And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.” (Acts 5:38-39)
Gamaliel was so respected, that what he had to say appeased the council that was ready to kill the two apostles. Instead, the Sanhedrin released them (but not before giving them a good beating) and commanded them not to preach anymore.
The reason why Gamaliel’s words are so interesting to me, is that some people spend so much time and energy fighting against the LDS Church, bringing up old arguments and quoting scriptures (most, if not all of the time, out of context) to try to prove that either they are right or we are wrong or both. And really all they need to do is follow Gamaliel’s council to “let them alone; for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought.”
Maybe that’s why they fight so hard; because after more than 150 years, it has not “come to nought” and that makes them very uncomfortable, maybe to the point where they think they can make it come to nought. So I guess, in a way, Gamaliel’s words have been proven true, which is a pretty harrowing realization to come to if you expected this work to come to nought. What does that tell us about whose work this is?
“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” (Jude 1:3)
So, our critics feel like they have a need to “earnestly contend” with us constantly, instead of just preaching what they believe. I think there is a distinction between preaching what you believe and attacking what others believe. It’s fairly obvious that the LDS Church has an extensive missionary program, and some might see that as “attacking” others’ religious beliefs. Actually, the Church is very respective of others’ beliefs, and does not proselyte in countries where it is forbidden, and trains missionaries to respect those laws. LDS Missionaries go out to preach the gospel, and not to attack others. Now, there may be some who feel they need to ignore this advice, but they are acting of their own accord and contrary to established Missionary rules.
So why do critics of the LDS Church feel they have to attack our beliefs instead of simply preaching theirs? I’m not sure, but there was a non-Christian who had a pretty good alternative solution almost two thousand years ago.
In Acts, chapter 5, the apostles Peter and John are (yet again) cast into prison and are miraculously delivered from prison by an angel, who then tells them to “Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life.” The next day, the two apostles go to the Temple and preach the gospel. The High Priest and his council, after discovering that they are not in the prison, and “the keepers standing without before the doors” as they had been the night before, send forth to have the apostles brought before the council. After asking why they continued to preach the gospel after being “straitly commanded” not to, Peter stated that he would obey God, not man and then indicted the council with the death of Jesus. Upon hearing this, “they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them”.
At this point a man “in the council” stood up to defend the apostles; “a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people”. In other words, this man was a very intelligent and respected man among his peers in the Sanhedrin. In fact, Gamaliel was the Saul’s teacher, before he became Paul the Apostle.
Gamaliel recited two incidents from the past of people who had drawn many men unto them and their cause, and ended up failing and losing their followers. The first he mentions is Theudas. Josephus describes who Gamaliel may have been referring to.
“Now it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus's government.” (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, 5:1)
The next example was Judas of Galilee. Again, according to Josephus, Judas “became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity.”
Judas resented the fact that some Roman rulers came into Judea to “take an account of their substance”. Most of the Jews would have normally despised the idea of taxation, too, but because of the teachings of Joazar, a high priest, they submitted to the taxation; all except for Judas and his group of followers. On the surface, Judas fighting against taxation seems like a justifiable action. However, revolting against taxation wasn’t his only “crime”.
“They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one another in such councils as might be successful, and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same so men received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height. All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; one violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends which used to alleviate our pains; there were also very great robberies and murder of our principal men. This was done in pretense indeed for the public welfare, but in reality for the hopes of gain to themselves; whence arose seditions, and from them murders of men, which sometimes fell on those of their own people, (by the madness of these men towards one another, while their desire was that none of the adverse party might be left,) and sometimes on their enemies”. (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, 1:1)
These men were robbers pure and simple. They hid their atrocities behind their so-called religious beliefs. We are not told how Judas dies or how his sedition is crushed, but we know from Gamaliel’s words (and history, really) that he did fail in his attempt.
Gamaliel’s reasons for describing the outcomes of these seditionists was that, eventually, they were discovered for what they purported to be; charlatans and deceivers. Applying this same concept to the apostles, he states “And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.” (Acts 5:38-39)
Gamaliel was so respected, that what he had to say appeased the council that was ready to kill the two apostles. Instead, the Sanhedrin released them (but not before giving them a good beating) and commanded them not to preach anymore.
The reason why Gamaliel’s words are so interesting to me, is that some people spend so much time and energy fighting against the LDS Church, bringing up old arguments and quoting scriptures (most, if not all of the time, out of context) to try to prove that either they are right or we are wrong or both. And really all they need to do is follow Gamaliel’s council to “let them alone; for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought.”
Maybe that’s why they fight so hard; because after more than 150 years, it has not “come to nought” and that makes them very uncomfortable, maybe to the point where they think they can make it come to nought. So I guess, in a way, Gamaliel’s words have been proven true, which is a pretty harrowing realization to come to if you expected this work to come to nought. What does that tell us about whose work this is?
Monday, June 9, 2008
You Can't Not Know
I just read “In the Lord’s Own Way” by Elder Russell M. Nelson from the May 1986 Ensign. Interestingly, his talk was the third Welfare talk in a row in this conference and was followed by another talk on Welfare. What was going on in 1986 to cause such emphasis on Welfare? (I was only 11 years old at the time; I was only interested in baseball and getting into trouble, so I probably wasn’t too aware of the current events…)
During this talk, Elder Nelson quotes a scripture from Proverbs 29:7, which reads, “The righteous considereth the cause of the poor: but the wicked regardeth not to know it.” I read that as "the wicked pretend that there are no poor" so they don't have to assist them.
As I read this, the first thing that came to my mind was the Parable of the Good Samaritan. While I was in college, I took an Institute course on Parables, and learned that this parable in the Inspired Version of the Bible has some additional insight. The Inspired Version, which I believe is still used today by the RLDS Church, was the culmination of the Prophet Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible, although it was never published during his lifetime.
Compare these verses from the King James Version of the Bible and Joseph Smith's Inspired Version.
King James Version:
Luke 10
31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
Joseph Smith Translation – Inspired Version:
Luke 10
32 And by chance, there came down a certain priest that way; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side of the way.
33 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked upon him, and passed by on the other side of the way; for they desired in their hearts that it might not be known that they had seen him.
(Emphasis mine; unfortunately, these verses are not included in the LDS JST, only the full Inspired Version).
This addition: “for they desired in their hearts that it might not be known that they had seen him” seems to corroborate the scripture in Proverbs. In other words, the Priest and the Levite, while fully knowing the suffering of the “poor” man who had been beaten, “regardeth not to know it”.
I believe this means that the “wicked” just don’t want to acknowledge poor people or that there is a problem. It really is impossible to "not know" about the poor among us, especially those who are "temporally" poor. To not want to acknowledge it is a shameful thing. Kind of a sobering set of scriptures when used together and should cause each of us to reflect on our own efforts in assisting the poor among us.
During this talk, Elder Nelson quotes a scripture from Proverbs 29:7, which reads, “The righteous considereth the cause of the poor: but the wicked regardeth not to know it.” I read that as "the wicked pretend that there are no poor" so they don't have to assist them.
As I read this, the first thing that came to my mind was the Parable of the Good Samaritan. While I was in college, I took an Institute course on Parables, and learned that this parable in the Inspired Version of the Bible has some additional insight. The Inspired Version, which I believe is still used today by the RLDS Church, was the culmination of the Prophet Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible, although it was never published during his lifetime.
Compare these verses from the King James Version of the Bible and Joseph Smith's Inspired Version.
King James Version:
Luke 10
31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
Joseph Smith Translation – Inspired Version:
Luke 10
32 And by chance, there came down a certain priest that way; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side of the way.
33 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked upon him, and passed by on the other side of the way; for they desired in their hearts that it might not be known that they had seen him.
(Emphasis mine; unfortunately, these verses are not included in the LDS JST, only the full Inspired Version).
This addition: “for they desired in their hearts that it might not be known that they had seen him” seems to corroborate the scripture in Proverbs. In other words, the Priest and the Levite, while fully knowing the suffering of the “poor” man who had been beaten, “regardeth not to know it”.
I believe this means that the “wicked” just don’t want to acknowledge poor people or that there is a problem. It really is impossible to "not know" about the poor among us, especially those who are "temporally" poor. To not want to acknowledge it is a shameful thing. Kind of a sobering set of scriptures when used together and should cause each of us to reflect on our own efforts in assisting the poor among us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)