In last April’s conference, Elder M. Russell Ballard gave a talk called “Learning the Lessons of the Past”. He told the story of when he was in business as a car dealership, he went and visited with the Ford Motor Company about a “spectacularly successful product”. After the sales pitch, Elder Ballard’s father, who was also in the business, cautioned him about selling that particular model at his dealership. Elder Ballard was wooed by the sales pitch and became the first – and the last – Edsel dealer in Salt Lake City. The Edsel was a flop and it was an expensive lesson for Elder Ballard. He says “Now, there’s a powerful lesson for all of you in this experience. When you are willing to listen and learn, some of life’s most meaningful teachings come from those who have gone before you. They have walked where you are walking and have experienced many of the things you are experiencing. If you listen and respond to their counsel, they can help guide you toward choices that will be for your benefit and blessing and steer you away from decisions that can destroy you.”
I was reading recently in the Old Testament about a similar situation. There's no doubt as to the wisdom possessed by King Solomon. He was the King who had two women come to him claiming to be the rightful mother to a certain baby. In order solve the problem, King Solomon ordered the baby to be cut in half and one half given to each of the women. The real mother, however, would rather have the baby saved alive and given to the fake mother, than to see it killed. The fake mother agreed to half it. Obviously King Solomon knew who the rightful mother was and gave her the child. The scriptures are full of praise for Solomon and his wisdom. However, King Solomon did not pass his wisdom to his son Rehoboam. Soon after King Solomon passed away, a group of people led by a man named Shechem, came to him claiming they had been grievously yoked by Solomon, and they wanted to know if Rehoboam, the new king, was going to ease their burdens. Rehoboam told them to give him some time to think about it and went and spoke to his “old men” who told him “If thou be kind to this people, and please them, and speak good words to them, they will be thy servants for ever.” (2 Chronicles 10:7 & 1 Kings 12:7) Then the scriptures say “But he forsook the counsel which the old men gave him, and took counsel with the young men that were brought up with him, that stood before him”. What did the young men tell him to say? Well, you can read for yourself, but in layman’s terms he told them “if you think my dad was hard on you, you ain’t seen nothing yet.”
Because of Rehoboam’s callous response, the children of Israel who followed Shechem split off from the rest of Israel (Judah & Benjamin) and formed their own kingdom. As the scriptures further state, these two kingdoms constantly fought one another and were both eventually taken captive by other kingdoms, thus leading to the scattering of Israel.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Steadying the Ark
In 2 Samuel 6, the story is told of the Israelites taking back the ark that had been captured by the Philistines. During the journey, they apparently encountered some rough terrain and Uzza (who was one of the men helping to carrying the ark), noticed the oxen were shaking the ark and decided to steady it so it wouldn’t fall. Upon doing this, God smote him “for his error” and he died. David is then scared to move the ark any further and it stays with a man named Obed-edom.
In LDS circles, the phrase “steadying the ark” is used a lot as an analogy that we should just let the work of God move forward and not question what is being said or done by the leadership (at any level). There is the belief, I guess, that Uzza didn’t really need to steady the ark because God would have taken care of it on His own. Today, when someone questions a church idea or program, people accuse them of “steadying the ark”, and tell them they should just let the church move forward, because, well, look what happened to Uzza. While I think there may be some truth in trusting in the leadership to know how manage their stewardship, I think the application of “steadying the ark” in this instance is wrong.
If we look a little deeper into this story we find out the real reason why Uzza was killed, and it wasn’t because he was trying to protect the ark. The story of Uzza is retold in 1 Chronicles 13:9-10, but this time further explanation is given. In 1 Chronicles 15, David has prepared a place to house the ark, and decides to bring the ark from Obed-edom’s house, but this time he says “None ought to carry the ark of God but the Levites: for them hath the LORD chosen to carry the ark of God, and to minister unto him for ever.” (1 Chronicles 15:2) He later tells them “Ye are the chief of the fathers of the Levites: sanctify yourselves, both ye and your brethren, that ye may bring up the ark of the Lord God of Israel unto the place that I have prepared for it. For because ye did it not at the first, the Lord our God made a breach upon us, for that we sought him not after the due order.” (1 Chronicles 15:12-13)
Uzza was smitten, not because he tried to steady something that apparently didn’t need steadying, but because he was not a Levite, a member of the tribe of Israel who were called and appointed to officiate in matters of the temple and priesthood. So, I think the morale of the story isn’t necessarily to not question anything that doesn’t need questioning, but rather there is order to the priesthood and when something is done outside that order, there are consequences. Now, I don’t necessarily think that type of thing would happen today. Can you imagine if a deacon tried to bless the sacrament for the congregation, and was smitten because he wasn’t a priest?
In LDS circles, the phrase “steadying the ark” is used a lot as an analogy that we should just let the work of God move forward and not question what is being said or done by the leadership (at any level). There is the belief, I guess, that Uzza didn’t really need to steady the ark because God would have taken care of it on His own. Today, when someone questions a church idea or program, people accuse them of “steadying the ark”, and tell them they should just let the church move forward, because, well, look what happened to Uzza. While I think there may be some truth in trusting in the leadership to know how manage their stewardship, I think the application of “steadying the ark” in this instance is wrong.
If we look a little deeper into this story we find out the real reason why Uzza was killed, and it wasn’t because he was trying to protect the ark. The story of Uzza is retold in 1 Chronicles 13:9-10, but this time further explanation is given. In 1 Chronicles 15, David has prepared a place to house the ark, and decides to bring the ark from Obed-edom’s house, but this time he says “None ought to carry the ark of God but the Levites: for them hath the LORD chosen to carry the ark of God, and to minister unto him for ever.” (1 Chronicles 15:2) He later tells them “Ye are the chief of the fathers of the Levites: sanctify yourselves, both ye and your brethren, that ye may bring up the ark of the Lord God of Israel unto the place that I have prepared for it. For because ye did it not at the first, the Lord our God made a breach upon us, for that we sought him not after the due order.” (1 Chronicles 15:12-13)
Uzza was smitten, not because he tried to steady something that apparently didn’t need steadying, but because he was not a Levite, a member of the tribe of Israel who were called and appointed to officiate in matters of the temple and priesthood. So, I think the morale of the story isn’t necessarily to not question anything that doesn’t need questioning, but rather there is order to the priesthood and when something is done outside that order, there are consequences. Now, I don’t necessarily think that type of thing would happen today. Can you imagine if a deacon tried to bless the sacrament for the congregation, and was smitten because he wasn’t a priest?
Monday, March 8, 2010
Dual Nature of Man
In October of 1969, just before his death, President David O. McKay gave his final talk as President of the Church. It was titled "In the Church, Man Does Not Live for Himself Alone". His emphasis was on the duality of man:
“We have heard during the sessions of this conference that man is a dual being: He is physical, and has his appetites, passions, desires, just as any animal has. But he is also a spiritual being; and he knows that to subdue the animal instincts is to achieve advancement in his spiritual realm; that a man who is subjected to his physical appetites and passions only, who denies any reality of a spirit, is truly of the animal world; and that man is a spiritual being, and his real life is the spirit that inhabits his body.”
He then tells the following story about President John Quincy Adams:
“President John Quincy Adams gave a good illustration of this when he was accosted on the streets of Boston one day and was asked, "How is John Quincy Adams today?"
He answered, as he tottered along with hips cane, "John Quincy Adams is well, thank you, quite well. But the house in which he lives is tottering on its foundations, the windows are shaking, the roof is leaking, the doors are not hanging straight; and I think John Quincy Adams will have to move out of it soon. But John Quincy Adams himself, sir, is quite well, I thank you, quite well!" He sensed that the real John Quincy Adams was an immortal being, a son of a Father in heaven.
That is one great truth to which testimony has been borne in this conference—that man is spirit, the son of his Father, and has within him that which will cause him to yearn and to aspire to become dignified as a son of God should be dignified. The dignity of man, not the degradation of man, has been emphasized throughout this conference.”
I love this teaching; that man, while subject to passions and appetites, is not meant to just give in to them. The world may teach and believe that we have no control over any physical urges that come to us and we should just embrace them, regardless of the consequences. I believe we are here in this life to tame our physical body, to bring it into subjection to our spirit, which is the “real” us. That’s one of the reasons we fast, so we can show that while our body may be subject to hunger, our spirit is stronger and when we fast for something, the spirit will give us strength to overcome the body hunger pains. There is spiritual strength in this.
“We have heard during the sessions of this conference that man is a dual being: He is physical, and has his appetites, passions, desires, just as any animal has. But he is also a spiritual being; and he knows that to subdue the animal instincts is to achieve advancement in his spiritual realm; that a man who is subjected to his physical appetites and passions only, who denies any reality of a spirit, is truly of the animal world; and that man is a spiritual being, and his real life is the spirit that inhabits his body.”
He then tells the following story about President John Quincy Adams:
“President John Quincy Adams gave a good illustration of this when he was accosted on the streets of Boston one day and was asked, "How is John Quincy Adams today?"
He answered, as he tottered along with hips cane, "John Quincy Adams is well, thank you, quite well. But the house in which he lives is tottering on its foundations, the windows are shaking, the roof is leaking, the doors are not hanging straight; and I think John Quincy Adams will have to move out of it soon. But John Quincy Adams himself, sir, is quite well, I thank you, quite well!" He sensed that the real John Quincy Adams was an immortal being, a son of a Father in heaven.
That is one great truth to which testimony has been borne in this conference—that man is spirit, the son of his Father, and has within him that which will cause him to yearn and to aspire to become dignified as a son of God should be dignified. The dignity of man, not the degradation of man, has been emphasized throughout this conference.”
I love this teaching; that man, while subject to passions and appetites, is not meant to just give in to them. The world may teach and believe that we have no control over any physical urges that come to us and we should just embrace them, regardless of the consequences. I believe we are here in this life to tame our physical body, to bring it into subjection to our spirit, which is the “real” us. That’s one of the reasons we fast, so we can show that while our body may be subject to hunger, our spirit is stronger and when we fast for something, the spirit will give us strength to overcome the body hunger pains. There is spiritual strength in this.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Way to Represent
During the press conference after the Utah/BYU game Max Hall said “I don't like Utah. In fact, I hate them. I hate everything about them. I hate their program, I hate their fans, I hate everything... I think the whole university, their fans and their organization is classless. They threw beer on my family and stuff last year, and they did a whole bunch of nasty things, and I don't respect them, and they deserved to lose.” (emphasis added) There have been hundreds of comments online about his comments (as of right now, over 800 comments on the SL Tribune article, 1442 comments on the KSL.com article, 873 comments on the Deseret News article and hundreds more on other online articles and bulletin boards).
I love sports. I love playing them and for the most part, love watching them. I understand rivalries, too. Being from Green River, Wyoming there was a time in my life when I thought nothing good could ever have come out of Rock Springs. I have been called terrible things by players and fans of a rivalry team firsthand, so I understand that in the emotion of the moment, you can say some negative things about those players and teams. But, I never played for an organization that represents the “only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth”, one that is supported in part by tithing funds that are given under the most difficult of circumstances and sacrifice. Hall’s comments couldn’t be more in opposition to the mission of the Church and BYU. The first thing that went through my mind was, think of all the things the Savior went through. He was spit upon, mocked, physically assaulted and berated and eventually killed, over something much more important than a football game. Did he ever say he “hated” the Jews or the Romans? He forgave them as he hung, dying on the cross. The scriptures are replete with statements such as “love your enemies, do good to them which hate you”, “pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you”. There is no doubt the Savior taught us to react to tribulations in a higher manner.
I could even have given Max Hall a pass had his comments been directed at the players and team, but he included the entire university in his comments quite purposefully (even though he has now issued an apology and said he meant his comments toward those fans who were so rude to him & his family, it is very clear he meant the comments toward the whole University of Utah). As a graduate of said University, I take offense at the comments he directed to the whole University of Utah and its alumni. While I’m not in the same league as the following individuals, I’m in pretty good company with the likes of President Monson, President Hinckley, President Faust, President Eyring, Elder Hales, Elder Wirthlin, Elder Maxwell, Elder McConkie, a physiology Nobel Prize winner, and hundreds of other very prominent men and women who have made valuable contributions to society, much in part due to their education from the University of Utah. For Max Hall to make a blanket statement about the whole university was completely irresponsible.
I realize that Max Hall (and any of us for that matter) is far from the same character as the Savior, but the fact is, he plays a very prominent role in an organization that represents the Savior. His comments have given a black eye to BYU, and it’s unbelievable that there are some people who are supporting and encouraging his comments. What happened to his family is not right, but his reaction shows that he does not truly understand the Savior’s teachings and does not practice them. When you live a life in the limelight, you have to understand who and what you represent. His comments do not represent his church, or his university and as such, I think he should be prohibited from officially representing them from here on out.
I love sports. I love playing them and for the most part, love watching them. I understand rivalries, too. Being from Green River, Wyoming there was a time in my life when I thought nothing good could ever have come out of Rock Springs. I have been called terrible things by players and fans of a rivalry team firsthand, so I understand that in the emotion of the moment, you can say some negative things about those players and teams. But, I never played for an organization that represents the “only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth”, one that is supported in part by tithing funds that are given under the most difficult of circumstances and sacrifice. Hall’s comments couldn’t be more in opposition to the mission of the Church and BYU. The first thing that went through my mind was, think of all the things the Savior went through. He was spit upon, mocked, physically assaulted and berated and eventually killed, over something much more important than a football game. Did he ever say he “hated” the Jews or the Romans? He forgave them as he hung, dying on the cross. The scriptures are replete with statements such as “love your enemies, do good to them which hate you”, “pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you”. There is no doubt the Savior taught us to react to tribulations in a higher manner.
I could even have given Max Hall a pass had his comments been directed at the players and team, but he included the entire university in his comments quite purposefully (even though he has now issued an apology and said he meant his comments toward those fans who were so rude to him & his family, it is very clear he meant the comments toward the whole University of Utah). As a graduate of said University, I take offense at the comments he directed to the whole University of Utah and its alumni. While I’m not in the same league as the following individuals, I’m in pretty good company with the likes of President Monson, President Hinckley, President Faust, President Eyring, Elder Hales, Elder Wirthlin, Elder Maxwell, Elder McConkie, a physiology Nobel Prize winner, and hundreds of other very prominent men and women who have made valuable contributions to society, much in part due to their education from the University of Utah. For Max Hall to make a blanket statement about the whole university was completely irresponsible.
I realize that Max Hall (and any of us for that matter) is far from the same character as the Savior, but the fact is, he plays a very prominent role in an organization that represents the Savior. His comments have given a black eye to BYU, and it’s unbelievable that there are some people who are supporting and encouraging his comments. What happened to his family is not right, but his reaction shows that he does not truly understand the Savior’s teachings and does not practice them. When you live a life in the limelight, you have to understand who and what you represent. His comments do not represent his church, or his university and as such, I think he should be prohibited from officially representing them from here on out.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Foreshadowing
In Mosiah 9:5-19, we read the account of Zeniff, who was a Nephite spy sent to observe the Lamanite forces to determine their strength, if it was possible to destroy them to possess the “land of our father’s first inheritance”. Zeniff saw some good in the Lamanites and wanted to make a treaty with them, but it caused an internal struggle among the others with him and after many of the men died fighting one another, he returned to Zarahemla to relate the tale to “their wives and children”. However, he was so zealous to occupy that land, that he once again gathered men together to go up to possess the land. This time he met with the Lamanite king, Laman, and petitioned him to occupy the land in peace. Laman granted them their request and the Nephites began improve the land by building buildings, repairing walls, tilling the ground and planting fruits and vegetables. Zeniff later found out King Laman’s intentions were never to give the Nephites their liberty, but to have them improve the land then subject them into bondage. After 12 years, King Laman grew uneasy about the Nephites because they had grown in numbers and strength, and he worried they would overthrow the Lamanites. A war ensued, and through the grace of God, the Nephites came out victorious.
I have been reading a book called “Murder of the Mormon Prophet: The Political Prelude to the death of Joseph Smith” and the book details the troubles of the Saints in Missouri, how they improved their land, built buildings and houses and then were kicked out of the state and the citizens of Missouri were able to buy their property for the amount of unpaid taxes.
I wonder if while translating the above portion of the Book of Mosiah, if Joseph realized it was foreshadowing what would happen to the saints about 10 years later, or while they were being expelled from Missouri, did Joseph think back about what happened to the Nephites?
I have been reading a book called “Murder of the Mormon Prophet: The Political Prelude to the death of Joseph Smith” and the book details the troubles of the Saints in Missouri, how they improved their land, built buildings and houses and then were kicked out of the state and the citizens of Missouri were able to buy their property for the amount of unpaid taxes.
I wonder if while translating the above portion of the Book of Mosiah, if Joseph realized it was foreshadowing what would happen to the saints about 10 years later, or while they were being expelled from Missouri, did Joseph think back about what happened to the Nephites?
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Judging the King
Once Michael Jackson’s death was announced, it caused a flood of emotions from fans and critics alike. However, the more and more distant the passing becomes, the more people are willing to attack his character. For my part, I will remember being a pre-teen listening to his music, trying to imitate his moves, and to an extent, wearing the same clothes. There was a time in my life when there was nothing I wanted more than a white sequined glove. To me, Michael was the ultimate in music and popularity. He was untouchable in my eyes. I also admit that I was pretty much out of societal influence when he was first accused of child abuse. I was preparing to leave on a mission to California, and didn’t really pay much attention to what was going on around the world, since I would be “immune” from it for the next two years. For some reason, I don’t really recall much about the second instance of molestation charges against him either. I was getting my MBA at the time, and was probably too engrossed in weekly papers and reading textbooks to notice anything else.
Fast forward to the present; Michael has been memorialized in historic fashion, and hundreds of millions of people are rekindling their love of his music and performing abilities. There are still those who do not believe that he was anything but a pedophile and a child molester. I’m not one of them. As cynical as I can be at times, I have to believe that in the two instances of accusation, one being settled out of court, being acquitted of the other, I have to believe in our justice system. If not, then in what system or set of ideals can I trust? I’m content to let the records state what they may, and let the rest be handled by the one Person who truly knows what happened and who can rightfully judge the matter. The rest of use should ask ourselves the same question that Paul asked the Romans “But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ…So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.” (Romans 14: 10, 12-13)
I can’t imaging how difficult it must have been to be raised the way Michael was, if in fact you can call that, being raised. Who’s to say that I wouldn’t have had similar problems with self image, self esteem, and an overall sense of self consciousness. I deal with my own issues as it is, I can’t imagine living in front of millions of people who dissect my every move. To this, I can say I actually agree with the Reverend Al Sharpton on at least on thing. During Michael’s memorial service, Sharpton, addressing Michael’s children, said "there weren't nothing strange about your daddy, it was strange what your daddy had to deal with but he dealt with it…" There certainly were some strange things he dealt with, but I’m in no position to judge his character. I’ll just continue to jam to his music, teach my children as best as I can how to moonwalk, and hope that one day I’ll get that sequined glove.
Fast forward to the present; Michael has been memorialized in historic fashion, and hundreds of millions of people are rekindling their love of his music and performing abilities. There are still those who do not believe that he was anything but a pedophile and a child molester. I’m not one of them. As cynical as I can be at times, I have to believe that in the two instances of accusation, one being settled out of court, being acquitted of the other, I have to believe in our justice system. If not, then in what system or set of ideals can I trust? I’m content to let the records state what they may, and let the rest be handled by the one Person who truly knows what happened and who can rightfully judge the matter. The rest of use should ask ourselves the same question that Paul asked the Romans “But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ…So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.” (Romans 14: 10, 12-13)
I can’t imaging how difficult it must have been to be raised the way Michael was, if in fact you can call that, being raised. Who’s to say that I wouldn’t have had similar problems with self image, self esteem, and an overall sense of self consciousness. I deal with my own issues as it is, I can’t imagine living in front of millions of people who dissect my every move. To this, I can say I actually agree with the Reverend Al Sharpton on at least on thing. During Michael’s memorial service, Sharpton, addressing Michael’s children, said "there weren't nothing strange about your daddy, it was strange what your daddy had to deal with but he dealt with it…" There certainly were some strange things he dealt with, but I’m in no position to judge his character. I’ll just continue to jam to his music, teach my children as best as I can how to moonwalk, and hope that one day I’ll get that sequined glove.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Touching Heaven & Removing Barnacles
Last night I was reading President Monson’s talk in the May 1988 Ensign titled “You Make A Difference” and ran across this story about King Darius and Alexander the Great.
“Darius, through the proper rites had been recognized as legitimate King of Egypt. His rival Alexander the Great had been declared legitimate son of Ammon. He, too, was Pharaoh. Alexander, finding the defeated Darius on the point of death, laid his hands upon his head to heal him, commanding him to arise and resume his kingly power, concluding, “I swear unto thee, Darius, by all the gods, that I do these things truly and without fakery.” Darius replied with a gentle rebuke, “Alexander, my boy, … do you think you can touch heaven with those hands of yours?” (quoted by Hugh Nibley, Abraham in Egypt p. 192).”
President Monson relates this story at least four other times in General Conference:
That We May Touch Heaven (November 1990)
Your Eternal Voyage (May 2000)
The Call For Courage (May 2004)
True To Our Priesthood Trust (November 2006)
I’ve had a hard time finding the source of this story (other than the Nibley reference), but if it is true, what an amazing analogy for priesthood holders. I’ve always wondered what happens when a priesthood holder gives a blessing or otherwise exercises his priesthood unworthily, can his hands “touch heaven” as it were? We do know “that the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.” (D&C 121:36)
So if someone is not worthy to exercise the priesthood, but does anyway, does it “count”? The next verse says when we “undertake to cover our sins…the spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.” At that point I think the blessing becomes more like a prayer, not directly under the authority of the priesthood. Although I suppose the faith of an individual receiving a blessing can make up for the lack of worthiness of the priesthood bearer, and achieve the same outcome. Ordinances are a completely different situation. I would think if someone unworthily ordains someone else, the ordinance has to be valid, but I’ve heard that individual “drinks damnation” to his own soul.
In the same talk, President Monson gives another analogy regarding barnacles.
“To some it may seem strange to see ships of many nations loading and unloading cargo along the docks at Portland, Oregon. That city is 100 miles from the ocean. Getting there involves a difficult, often turbulent passage over the bar guarding the Columbia River and a long trip up the Columbia and Willamette Rivers.
“But ship captains like to tie up at Portland. They know that as their ships travel the seas, a curious salt water shellfish called a barnacle fastens itself to the hull and stays there for the rest of its life, surrounding itself with a rock-like shell. As more and more barnacles attach themselves, they increase the ship’s drag, slow its progress, decrease its efficiency.
“Periodically, the ship must go into dry dock, where with great effort the barnacles are chiseled or scraped off. It’s a difficult, expensive process that ties up the ship for days”. But not if the captain can get his ship to Portland. Barnacles can’t live in fresh water. There, in the sweet, fresh waters of the Willamette or Columbia, the barnacles loosen and fall away, and the ship returns to its task lightened and renewed.
“Sins are like those barnacles. Hardly anyone goes through life without picking up some. They increase the drag, slow our progress, decrease our efficiency. Unrepented, building up one on another, they can eventually sink us.
“In His infinite love and mercy, our Lord has provided a harbor where, through repentance, our barnacles fall away and are forgotten. With our souls lightened and renewed, we can go efficiently about our work and His” (“Harbor of Forgiveness,” 30 Jan. 1988, p. 16).
Unlike some analogies, this one makes a lot of sense to me, and when you read more about barnacles, they really can do damage to what they adhere to, especially animals. They root themselves so deep that the typical shedding of the outer layer of skin doesn’t get rid of them. Applying that analogy could mean that you have to go deeper to remove the sin, it’s not just something superficial on the surface.
“Darius, through the proper rites had been recognized as legitimate King of Egypt. His rival Alexander the Great had been declared legitimate son of Ammon. He, too, was Pharaoh. Alexander, finding the defeated Darius on the point of death, laid his hands upon his head to heal him, commanding him to arise and resume his kingly power, concluding, “I swear unto thee, Darius, by all the gods, that I do these things truly and without fakery.” Darius replied with a gentle rebuke, “Alexander, my boy, … do you think you can touch heaven with those hands of yours?” (quoted by Hugh Nibley, Abraham in Egypt p. 192).”
President Monson relates this story at least four other times in General Conference:
That We May Touch Heaven (November 1990)
Your Eternal Voyage (May 2000)
The Call For Courage (May 2004)
True To Our Priesthood Trust (November 2006)
I’ve had a hard time finding the source of this story (other than the Nibley reference), but if it is true, what an amazing analogy for priesthood holders. I’ve always wondered what happens when a priesthood holder gives a blessing or otherwise exercises his priesthood unworthily, can his hands “touch heaven” as it were? We do know “that the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.” (D&C 121:36)
So if someone is not worthy to exercise the priesthood, but does anyway, does it “count”? The next verse says when we “undertake to cover our sins…the spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.” At that point I think the blessing becomes more like a prayer, not directly under the authority of the priesthood. Although I suppose the faith of an individual receiving a blessing can make up for the lack of worthiness of the priesthood bearer, and achieve the same outcome. Ordinances are a completely different situation. I would think if someone unworthily ordains someone else, the ordinance has to be valid, but I’ve heard that individual “drinks damnation” to his own soul.
In the same talk, President Monson gives another analogy regarding barnacles.
“To some it may seem strange to see ships of many nations loading and unloading cargo along the docks at Portland, Oregon. That city is 100 miles from the ocean. Getting there involves a difficult, often turbulent passage over the bar guarding the Columbia River and a long trip up the Columbia and Willamette Rivers.
“But ship captains like to tie up at Portland. They know that as their ships travel the seas, a curious salt water shellfish called a barnacle fastens itself to the hull and stays there for the rest of its life, surrounding itself with a rock-like shell. As more and more barnacles attach themselves, they increase the ship’s drag, slow its progress, decrease its efficiency.
“Periodically, the ship must go into dry dock, where with great effort the barnacles are chiseled or scraped off. It’s a difficult, expensive process that ties up the ship for days”. But not if the captain can get his ship to Portland. Barnacles can’t live in fresh water. There, in the sweet, fresh waters of the Willamette or Columbia, the barnacles loosen and fall away, and the ship returns to its task lightened and renewed.
“Sins are like those barnacles. Hardly anyone goes through life without picking up some. They increase the drag, slow our progress, decrease our efficiency. Unrepented, building up one on another, they can eventually sink us.
“In His infinite love and mercy, our Lord has provided a harbor where, through repentance, our barnacles fall away and are forgotten. With our souls lightened and renewed, we can go efficiently about our work and His” (“Harbor of Forgiveness,” 30 Jan. 1988, p. 16).
Unlike some analogies, this one makes a lot of sense to me, and when you read more about barnacles, they really can do damage to what they adhere to, especially animals. They root themselves so deep that the typical shedding of the outer layer of skin doesn’t get rid of them. Applying that analogy could mean that you have to go deeper to remove the sin, it’s not just something superficial on the surface.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)