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.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
"...esteem them very highly..."
When I was younger, my church leaders seemed almost heroic. They were men who knew so much about the gospel, seemed to have every answer, and didn’t seem to have any flaws at all. This is a quasi confession, but the older I get the less I see these same qualities in my current church leaders. I realize that none of us (especially me) are perfect; that we are all trying the best we can to lead those of which we have stewardship. I don’t know if it is my pride or the fact that I have seen a variety of different leaders since I was younger, but I tend to compare them all, and the shortcomings that some have compared to others, make it difficult for me to have complete trust and faith in them.
Toward the end of his first letter to the Thessalonians, the Apostle Paul gave some advice that hit me like a ton of bricks in this regard. He says:
“12 And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you;
13 And to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake. And be at peace among yourselves.” (1 Thessalonians 5:12-13).
I have noticed over the past several months that my attitude has digressed a little, and I have tried to make goals to improve my perception of local church leaders, although it has been slow going. As I read this short exhortation, it hit home to me that the leaders serving in local congregations truly are laboring among us and we should esteem them highly for their willingness and ability to serve the Lord in whatever capacity He has called them.
Toward the end of his first letter to the Thessalonians, the Apostle Paul gave some advice that hit me like a ton of bricks in this regard. He says:
“12 And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you;
13 And to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake. And be at peace among yourselves.” (1 Thessalonians 5:12-13).
I have noticed over the past several months that my attitude has digressed a little, and I have tried to make goals to improve my perception of local church leaders, although it has been slow going. As I read this short exhortation, it hit home to me that the leaders serving in local congregations truly are laboring among us and we should esteem them highly for their willingness and ability to serve the Lord in whatever capacity He has called them.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Service and Rewards
Last night I was reading “Selfless Service” by William R. Bradford out of the November 1987 Ensign. I have been thinking about service lately because that is one of my responsibilities in our ward. Having this topic on my mind and after reading this talk I felt the need to write down my thoughts.
Elder Bradford tells the story of a group of young people who raised a lot of money to go on an adventure outing, and wanted his help in getting some press coverage of their accomplishments. He told them “no”, because he felt there were better things they could do with the money they had raised than spend it something fairly frivolous for themselves. The young people came around and decided to donate the money to the missionary fund, and wanted to present a check and take some pictures to get a little publicity. Again Elder Bradford told them “no”, but this time because their intentions were wrong. They would be donating money for recognition, not to help others. The theme of his talk is “Many things are only interesting and enticing, while other things are important.”
It was this last statement that stuck out to me. I know there are people who enjoy giving service, but I think, unfortunately those are the minority. I understand people are busy, and giving service at soup kitchens or canneries or whatever, isn’t very high on the priority list. I also understand that some people are willing to give service, but they want recognition for it. But that’s the whole problem with a lot of us. We have filled our lives with so many things (some important, but I dare say most are only interesting/enticing) that we don’t or won’t give time to give service to others.
Elder Bradford then summarizes:
“To get recognition and the praise of men can become an obsessive goal in one’s life. It can lead from one act to another until life is filled with egotism and selfishness. The momentary pleasure that recognition and the praise of men bring almost always causes people to want more. If they can’t get it in one way, they will try another. If it can’t be obtained by being one’s natural self, they will try to get it acting out a life that is unnatural. The longing to be popular, to be praised by one’s peers, and to receive the recognition of men is a very powerful force.
It is vain to seek the praise or recognition of men. This vanity comes of evil because it springs forth out of selfishness. Christ clearly taught this as he spoke of those who “set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion.
“Behold, the Lord hath forbidden this thing; wherefore, the Lord God hath given a commandment that all men should have charity, which charity is love. And except they should have charity they were nothing. Wherefore, if they should have charity they would not suffer the laborer in Zion to perish.
“But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion” (2 Ne. 26:29–31).
It reminds me of the Savior’s teachings during the Sermon on the Mount (see Matthew 6). The Savior gives examples of giving alms to be seen of men, praying to be heard of men and fasting in a way that people are aware you are fasting. All of these (giving alms, praying and fasting) are very important, but the underlying reason for doing them is the key the Savior is teaching. In the examples given, the Savior explains that God does not reward those who do these worthwhile things for the wrong reasons. In other words, if the only reason we gave alms/pray/fast is so others would know we are, and if that is our intent, then our reward is having people see us, hear us and see us “disfigure [our] faces” and if that is really what we want, “[we] have [our] reward”.
I think it is interesting that Elder Bradford mentions the scripture in the Book of Mormon about charity, because charity is what is needed if we are to give service with real intent. Service should be given so that we can truly help others, especially those less fortunate. Without charity, we could still give service, I suppose, but we would not be giving it for the right reason. This was actually a topic I taught about a few weeks ago in class. In reading Paul’s “Love Psalm” (see 1 Corinthians 13), we talked about verse 3 which states “And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.” and discussed why someone would “bestow all my goods to feed the poor” without having charity. Why would they? The answer is for the (wrong) reasons mentioned above; to be seen of others. Paul’s statement that this type of service “profiteth me nothing” goes hand in hand with the Savior’s teaching that those who serve for the wrong reasons, already have their reward.
Elder Bradford tells the story of a group of young people who raised a lot of money to go on an adventure outing, and wanted his help in getting some press coverage of their accomplishments. He told them “no”, because he felt there were better things they could do with the money they had raised than spend it something fairly frivolous for themselves. The young people came around and decided to donate the money to the missionary fund, and wanted to present a check and take some pictures to get a little publicity. Again Elder Bradford told them “no”, but this time because their intentions were wrong. They would be donating money for recognition, not to help others. The theme of his talk is “Many things are only interesting and enticing, while other things are important.”
It was this last statement that stuck out to me. I know there are people who enjoy giving service, but I think, unfortunately those are the minority. I understand people are busy, and giving service at soup kitchens or canneries or whatever, isn’t very high on the priority list. I also understand that some people are willing to give service, but they want recognition for it. But that’s the whole problem with a lot of us. We have filled our lives with so many things (some important, but I dare say most are only interesting/enticing) that we don’t or won’t give time to give service to others.
Elder Bradford then summarizes:
“To get recognition and the praise of men can become an obsessive goal in one’s life. It can lead from one act to another until life is filled with egotism and selfishness. The momentary pleasure that recognition and the praise of men bring almost always causes people to want more. If they can’t get it in one way, they will try another. If it can’t be obtained by being one’s natural self, they will try to get it acting out a life that is unnatural. The longing to be popular, to be praised by one’s peers, and to receive the recognition of men is a very powerful force.
It is vain to seek the praise or recognition of men. This vanity comes of evil because it springs forth out of selfishness. Christ clearly taught this as he spoke of those who “set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion.
“Behold, the Lord hath forbidden this thing; wherefore, the Lord God hath given a commandment that all men should have charity, which charity is love. And except they should have charity they were nothing. Wherefore, if they should have charity they would not suffer the laborer in Zion to perish.
“But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion” (2 Ne. 26:29–31).
It reminds me of the Savior’s teachings during the Sermon on the Mount (see Matthew 6). The Savior gives examples of giving alms to be seen of men, praying to be heard of men and fasting in a way that people are aware you are fasting. All of these (giving alms, praying and fasting) are very important, but the underlying reason for doing them is the key the Savior is teaching. In the examples given, the Savior explains that God does not reward those who do these worthwhile things for the wrong reasons. In other words, if the only reason we gave alms/pray/fast is so others would know we are, and if that is our intent, then our reward is having people see us, hear us and see us “disfigure [our] faces” and if that is really what we want, “[we] have [our] reward”.
I think it is interesting that Elder Bradford mentions the scripture in the Book of Mormon about charity, because charity is what is needed if we are to give service with real intent. Service should be given so that we can truly help others, especially those less fortunate. Without charity, we could still give service, I suppose, but we would not be giving it for the right reason. This was actually a topic I taught about a few weeks ago in class. In reading Paul’s “Love Psalm” (see 1 Corinthians 13), we talked about verse 3 which states “And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.” and discussed why someone would “bestow all my goods to feed the poor” without having charity. Why would they? The answer is for the (wrong) reasons mentioned above; to be seen of others. Paul’s statement that this type of service “profiteth me nothing” goes hand in hand with the Savior’s teaching that those who serve for the wrong reasons, already have their reward.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Goals, Resolutions and Becoming a Better Person
The New Year is typically a time when we look at our lives and make resolutions or goals to accomplish more or become better people. This is usually the case with me. I like to review my life quite often to make sure I am heading (or at least trying to head) in the right direction. This desire is the first step in improving ourselves. The next steps involve putting that desire into action.
In a talk by Elder M. Russell Ballard given to Salt Lake area Young Adults in 1981, he states "I am a great believer that what you and I think about will ultimately come to pass. I believe if we think about committing a sin long enough, we will find ourselves entangled in that sin. I believe if we think about what it takes to be successful long enough and if we are willing to discipline ourselves to the principle of success, we will experience success." (Ensign, June 1983)
In the Book of Mormon, Jacob taught this same principle. In Jacob 2:5, he says "But behold, hearken ye unto me, and know that by the help of the all-powerful Creator of heaven and earth I can tell you concerning your thoughts, how that ye are beginning to labor in sin, which sin appeareth very abominable unto me, yea, and abominable unto God." According to Robert L. Millet & Joseph Fielding McConkie, "The sins of the people in Jacob's day were not inadvertent transgressions; they had begun to 'labor in sin' in the sense that sin had become their obsession and their preoccupation." (Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon, vol. 2, p.11).
It's interesting that Jacob taught that their thoughts caused them to "labor in sin", because thoughts are the seeds of action. According an anonymous quote:
Sow a Thought, Reap and Action
Sow an Action, Reap a Habit
Sow a Habit, Reap a Character
Sow a Character, Reap a Destiny
The next step in becoming a better person, who we truly want to become – who God knows we can become – is regarding our thoughts; getting rid of negative or sinful thoughts and replacing them with positive or righteous thoughts.
Doing this takes a fair amount of self discipline. We have all been given the gift of moral agency, "to choose liberty and eternal life…or to choose captivity and death" (2 Nephi 2:27). As the above quote suggests, our thoughts become our actions, habits, and character and eventually lead us to a final destination. Righteous thoughts lead to righteous acts and freedom, eventually leading to eternal life. Impure thoughts cause bondage or captivity. The key is that we chose the outcome. Despite what circumstances we are faced with, we can still choose how to react to those circumstances.
In the book Man's Search for Meaning, Viktor Frankl writes "We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way" (p. 86). Even in the most destitute of circumstances, some chose to react positively to serve and help others.
The next step is to set goals and write them down. While I was serving a mission, we lived by the phrase "Share the Vision". The "vision" could be anything from living a better life, baptism, or accomplishing any goal. The important thing was to share that vision with someone else. I have seen this in our lives as our family sits down at the beginning of the year to make goals and write predictions of things we think will happen during the next year. We write down our goals, put them in a jar (to hopefully be reviewed during the year) and then review them again at the new year to see how we did.
According to Elder Ballard, the next step is to spend our time on things that make a difference. It is pointless to worry about things that are completely out of control. I have seen people become paralyzed with fear because of trivial matters, things that haven't necessarily happened, but could. It's one thing to be prepared for the worst, it's another thing to worry needlessly over what the worst will be. Regarding spending time on things that make a difference, Viktor Frankl said "I consider it a dangerous misconception of mental hygiene to assume that what man needs in the first place is equilibrium or, as it is called in biology, "homeostasis," i.e., a tensionless state. What man actually needs is not a tensionless state but rather the striving and struggling for a worthwhile goal, a freely chosen task." (Man's Search for Meaning, p. 127)
If we are always choosing to improve ourselves, not content with mediocrity or idleness, and consistently keeping our thoughts on positive things, we are setting a formula to truly become better people. I believe this is a worthwhile goal, and something that everyone can do, because let's face it, we can all improve something about ourselves, while at the same time making sure we are positive about the things we have gotten right. So here's to a new year and added enthusiasm to improve ourselves.
In a talk by Elder M. Russell Ballard given to Salt Lake area Young Adults in 1981, he states "I am a great believer that what you and I think about will ultimately come to pass. I believe if we think about committing a sin long enough, we will find ourselves entangled in that sin. I believe if we think about what it takes to be successful long enough and if we are willing to discipline ourselves to the principle of success, we will experience success." (Ensign, June 1983)
In the Book of Mormon, Jacob taught this same principle. In Jacob 2:5, he says "But behold, hearken ye unto me, and know that by the help of the all-powerful Creator of heaven and earth I can tell you concerning your thoughts, how that ye are beginning to labor in sin, which sin appeareth very abominable unto me, yea, and abominable unto God." According to Robert L. Millet & Joseph Fielding McConkie, "The sins of the people in Jacob's day were not inadvertent transgressions; they had begun to 'labor in sin' in the sense that sin had become their obsession and their preoccupation." (Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon, vol. 2, p.11).
It's interesting that Jacob taught that their thoughts caused them to "labor in sin", because thoughts are the seeds of action. According an anonymous quote:
Sow a Thought, Reap and Action
Sow an Action, Reap a Habit
Sow a Habit, Reap a Character
Sow a Character, Reap a Destiny
The next step in becoming a better person, who we truly want to become – who God knows we can become – is regarding our thoughts; getting rid of negative or sinful thoughts and replacing them with positive or righteous thoughts.
Doing this takes a fair amount of self discipline. We have all been given the gift of moral agency, "to choose liberty and eternal life…or to choose captivity and death" (2 Nephi 2:27). As the above quote suggests, our thoughts become our actions, habits, and character and eventually lead us to a final destination. Righteous thoughts lead to righteous acts and freedom, eventually leading to eternal life. Impure thoughts cause bondage or captivity. The key is that we chose the outcome. Despite what circumstances we are faced with, we can still choose how to react to those circumstances.
In the book Man's Search for Meaning, Viktor Frankl writes "We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way" (p. 86). Even in the most destitute of circumstances, some chose to react positively to serve and help others.
The next step is to set goals and write them down. While I was serving a mission, we lived by the phrase "Share the Vision". The "vision" could be anything from living a better life, baptism, or accomplishing any goal. The important thing was to share that vision with someone else. I have seen this in our lives as our family sits down at the beginning of the year to make goals and write predictions of things we think will happen during the next year. We write down our goals, put them in a jar (to hopefully be reviewed during the year) and then review them again at the new year to see how we did.
According to Elder Ballard, the next step is to spend our time on things that make a difference. It is pointless to worry about things that are completely out of control. I have seen people become paralyzed with fear because of trivial matters, things that haven't necessarily happened, but could. It's one thing to be prepared for the worst, it's another thing to worry needlessly over what the worst will be. Regarding spending time on things that make a difference, Viktor Frankl said "I consider it a dangerous misconception of mental hygiene to assume that what man needs in the first place is equilibrium or, as it is called in biology, "homeostasis," i.e., a tensionless state. What man actually needs is not a tensionless state but rather the striving and struggling for a worthwhile goal, a freely chosen task." (Man's Search for Meaning, p. 127)
If we are always choosing to improve ourselves, not content with mediocrity or idleness, and consistently keeping our thoughts on positive things, we are setting a formula to truly become better people. I believe this is a worthwhile goal, and something that everyone can do, because let's face it, we can all improve something about ourselves, while at the same time making sure we are positive about the things we have gotten right. So here's to a new year and added enthusiasm to improve ourselves.
Monday, December 22, 2008
High Priest Group Christmas Letter
We gave the following letter to the members of our High Priest Group on Sunday and I thought it would be a nice thing to post here. They're a good bunch of men.
Dear Brethren,
As a High Priest Group Leadership, we want to express our great appreciation to you for your dedicated service to the members of the Liberty Ward. We are honored to serve with you as we witness the selfless way you conduct yourselves.
We thank you for taking your Home Teaching stewardship so personally, continually watching over your families. We probably don’t appreciate it as much as those families do, as this is the only way some of them keep in touch with the Church.
We appreciate your attendance and participation during the lessons that our teachers are diligent in preparing each week. We have all learned and grown much from one another’s counsel and point of view.
We want each of you to know how important you are to our group. Each of us has unique talents and personality that add to the group, all of which are necessary for us to grow as individuals. As the scriptures state:
“For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. …
“For the body is not one member, but many. …
“And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
“Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.”
(1 Corinthians 12:12, 14, 26-27)
During this holiday season, we wish all of you a Merry Christmas, and look forward to continuing to serve along side some of the most valiant men around.
With love,
[Signatures of High Priest Group Leadership]
Dear Brethren,
As a High Priest Group Leadership, we want to express our great appreciation to you for your dedicated service to the members of the Liberty Ward. We are honored to serve with you as we witness the selfless way you conduct yourselves.
We thank you for taking your Home Teaching stewardship so personally, continually watching over your families. We probably don’t appreciate it as much as those families do, as this is the only way some of them keep in touch with the Church.
We appreciate your attendance and participation during the lessons that our teachers are diligent in preparing each week. We have all learned and grown much from one another’s counsel and point of view.
We want each of you to know how important you are to our group. Each of us has unique talents and personality that add to the group, all of which are necessary for us to grow as individuals. As the scriptures state:
“For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. …
“For the body is not one member, but many. …
“And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
“Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.”
(1 Corinthians 12:12, 14, 26-27)
During this holiday season, we wish all of you a Merry Christmas, and look forward to continuing to serve along side some of the most valiant men around.
With love,
[Signatures of High Priest Group Leadership]
Monday, December 8, 2008
The Nativity
To help get in the Christmas mood, and because I taught this lesson on Sunday in my High Priests class, I thought it would be nice to write my thoughts on the Nativity.
In Luke 2:26-35, the angel Gabriel visits the virgin Mary to announce she would be the Mother of the Son of God. Sometime in July 1839, Joseph Smith received a revelation on the priesthood and revealed that Gabriel is actually the prophet Noah. (History of the Church, 3:386). There is beautiful symbolism in Noah, who was the prophet when the world was destroyed (except for 8 people), being the one who would announce to the world the means by which they would be saved.
We know that Mary was "chosen" or foreordained to give birth to the Savior. (Alma 7:10 and Luke 1:28 - Inspired Version). We also know that she was "most beautiful and fair above all other virgins" (1 Nephi 11:15).
Joseph is perhaps the most famous foster father of all time. There is very little we know about Joseph from canonized scripture. However, there is an apocryphal record called "The History of Joseph the Carpenter", which reveals that Joseph was a widower with children from his previous marriage, that he died at the age of 111, and married Mary when she was about 14 years old. This may seem odd when considered in our societal norms, but apparently was not out of the ordinary during that time. We also learn that Mary remained a virgin all her days. We also can assume that he died sometime during Jesus' ministry because according to John 19:26-27, Jesus commends Mary to John's care. Both Mary & Joseph are direct descendants of King David, and according to James E. Talmage "At the time of the Savior's birth, Israel was ruled by alien monarchs. The rights of the royal Davidic family were unrecognized; and the ruler of the Jews was an appointee of Rome. Had Judah been a free and independent nation, ruled by her rightful sovereign, Joseph the carpenter would have been her crowned king; and his lawful successor to the throne would have been Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." (Jesus the Christ, p. 82).
Lastly we know that Joseph was a just man. Mary & Joseph were espoused, which was a contractual agreement to marry. It wasn't just a simple engagement like we refer to it today; one needed to go through a sort of divorce to terminate the espousal. When Joseph found out that Mary was expecting, and that he wasn't the father, he had two options; a public trial, which would most likely end with the death of the one who committed adultery (see Deuteronomy 22:22-24); or Joseph could end the espousal privately by signing an agreement in front of witnesses. Before Joseph found out the true nature of Mary's pregnancy, he "minded to put her away privily". (Matthew 1:19). After this "trial of his faith", an angel (perhaps Gabriel again) appeared to him and told him not to be afraid to take Mary as a wife, because "that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost".
Joseph & Mary, probably 8-9 months pregnant, had to travel between 60-80 miles from the town of Nazareth to Bethlehem. One might wonder why someone so late in the stages of pregnancy, would travel this rough terrain instead of just staying at home. There are a few reasons why Mary accompanied Joseph to Bethlehem; first, it was prophesied that the Savior would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), and also because I think personally Mary wanted to be near her husband.
There were two ways to get from Nazareth to Bethlehem. One way was to travel through Samaria, which we learn through the Savior's later teachings that Jews avoided. The other way was to cross the mountains, and travel along the Jordan River valley, and then back up through the mountains into Judea. However, this path is known as "Red Path" or the "Bloody Way", and is the same path that the traveler took in the parable of the Good Samaritan, wherein he was nearly beaten to death. This would not be an easy trip.
It's pretty well known that the conditions in which the Savior was born were extremely humble. Most scholars believe that he was born in one of the limestone caves in the area. He was laid in a manger, which is a food trough, and probably he was cushioned with the same food that fills the trough - hay or straw.
After the Savior is born, we read in Luke 2:8-14
"8 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
9 And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.
10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."
Elder James E. Talmage summarizes this occurrence with these words: "Tidings of such import had never before been delivered by angel or received by man—good tidings of great joy, given to but few and those among the humblest of earth, but destined to spread to all people. There is sublime grandeur in the scene, as there is divine authorship in the message, and the climax is such as the mind of man could never have conceived—the sudden appearance of a multitude of the heavenly host, singing audibly to human ears the briefest, most consistent and most truly complete of all the songs of peace ever attuned by mortal or spirit choir. What a consummation to be wished—Peace on earth! But how can such come except through the maintenance of good will toward men? And through what means could glory to God in the highest be more effectively rendered?" (Talmage, Jesus The Christ, p.88)
We can all learn a lesson from the shepherds who said "Let us now go" and "they came with haste" to see the Savior of the world.
One last tidbit I want to write is the stark contrast between the life of the Savior, who was technically the rightful king of Judea, and the man who was king when Christ was born - Herod. Even though many scholars are quick to dismiss the "massacre of the innocents", the episode of infanticide as described in Matthew 2:16, Herod's life was full of murder, even among his own wife and children, so it's not beyond his personality to order all infants to be murdered.
Frederic Farrar, author of The Life of Christ, writes this of Herod:
"It must have been very shortly after the murder of the innocents that Herod died. Only five days before his death he had made a frantic attempt at suicide, and had ordered the execution of his eldest son Antipater. His death-bed, which once more reminds us of Henry VIII, was accompanied by circumstances of peculiar horror; and it has been asserted that he died of a loathsome disease, which is hardly mentioned in history, except in the case of men who have been rendered infamous by an atrocity of persecuting zeal. On his bed of intolerable anguish, in that splendid and luxurious palace which he had built for himself, under the palms of Jericho, swollen with disease and scorched by thirst, ulcerated externally and glowing inwardly with a, 'soft slow fire,' surrounded by plotting sons and plundering slaves, detesting all and detested by all, longing for death as a release from his tortures yet dreading it as the beginning of worse terrors, stung by remorse yet still unslaked with murder, a horror to all around him yet in his guilty conscience a worse terror to himself, devoured by the premature corruption of an anticipated grave, eaten of worms as though visibly smitten by the finger of God's wrath after seventy years of successful villainy, the wretched old man, whom men had called the Great, lay in savage frenzy awaiting his last hour. As he knew that none would shed one tear for him, he determined that they should shed many for themselves, and issued an order that, under pain of death, the principal families of the kingdom and the chiefs of the tribes should come to Jericho. They came, and then, shutting them in the hippodrome, he secretly commanded his sister Salome that at the moment of his death they should all be massacred. And so, choking as it were with blood, devising massacres in its very delirium, the soul of Herod passed forth into the night."
Such were the circumstances and state of the world into which the Savior was born. It was by all accounts a miraculous birth; born of a virgin, in the most humble of circumstances, a birth announced by angels and the heavenly hosts. As difficult as it is to believe logically, the story of the Nativity is true. With additional scripture to confirm what is written in the Bible, added revelation to shed additional light on the story, and the spirit that is felt while reading and pondering, it becomes that much easier to believe, regardless of how illogical it might seem.
In Luke 2:26-35, the angel Gabriel visits the virgin Mary to announce she would be the Mother of the Son of God. Sometime in July 1839, Joseph Smith received a revelation on the priesthood and revealed that Gabriel is actually the prophet Noah. (History of the Church, 3:386). There is beautiful symbolism in Noah, who was the prophet when the world was destroyed (except for 8 people), being the one who would announce to the world the means by which they would be saved.
We know that Mary was "chosen" or foreordained to give birth to the Savior. (Alma 7:10 and Luke 1:28 - Inspired Version). We also know that she was "most beautiful and fair above all other virgins" (1 Nephi 11:15).
Joseph is perhaps the most famous foster father of all time. There is very little we know about Joseph from canonized scripture. However, there is an apocryphal record called "The History of Joseph the Carpenter", which reveals that Joseph was a widower with children from his previous marriage, that he died at the age of 111, and married Mary when she was about 14 years old. This may seem odd when considered in our societal norms, but apparently was not out of the ordinary during that time. We also learn that Mary remained a virgin all her days. We also can assume that he died sometime during Jesus' ministry because according to John 19:26-27, Jesus commends Mary to John's care. Both Mary & Joseph are direct descendants of King David, and according to James E. Talmage "At the time of the Savior's birth, Israel was ruled by alien monarchs. The rights of the royal Davidic family were unrecognized; and the ruler of the Jews was an appointee of Rome. Had Judah been a free and independent nation, ruled by her rightful sovereign, Joseph the carpenter would have been her crowned king; and his lawful successor to the throne would have been Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." (Jesus the Christ, p. 82).
Lastly we know that Joseph was a just man. Mary & Joseph were espoused, which was a contractual agreement to marry. It wasn't just a simple engagement like we refer to it today; one needed to go through a sort of divorce to terminate the espousal. When Joseph found out that Mary was expecting, and that he wasn't the father, he had two options; a public trial, which would most likely end with the death of the one who committed adultery (see Deuteronomy 22:22-24); or Joseph could end the espousal privately by signing an agreement in front of witnesses. Before Joseph found out the true nature of Mary's pregnancy, he "minded to put her away privily". (Matthew 1:19). After this "trial of his faith", an angel (perhaps Gabriel again) appeared to him and told him not to be afraid to take Mary as a wife, because "that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost".
Joseph & Mary, probably 8-9 months pregnant, had to travel between 60-80 miles from the town of Nazareth to Bethlehem. One might wonder why someone so late in the stages of pregnancy, would travel this rough terrain instead of just staying at home. There are a few reasons why Mary accompanied Joseph to Bethlehem; first, it was prophesied that the Savior would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), and also because I think personally Mary wanted to be near her husband.
There were two ways to get from Nazareth to Bethlehem. One way was to travel through Samaria, which we learn through the Savior's later teachings that Jews avoided. The other way was to cross the mountains, and travel along the Jordan River valley, and then back up through the mountains into Judea. However, this path is known as "Red Path" or the "Bloody Way", and is the same path that the traveler took in the parable of the Good Samaritan, wherein he was nearly beaten to death. This would not be an easy trip.
It's pretty well known that the conditions in which the Savior was born were extremely humble. Most scholars believe that he was born in one of the limestone caves in the area. He was laid in a manger, which is a food trough, and probably he was cushioned with the same food that fills the trough - hay or straw.
After the Savior is born, we read in Luke 2:8-14
"8 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
9 And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.
10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."
Elder James E. Talmage summarizes this occurrence with these words: "Tidings of such import had never before been delivered by angel or received by man—good tidings of great joy, given to but few and those among the humblest of earth, but destined to spread to all people. There is sublime grandeur in the scene, as there is divine authorship in the message, and the climax is such as the mind of man could never have conceived—the sudden appearance of a multitude of the heavenly host, singing audibly to human ears the briefest, most consistent and most truly complete of all the songs of peace ever attuned by mortal or spirit choir. What a consummation to be wished—Peace on earth! But how can such come except through the maintenance of good will toward men? And through what means could glory to God in the highest be more effectively rendered?" (Talmage, Jesus The Christ, p.88)
We can all learn a lesson from the shepherds who said "Let us now go" and "they came with haste" to see the Savior of the world.
One last tidbit I want to write is the stark contrast between the life of the Savior, who was technically the rightful king of Judea, and the man who was king when Christ was born - Herod. Even though many scholars are quick to dismiss the "massacre of the innocents", the episode of infanticide as described in Matthew 2:16, Herod's life was full of murder, even among his own wife and children, so it's not beyond his personality to order all infants to be murdered.
Frederic Farrar, author of The Life of Christ, writes this of Herod:
"It must have been very shortly after the murder of the innocents that Herod died. Only five days before his death he had made a frantic attempt at suicide, and had ordered the execution of his eldest son Antipater. His death-bed, which once more reminds us of Henry VIII, was accompanied by circumstances of peculiar horror; and it has been asserted that he died of a loathsome disease, which is hardly mentioned in history, except in the case of men who have been rendered infamous by an atrocity of persecuting zeal. On his bed of intolerable anguish, in that splendid and luxurious palace which he had built for himself, under the palms of Jericho, swollen with disease and scorched by thirst, ulcerated externally and glowing inwardly with a, 'soft slow fire,' surrounded by plotting sons and plundering slaves, detesting all and detested by all, longing for death as a release from his tortures yet dreading it as the beginning of worse terrors, stung by remorse yet still unslaked with murder, a horror to all around him yet in his guilty conscience a worse terror to himself, devoured by the premature corruption of an anticipated grave, eaten of worms as though visibly smitten by the finger of God's wrath after seventy years of successful villainy, the wretched old man, whom men had called the Great, lay in savage frenzy awaiting his last hour. As he knew that none would shed one tear for him, he determined that they should shed many for themselves, and issued an order that, under pain of death, the principal families of the kingdom and the chiefs of the tribes should come to Jericho. They came, and then, shutting them in the hippodrome, he secretly commanded his sister Salome that at the moment of his death they should all be massacred. And so, choking as it were with blood, devising massacres in its very delirium, the soul of Herod passed forth into the night."
Such were the circumstances and state of the world into which the Savior was born. It was by all accounts a miraculous birth; born of a virgin, in the most humble of circumstances, a birth announced by angels and the heavenly hosts. As difficult as it is to believe logically, the story of the Nativity is true. With additional scripture to confirm what is written in the Bible, added revelation to shed additional light on the story, and the spirit that is felt while reading and pondering, it becomes that much easier to believe, regardless of how illogical it might seem.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Lesser Known Stories of Faith
I have read Acts a few times in my life, but as I was reading Acts 5 the other day, I came across a scripture that jumped out at me like it never had before. Either I didn't pay much attention to it before, or I am losing light (see D&C 1:33).
At this time in the Church, the Apostles have performed their first recorded miracle (Acts 3) by healing the lame man at the Beautiful gate of the Temple. Word of the miracle travels fast, and people are starting come in droves to listen to and be healed by the Apostles and join the Church. Then in Acts 5:15, it says "Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.”
Imagine the faith of these people that they would be healed of their sicknesses just by having the shadow of Peter pass over them! This scripture is also cross-referenced with Acts 19:11-12
“11 And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul:
12 So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.”
People are able to be healed through an article of clothing from Paul! These two stories are great examples of faith and that, at least for me, are not as widely known as others.
At this time in the Church, the Apostles have performed their first recorded miracle (Acts 3) by healing the lame man at the Beautiful gate of the Temple. Word of the miracle travels fast, and people are starting come in droves to listen to and be healed by the Apostles and join the Church. Then in Acts 5:15, it says "Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.”
Imagine the faith of these people that they would be healed of their sicknesses just by having the shadow of Peter pass over them! This scripture is also cross-referenced with Acts 19:11-12
“11 And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul:
12 So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.”
People are able to be healed through an article of clothing from Paul! These two stories are great examples of faith and that, at least for me, are not as widely known as others.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
We Are Different
I have a little book called Made For Heaven, by C.S. Lewis; well actually it’s a compilation put together by his estate, I think. The second section of this book takes chapter 10 from his book The Problem of Pain. I was reading this little section this morning and read the following:
“I am considering not how, but why, He makes each soul unique. If He had no use for all these differences, I do not see why He should have created more souls than one. Be sure that the ins and outs of your individuality are no mystery to Him; and one day they will no longer be a mystery to you. The mould in which a key is made would be a strange thing, if you had never seen a key: and the key itself a strange thing if you had never seen a lock. Your soul has a curious shape because it is a hollow made to fit a particular swelling in the infinite contours of the Divine substance, or a key to unlock on of the doors in the house with many mansions.” (Made For Heaven, p.21)
Oddly enough, a primary song that has been sounding through our house lately has been “We are Different”:
1. I know you, and you know me.
We are as diff’rent as the sun and the sea.
I know you, and you know me,
And that’s the way it is supposed to be.
2. I help you, and you help me.
We learn from problems, and we’re starting to see.
I help you, and you help me,
And that’s the way it is supposed to be.
3. I love you, and you love me.
We reach together for the best we can be.
I love you, and you love me,
And that’s the way it is supposed to be.
I think that maybe this universal truth of the difference of personality is what Paul may have been referring to when he wrote the following to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 12:14-27):
14 For the body is not one member, but many.
15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?
20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:
23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.
24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:
25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.
26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
I like this scripture because it echoes other truths as found in the scriptures. The Savior said that “But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant” (Matt. 23:11) and “He that is ordained of God and sent forth, the same is appointed to be the greatest, notwithstanding he is the least and the servant of all.” (D&C 50:26) We each bring something unique and very important to the Kingdom of God. We need to be careful not to downplay certain callings and exalt others, but treat them like they are - different for a good reason.
Too many times (unfortunately, I think) we tend to compare ourselves to others and desire qualities or attributes that others possess rather than be thankful for our unique talents and personalities. Over the last several months, I have been thinking more and more about this. The overwhelming thought I have come away with is that we don’t know what others struggle with. To covet someone’s lifestyle is very shortsighted for we only see what others want to show us. We don’t see what is hidden from us, or worse the things that they deeply struggle with inside.
All in all, I have come away with two things.
First, I am trying to be more happy with the unique gifts, talents and abilities that I posses, regardless of my shortcomings. I continue to try to enhance my strengths and improve my weaknesses but not so that I can become like someone else, but so I can become who I know I can be.
Second, I have learned that everyone struggles with different things and just because on the outside others may seem to have it all figured out, we don’t know what hidden things they are dealing with. While I try not to be judgmental – or even worse, hopeful that others may be struggling in life – in a way I think this point of view allows me to have a little more empathy towards others, and it does help me to appreciate myself, something we all need to do.
“I am considering not how, but why, He makes each soul unique. If He had no use for all these differences, I do not see why He should have created more souls than one. Be sure that the ins and outs of your individuality are no mystery to Him; and one day they will no longer be a mystery to you. The mould in which a key is made would be a strange thing, if you had never seen a key: and the key itself a strange thing if you had never seen a lock. Your soul has a curious shape because it is a hollow made to fit a particular swelling in the infinite contours of the Divine substance, or a key to unlock on of the doors in the house with many mansions.” (Made For Heaven, p.21)
Oddly enough, a primary song that has been sounding through our house lately has been “We are Different”:
1. I know you, and you know me.
We are as diff’rent as the sun and the sea.
I know you, and you know me,
And that’s the way it is supposed to be.
2. I help you, and you help me.
We learn from problems, and we’re starting to see.
I help you, and you help me,
And that’s the way it is supposed to be.
3. I love you, and you love me.
We reach together for the best we can be.
I love you, and you love me,
And that’s the way it is supposed to be.
I think that maybe this universal truth of the difference of personality is what Paul may have been referring to when he wrote the following to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 12:14-27):
14 For the body is not one member, but many.
15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?
20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:
23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.
24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:
25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.
26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
I like this scripture because it echoes other truths as found in the scriptures. The Savior said that “But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant” (Matt. 23:11) and “He that is ordained of God and sent forth, the same is appointed to be the greatest, notwithstanding he is the least and the servant of all.” (D&C 50:26) We each bring something unique and very important to the Kingdom of God. We need to be careful not to downplay certain callings and exalt others, but treat them like they are - different for a good reason.
Too many times (unfortunately, I think) we tend to compare ourselves to others and desire qualities or attributes that others possess rather than be thankful for our unique talents and personalities. Over the last several months, I have been thinking more and more about this. The overwhelming thought I have come away with is that we don’t know what others struggle with. To covet someone’s lifestyle is very shortsighted for we only see what others want to show us. We don’t see what is hidden from us, or worse the things that they deeply struggle with inside.
All in all, I have come away with two things.
First, I am trying to be more happy with the unique gifts, talents and abilities that I posses, regardless of my shortcomings. I continue to try to enhance my strengths and improve my weaknesses but not so that I can become like someone else, but so I can become who I know I can be.
Second, I have learned that everyone struggles with different things and just because on the outside others may seem to have it all figured out, we don’t know what hidden things they are dealing with. While I try not to be judgmental – or even worse, hopeful that others may be struggling in life – in a way I think this point of view allows me to have a little more empathy towards others, and it does help me to appreciate myself, something we all need to do.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
"...if ye are not one ye are not mine."
I wouldn’t normally write anything political, but because of the election last week, and the hotly contested Proposition 8 in California, I felt the need to write down some thoughts.
Last night I was reading a talk titled “The Blessings of Being Unified” by Elder Hugh W. Pinnock of the First Quorum of the Seventy. There wasn’t much that stood out to me in this particular talk; a few stories about various stakes, wards, neighbors and families overcoming differences to try to be more unified in their various activities. As the talk was winding down, I was getting more and more tired, and almost skipped the last paragraph. I’m glad I didn’t. It reads as follows: “With gratitude in my heart, brothers and sisters, for you and for that which we are doing together, I pray that we may each resolve, in this era of social problems and economic difficulty, to follow as one our prophet-leader and others who have been called to direct us. May we avoid the pain and problems that come to families, neighborhoods, and institutions when they are not one, in the name of Jesus Christ, our Redeemer, amen.”
You would think that these sentences were spoken in our day because of the economic challenges we are facing, and with the widening gap of political differences, including Proposition 8, we definitely have our fair share of social problems. As I read that last paragraph, this is what came to my mind. As a nation, we are definitely not united. We are more split than I think we have been for a long time. More and more issues are causing people to take one of two sides. There is hardly any middle ground anymore.
Then this morning I received an email about Scott Eckern, an LDS member who donated money toward and voted “Yes” on Proposition 8. Scott was the former Director of the California Music Theater, and second in command of the theater; this week at least one actor and composer of popular shows sent emails “decrying Eckern’s actions” and urging the artists and theater workers across the country to boycott the CMT. The mounting pressure of the emails and boycotts caused Eckern to resign his position. When did voting become something that should be decried? The email also links to a website that has been set up that shows people's names, companies and amount of money donated to help Proposition 8 pass. The site header says “The following individuals or organizations have donated money to the California Proposition 8 campaign which seeks to ban same sex marriages. Please do not patronize them.” So apparently organizations like UCLA, Disneyland, Intuit, Home Depot, Price Waterhouse Coopers, Ernst & Young, Boeing, Morgan Stanley, Columbia Pictures and the cities of Long Beach, Claremont and Los Angeles to name just a few, are now in danger of being boycotted because some of their employees exercised their right to vote. These actions just amaze me. I can’t believe the bitterness and hostility that one group would go through to dismiss the will of the people.
Back to the talk I read last night; the last sentence hit me the hardest “May we avoid the pain and problems that come to families, neighborhoods, and institutions when they are not one…” I shudder to think of where we are heading as a nation, and hope that somehow we don’t end up like the societies we read about that were destroyed because they were so divided. In D&C 38:27, the Savior said "I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine." If as a society we are not one, we are not His. Who do we belong to, then?
Last night I was reading a talk titled “The Blessings of Being Unified” by Elder Hugh W. Pinnock of the First Quorum of the Seventy. There wasn’t much that stood out to me in this particular talk; a few stories about various stakes, wards, neighbors and families overcoming differences to try to be more unified in their various activities. As the talk was winding down, I was getting more and more tired, and almost skipped the last paragraph. I’m glad I didn’t. It reads as follows: “With gratitude in my heart, brothers and sisters, for you and for that which we are doing together, I pray that we may each resolve, in this era of social problems and economic difficulty, to follow as one our prophet-leader and others who have been called to direct us. May we avoid the pain and problems that come to families, neighborhoods, and institutions when they are not one, in the name of Jesus Christ, our Redeemer, amen.”
You would think that these sentences were spoken in our day because of the economic challenges we are facing, and with the widening gap of political differences, including Proposition 8, we definitely have our fair share of social problems. As I read that last paragraph, this is what came to my mind. As a nation, we are definitely not united. We are more split than I think we have been for a long time. More and more issues are causing people to take one of two sides. There is hardly any middle ground anymore.
Then this morning I received an email about Scott Eckern, an LDS member who donated money toward and voted “Yes” on Proposition 8. Scott was the former Director of the California Music Theater, and second in command of the theater; this week at least one actor and composer of popular shows sent emails “decrying Eckern’s actions” and urging the artists and theater workers across the country to boycott the CMT. The mounting pressure of the emails and boycotts caused Eckern to resign his position. When did voting become something that should be decried? The email also links to a website that has been set up that shows people's names, companies and amount of money donated to help Proposition 8 pass. The site header says “The following individuals or organizations have donated money to the California Proposition 8 campaign which seeks to ban same sex marriages. Please do not patronize them.” So apparently organizations like UCLA, Disneyland, Intuit, Home Depot, Price Waterhouse Coopers, Ernst & Young, Boeing, Morgan Stanley, Columbia Pictures and the cities of Long Beach, Claremont and Los Angeles to name just a few, are now in danger of being boycotted because some of their employees exercised their right to vote. These actions just amaze me. I can’t believe the bitterness and hostility that one group would go through to dismiss the will of the people.
Back to the talk I read last night; the last sentence hit me the hardest “May we avoid the pain and problems that come to families, neighborhoods, and institutions when they are not one…” I shudder to think of where we are heading as a nation, and hope that somehow we don’t end up like the societies we read about that were destroyed because they were so divided. In D&C 38:27, the Savior said "I say unto you, be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine." If as a society we are not one, we are not His. Who do we belong to, then?
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
A man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.
I was reading in the May 1987 issue of the Ensign last night, and during Elder William Grant Bangerter’s talk “What It Means to Be a Saint”, he included a story from President Spencer W. Kimball:
“One day,” he said, “a friend took me to his ranch. He unlocked the door of a large new automobile, slid under the wheel, and said proudly, ‘How do you like my new car?’ We rode in luxurious comfort … to a beautiful new landscaped home, and he said with no little pride, ‘This is my home.’
“He drove to a grassy knoll. The sun was retiring behind the distant hills. He surveyed his vast domain. …
“With a wide sweeping gesture he boasted, ‘From the clump of trees, to the lake, to the bluff, and to the ranch buildings and all between—all this is mine. …
“I saw him lying in his death,” said President Kimball, “among luxurious furnishings in a palatial home. His had been a vast estate. … I spoke at his funeral, and I followed the cortege … to his grave, a tiny, oblong area the length of a tall man, the width of a heavy one.
“Yesterday I saw that same estate, yellow in grain, green in lucerne, white in cotton, seemingly unmindful of him who had claimed it” (Improvement Era, June 1968, pp. 81–82).
This story brought to mind a favorite scripture of mine, found in Luke 12:15. At this point in the Savior’s ministry he was speaking to “an innumerable multitude of people”, and one of them asked the Savior to talk to his brother and tell him to split some inheritance with him. The Savior refused and said “Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you”, and then he gives this warning: “Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.”
I would like to know the rest of the story told by President Kimball; I have a feeling that there may have been similar disputes over that inheritance as the one the Savior was asked to settle. To me this is a reminder that the purpose of this life is not, as a bumper sticker that I saw a lot in my youth states: “the one with the most toys wins”, because we obviously cannot take any of our earthly possessions with us when we die. The things that really matter in life are relationships with family and friends, growing in knowledge (both spiritual and temporal) and doing our best to serve God and our neighbors. I particularly like the statement by President Kimball that as he looked over the man’s land, it seemed “unmindful of him who had claimed it”. We may feel that we own our possessions, but surely they do not feel owned by us.
“One day,” he said, “a friend took me to his ranch. He unlocked the door of a large new automobile, slid under the wheel, and said proudly, ‘How do you like my new car?’ We rode in luxurious comfort … to a beautiful new landscaped home, and he said with no little pride, ‘This is my home.’
“He drove to a grassy knoll. The sun was retiring behind the distant hills. He surveyed his vast domain. …
“With a wide sweeping gesture he boasted, ‘From the clump of trees, to the lake, to the bluff, and to the ranch buildings and all between—all this is mine. …
“I saw him lying in his death,” said President Kimball, “among luxurious furnishings in a palatial home. His had been a vast estate. … I spoke at his funeral, and I followed the cortege … to his grave, a tiny, oblong area the length of a tall man, the width of a heavy one.
“Yesterday I saw that same estate, yellow in grain, green in lucerne, white in cotton, seemingly unmindful of him who had claimed it” (Improvement Era, June 1968, pp. 81–82).
This story brought to mind a favorite scripture of mine, found in Luke 12:15. At this point in the Savior’s ministry he was speaking to “an innumerable multitude of people”, and one of them asked the Savior to talk to his brother and tell him to split some inheritance with him. The Savior refused and said “Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you”, and then he gives this warning: “Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.”
I would like to know the rest of the story told by President Kimball; I have a feeling that there may have been similar disputes over that inheritance as the one the Savior was asked to settle. To me this is a reminder that the purpose of this life is not, as a bumper sticker that I saw a lot in my youth states: “the one with the most toys wins”, because we obviously cannot take any of our earthly possessions with us when we die. The things that really matter in life are relationships with family and friends, growing in knowledge (both spiritual and temporal) and doing our best to serve God and our neighbors. I particularly like the statement by President Kimball that as he looked over the man’s land, it seemed “unmindful of him who had claimed it”. We may feel that we own our possessions, but surely they do not feel owned by us.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
"First Things" First - Mormonism is Christian
I read an article today from “First Things: The Journal of Religion, Culture and Public Life” titled “Is Mormonism Christian?” The article is a dual effort between Elder Bruce D. Porter, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy of the LDS Church and Gerald McDermott, professor of religion at Roanoke College and co-author of Claiming Christ: A Mormon–Evangelical Debate.
I thought Elder Porter did an exceptional job summarizing our beliefs (of course, that is his job :)). The only thing I thought was lacking in Elder Porter's section was that during his explanation of our belief in the Bible and how we generally take it quite literally, he failed to mention that we believe in the Bible “as far it is translated correctly”. I think this is something that sets us apart, and in a good way. I think it should be apparent to everyone that there is no way that the Bible, especially the New Testament, could possibly contain everything that God wants us to hear, or everything the Savior had to teach during his ministry. Not only is the Bible missing information, but some of the translations either purposely (1 Nephi 13:26-29) or through simple human errors, are incorrect or lacking.
There are a few things about Mr. McDermott’s piece that I wanted to comment on. Not that I have any authority to do so, but more for both my peace of mind and practice. McDermott says that there are four reasons that it is “unlikely” that the same Jesus who preached in Palestine is the same as the Jesus who visited the American continent (as described in the Book of Mormon).
1. He states that there are “many voices testifying” of the Palestinian Jesus (meaning the four Gospel authors), but that the Book of Mormon has only one voice, that of Joseph Smith who translated the Book of Mormon. However, the Book of Mormon consists of many different prophets who all “testified” of the Palestinian Jesus Christ. Just because Joseph translated the book, does not make it one voice any more than a group of men translating the New Testament writings, make it one voice.
2. His second argument is that the testimonies to the Palestinian Jesus come from the same period of time, but that the “single” voice of the Book of Mormon comes 1800 years later. This again is incorrect because the writings that Joseph translated occurred both before, during and after the Savior’s lifetime. If we used Mr. McDermott’s same rationale for the Bible, it was actually written (or translated) in 1611 (at least the King James Version). At best, the actual Bible as we have it today wasn’t put together as a complete book until at least 200 years after Christ (see Wikipedia). Comparatively, The Book of Mormon as we have it today was compiled sometime around 400 AD.
3. I honestly had a hard time understanding his third argument. He states that the American Jesus is “fixated upon America” while the Palestinian Jesus “seems to think of the coming Kingdom as a worldwide phenomenon not limited to one geographical part of the earth…”. I think this is quite a stretch. It’s pretty clear that Jerusalem is a holy city, and that it’s future holds a prominent place in Christianity. However, both Isaiah (Isaiah 2:2-3) and Micah (Micah 4:2) state that “for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.” So it’s obvious that there will be a Zion, or New Jerusalem, in addition to Jerusalem the ancient city. It’s not a matter of “favoritism”, it’s simply prophesy. McDermott also seems to have a problem with the three Nephites who were promised to not taste death until the Savior comes again. I’m not sure why this is such a problem for him. He actually argues that John was not promised to tarry until He comes (John 21:23), but only that he said “what is it to thee?" if John were to tarry until He comes. I’m not sure how many Christians have a problem believing that John was granted this gift. Actually, further revelation through Joseph Smith (D&C 7), and also the Book of Mormon, shed light on this verse. In 3 Nephi 28:6, speaking to those three Nephites, the Savior said “Behold, I know your thoughts, and ye have desired the thing which John, my beloved, who was with me in my ministry, before that I was lifted up by the Jews, desired of me.” This is just one example of how the Book of Mormon, and additional revelation from God can clarify what is vague in the Bible.
4. The fourth argument is that the Book of Mormon preaches the Trinity, which to me seems kind of strange. Here McDermott takes all this time to state how we are so different, and looking for differences, but then argues that we really believe in the Trinity because the Book of Mormon supposedly teaches it. The truth is, and Elder Porter actually presents this quite nicely in the same article, is that the Book of Mormon teaches that the Father, Son and The Holy Ghost are one, in the same sense that Jesus described it in the Intercessory Prayer (See John 17). The Book of Mormon does not teach the Nicene concept of the Trinity (three in one substance) but that, according to Elder Porter, "they are one in mind, purpose, will, and intention".
McDermott then addresses a few other thoughts on why we are so different from “historic Christianity”, and by that I assume he means Nicene (or 300-400 BC) Christianity, and in that he may be right; but Mormonism and true historic Christianity - that of the Savior’s ministry and teachings and those of the apostles – are quite the same.
I thought Elder Porter did an exceptional job summarizing our beliefs (of course, that is his job :)). The only thing I thought was lacking in Elder Porter's section was that during his explanation of our belief in the Bible and how we generally take it quite literally, he failed to mention that we believe in the Bible “as far it is translated correctly”. I think this is something that sets us apart, and in a good way. I think it should be apparent to everyone that there is no way that the Bible, especially the New Testament, could possibly contain everything that God wants us to hear, or everything the Savior had to teach during his ministry. Not only is the Bible missing information, but some of the translations either purposely (1 Nephi 13:26-29) or through simple human errors, are incorrect or lacking.
There are a few things about Mr. McDermott’s piece that I wanted to comment on. Not that I have any authority to do so, but more for both my peace of mind and practice. McDermott says that there are four reasons that it is “unlikely” that the same Jesus who preached in Palestine is the same as the Jesus who visited the American continent (as described in the Book of Mormon).
1. He states that there are “many voices testifying” of the Palestinian Jesus (meaning the four Gospel authors), but that the Book of Mormon has only one voice, that of Joseph Smith who translated the Book of Mormon. However, the Book of Mormon consists of many different prophets who all “testified” of the Palestinian Jesus Christ. Just because Joseph translated the book, does not make it one voice any more than a group of men translating the New Testament writings, make it one voice.
2. His second argument is that the testimonies to the Palestinian Jesus come from the same period of time, but that the “single” voice of the Book of Mormon comes 1800 years later. This again is incorrect because the writings that Joseph translated occurred both before, during and after the Savior’s lifetime. If we used Mr. McDermott’s same rationale for the Bible, it was actually written (or translated) in 1611 (at least the King James Version). At best, the actual Bible as we have it today wasn’t put together as a complete book until at least 200 years after Christ (see Wikipedia). Comparatively, The Book of Mormon as we have it today was compiled sometime around 400 AD.
3. I honestly had a hard time understanding his third argument. He states that the American Jesus is “fixated upon America” while the Palestinian Jesus “seems to think of the coming Kingdom as a worldwide phenomenon not limited to one geographical part of the earth…”. I think this is quite a stretch. It’s pretty clear that Jerusalem is a holy city, and that it’s future holds a prominent place in Christianity. However, both Isaiah (Isaiah 2:2-3) and Micah (Micah 4:2) state that “for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.” So it’s obvious that there will be a Zion, or New Jerusalem, in addition to Jerusalem the ancient city. It’s not a matter of “favoritism”, it’s simply prophesy. McDermott also seems to have a problem with the three Nephites who were promised to not taste death until the Savior comes again. I’m not sure why this is such a problem for him. He actually argues that John was not promised to tarry until He comes (John 21:23), but only that he said “what is it to thee?" if John were to tarry until He comes. I’m not sure how many Christians have a problem believing that John was granted this gift. Actually, further revelation through Joseph Smith (D&C 7), and also the Book of Mormon, shed light on this verse. In 3 Nephi 28:6, speaking to those three Nephites, the Savior said “Behold, I know your thoughts, and ye have desired the thing which John, my beloved, who was with me in my ministry, before that I was lifted up by the Jews, desired of me.” This is just one example of how the Book of Mormon, and additional revelation from God can clarify what is vague in the Bible.
4. The fourth argument is that the Book of Mormon preaches the Trinity, which to me seems kind of strange. Here McDermott takes all this time to state how we are so different, and looking for differences, but then argues that we really believe in the Trinity because the Book of Mormon supposedly teaches it. The truth is, and Elder Porter actually presents this quite nicely in the same article, is that the Book of Mormon teaches that the Father, Son and The Holy Ghost are one, in the same sense that Jesus described it in the Intercessory Prayer (See John 17). The Book of Mormon does not teach the Nicene concept of the Trinity (three in one substance) but that, according to Elder Porter, "they are one in mind, purpose, will, and intention".
McDermott then addresses a few other thoughts on why we are so different from “historic Christianity”, and by that I assume he means Nicene (or 300-400 BC) Christianity, and in that he may be right; but Mormonism and true historic Christianity - that of the Savior’s ministry and teachings and those of the apostles – are quite the same.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Curse of the Lamanites & Adam
It always makes me cringe a little whenever I hear someone in Sunday School say that the Lamanites skin was the curse that God put upon them. I think most of the confusion has been cleared up, but on occasion I still hear this from members of the church.
A close reading of 2 Nephi 5:20-21 clarifies the difference between the curse of the Lord and the mark of that curse.
20 Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence. (This is the curse, being cut off from the presence of the Lord)
21 And he had caused the cursing (mentioned in the previous verse) to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint (that’s the reason they are cut off from his presence, because of their iniquity); wherefore (which means for what reason or purpose, so because of their iniquity the following happened to distinguish them), as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
Being separated from the presence of the Lord is the curse brought upon the Lamanites. The skin of blackness was not the curse that came upon them, but a mark of that curse so that they would not be enticing to the Nephites and intermarry. This is not an uncommon practice by the Lord in trying to preserve a righteous people. A similar situation happened with the Israelites when they defeated the Canaanites, they were commanded to not “make marriages” with the Canaanites because “they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.” (Deuteronomy 7:3-4). I think the Lord had the same thing in mind with the Nephites. If the Nephites mixed with the Lamanites, it would bring about their destruction, much like the what was said about the Canaanites.
To further establish the point about "curse" being the separation from God’s presence, the prophet Mormon wrote a letter to his son Moroni detailing why infants did not need to be baptized. He writes “Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me...But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world.” (Moroni 8:8,12)
Unless I’m mistaken, the “curse of Adam” referred to in this verse is similar to the curse on the Lamanites; Adam being separated from God’s presence in the Garden of Eden, and introduced into mortality where he would be given “a probationary time" (Alma 42:4) to repent so he would be able to come back to the Lord's presence. Little children aren’t subjected to this “curse” as noted by Mormon, so if they die, they are not separated from His presence, but are “alive in Christ”.
A close reading of 2 Nephi 5:20-21 clarifies the difference between the curse of the Lord and the mark of that curse.
20 Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence. (This is the curse, being cut off from the presence of the Lord)
21 And he had caused the cursing (mentioned in the previous verse) to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint (that’s the reason they are cut off from his presence, because of their iniquity); wherefore (which means for what reason or purpose, so because of their iniquity the following happened to distinguish them), as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
Being separated from the presence of the Lord is the curse brought upon the Lamanites. The skin of blackness was not the curse that came upon them, but a mark of that curse so that they would not be enticing to the Nephites and intermarry. This is not an uncommon practice by the Lord in trying to preserve a righteous people. A similar situation happened with the Israelites when they defeated the Canaanites, they were commanded to not “make marriages” with the Canaanites because “they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.” (Deuteronomy 7:3-4). I think the Lord had the same thing in mind with the Nephites. If the Nephites mixed with the Lamanites, it would bring about their destruction, much like the what was said about the Canaanites.
To further establish the point about "curse" being the separation from God’s presence, the prophet Mormon wrote a letter to his son Moroni detailing why infants did not need to be baptized. He writes “Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me...But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world.” (Moroni 8:8,12)
Unless I’m mistaken, the “curse of Adam” referred to in this verse is similar to the curse on the Lamanites; Adam being separated from God’s presence in the Garden of Eden, and introduced into mortality where he would be given “a probationary time" (Alma 42:4) to repent so he would be able to come back to the Lord's presence. Little children aren’t subjected to this “curse” as noted by Mormon, so if they die, they are not separated from His presence, but are “alive in Christ”.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
A Brief History of Temples
I taught the following lesson in my High Priest class and I enjoyed the preparation enough to write it down and try to preserve my thoughts. A majority of the lesson comes from the book House of the Lord, by Elder James E. Talmage, which I highly recommend.
D&C 124:38-39:
38 For, for this cause I commanded Moses that he should build a tabernacle, that they should bear it with them in the wilderness, and to build a house in the land of promise, that those ordinances might be revealed which had been hid from before the world was.
39 Therefore, verily I say unto you, that your anointings, and your washings, and your baptisms for the dead, and your solemn assemblies, and your memorials for your sacrifices by the sons of Levi, and for your oracles in your most holy places wherein you receive conversations, and your statutes and judgments, for the beginning of the revelations and foundation of Zion, and for the glory, honor, and endowment of all her municipals, are ordained by the ordinance of my holy house, which my people are always commanded to build unto my holy name.
Ever since the beginning of mankind, whenever the Lord has had a people, he has commanded them to build a house unto His name. The first recorded instance is the Tabernacle of the Congregation. Initially, Moses constructed what is commonly referred to as the “Provisional Tabernacle”, a preparatory tabernacle for the Tabernacle of the Congregation. In Exodus 25:1-9, the Lord commands Israel to bring forth donations to “make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.” The Lords sets the standard for His house, and from the specific directions given, it is obvious that this house was not for common gathering, but rather a place for the Lord to dwell and commune with His people.
When the Lord asked the Israelites for donations for the Tabernacle, Exodus 36:5-7 states:
5 And they spake unto Moses, saying, The people bring much more than enough for the service of the work, which the Lord commanded to make.
6 And Moses gave commandment, and they caused it to be proclaimed throughout the camp, saying, Let neither man nor woman make any more work for the offering of the sanctuary. So the people were restrained from bringing.
7 For the stuff they had was sufficient for all the work to make it, and too much.
When I think of the Israelites, I think of a people who wandered for 40 years in the wilderness because of their unbelief and inability to follow the Lord. I think of the Law of Moses given to help them remember the Lord because of their stiffneckedness (Mosiah 3:14). But when they were asked to give of themselves and their property for building the tabernacle, they brought “sufficient, and too much.” What a great show of dedication in this example, for whatever inadequacies I may have perceived the Israelites had in following the Lord, they obviously had some good intentions and faithfulness.
The Tabernacle is finished and as a final tribute, they inscribed “HOLINESS TO THE LORD” on the face of the tabernacle, the same verbiage used on latter-day temples (Exodus 39:30-32). And Moses did look upon all the work, and, behold, they had done it as the Lord had commanded, even so had they done it: and Moses blessed them (Exodus 39:43).
The tabernacle was raised for the first time as recorded in Exodus 40:17, 34-38. As a sign that the Lord was with the Israelites, “a cloud covered the tent of the Tabernacle, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.”
Based on the directions to be given later, and the materials used to construct the tabernacle, the tabernacle was obviously meant to be a temporary and movable structure. In Numbers 9:17-18 the Lord reveals when the Israelites should camp and when they should journey in the wilderness:
17 And when the cloud was taken up from the tabernacle, then after that the children of Israel journeyed: and in the place where the cloud abode, there the children of Israel pitched their tents.
18 At the commandment of the Lord the children of Israel journeyed, and at the commandment of the Lord they pitched: as long as the cloud abode upon the tabernacle they rested in their tents.
As long as the cloud was over the tabernacle the Israelites camped; when the cloud departed, they would take down the tabernacle and journey until they came to the place were the cloud abode and there they would set up their camp and raise the tabernacle again. The Israelites followed this pattern throughout their wanderings until they came to Canaan, the Promised Land, and at Shiloh, the tabernacle was given a more “permanent” home.
(Image courtesy of www.ldsces.org)
In 1 Samuel 4:3, the Israelites, during a battle with the Philistines, thought that having the Ark with them would save them from their enemies. As the Ark arrived in camp, the Israelites shouted with such joy that the “earth rang.” However, the Ark did not save them, and the Philistines killed 30,000 “footmen” and took the Ark. The Philistines were then smitten of the Lord and sent the Ark back to Israel, in the hopes that by so doing, the anger of the Lord would cease to be upon them.
Later, David (the same David who defeated Goliath) is chosen king of Israel and in 2 Samuel 6:2,17 David has the Ark retrieved (it was during this journey that Uzzah is smitten dead for trying to steady the Ark) and placed in a temporary tabernacle he made for that occasion.
David’s conscience gets the better of him and he tells the prophet Nathan in 1 Chronicles 17:1-4:
1 Now it came to pass, as David sat in his house, that David said to Nathan the prophet, Lo, I dwell in an house of cedars, but the ark of the covenant of the Lord remaineth under curtains.
2 Then Nathan said unto David, Do all that is in thine heart; for God is with thee.
3 And it came to pass the same night, that the word of God came to Nathan, saying,
4 Go and tell David my servant, Thus saith the Lord, Thou shalt not build me an house to dwell in.
David’s heart was in the right place in desiring to build a more suitable house for the Lord, but in 1 Chronicles 22:7-11,19 David tells his son Solomon why the Lord did not want David to build His house:
7 And David said to Solomon, My son, as for me, it was in my mind to build an house unto the name of the Lord my God:
8 But the word of the Lord came to me, saying, Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars: thou shalt not build an house unto my name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in my sight.
9 Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days.
10 He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.
11 Now, my son, the Lord be with thee; and prosper thou, and build the house of the Lord thy God, as he hath said of thee.
Because David shed too much blood, and I think this includes the incident with Bath-sheeba and Uriah, the Lord delegated the responsibility of building the temple to David’s son, Solomon.
The tabernacle was described in great detail to the Israelites, and the Temple of Solomon followed the basic design, except that it was exactly double the size. Also, instead of canvas and curtains for walls, Solomon used stones and cedars. The lavar that stood in font of the temple entrance now sat upon 12 oxen, representing the 12 tribes of Israel, arranged in groups of three, respectively facing north, south, east and west.
If I read correctly in 1 Kings 5:13-18, approximately 180,000 workers were required to complete the work.
In 1 Kings 8:13, at the dedication of the temple, Solomon states “I have surely built thee an house to dwell in, a settled place for thee to abide in for ever.”
However, because of wickedness on the part of Solomon and his people, the temple was slowly desecrated by a number of kings and nations, and even by the Israelites themselves, until eventually in 586 BC, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, completed the destruction of Solomon’s Temple, destroying it by fire (2 Chronicles 36).
It was prophesied by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 25:8-11) that the Israelites would be in bondage to the Babylonians for 70 years, but at the end of their captivity, they would rebuild the temple under the permission of the king of Persia (Ezra 1:1-4), who then had controlling power among the nations.
Under the direction of Zerubbabel, the Israelites rebuilt the temple, and “many of the priests and Levites and chief of the fathers, who were ancient men, that had seen the first house, when the foundation of this house was laid before their eyes, wept with a loud voice; and many shouted aloud for joy.” (Ezra 3:12)
The Temple of Zerubbabel, named after the “foreman”, would not stand for long. In 168 BC, the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes captured Jerusalem and desecrated the temple by carrying away sacred relics and blasphemously offering swine, an unclean animal under the Law of Moses, as a sacrifice upon the altars of the temple.
The Jews eventually entered into an alliance with the Romans and fell under their leadership. At this stage in History, the Temple of Zerubbabel merges with the Temple of Herod.
Herod the Great was the same man who was King of Judea when Jesus Christ was born. It was this same Herod who ordered an infanticide to kill all infants under the age of two, after hearing from the Magi that a “King of the Jews” had been born in Bethlehem. Herod promised to tear down the existing remains of the temple and erect a new one. The Jews were skeptical of Herod, and were fearful that Herod would not comply with his promise and they would be left without a temple. To keep the peace and allay their fears, Herod then proceeded to restore the existing temple while adding to it. By the time they were finished with the work, so little of the existing temple stood that the Temple of Herod was considered an entirely new creation.
The Temple of Herod even surpassed the Temple of Solomon in grandeur and beauty, but not in sanctity and holiness. The edifice was erected for the aggrandizement of Herod, not for the specific intent of communing with the Lord. Even despite these intentions, the Savior referred to it as “my Father’s house” (John 2:16). The Savior also foretold it’s destruction in Matthew 24:1-2:
1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
The destruction would come under the direction of the Roman Emperor Titus in a bloody confrontation in 70 AD, on the anniversary of the same day and month in which the Temple of Solomon was destroyed by fire.
With the destruction of the Temple of Herod, the period of temple building was ended, at least on the eastern hemisphere, as the dark cloud of apostasy descended upon the earth. For more than 1700 years the world would be without the priesthood of God, and without the priesthood, there was no need for temples, nor was there authorization to officiate in temple ordinances.
In July of 1831, a little over a year from the re-establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ on the earth, revelation was received from God to build the first temple of this dispensation at Independence, Missouri. While the corner stones were laid and dedicated, the actual construction will come at a future day. In March of 1836, the Kirtland Temple was dedicated as the first temple built in the latter days (D&C 109). This temple was eventually deserted as the saints fled for their lives, and “with their departure the sacred Temple became an ordinary house, disowned of the Lord to whose name it had been reared. The building still stands and is used as a meeting-house by a small and comparatively unknown sect.” (Talmage, House of the Lord, p. 12)
After the saints were driven from Nauvoo, Illinois, leaving their recently constructed Nauvoo Temple, they arrived in the Salt Lake Valley, and after only four days in the valley, Brigham Young standing on the ground where the Salt Lake Temple now stands, declared “Here will be the Temple of our God.” Since the official restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ in 1830, there are now 128 operating temples, 7 under construction and 5 announced.
Bruce R. McConkie in his work Mormon Doctrine stated “…the day will come when temples will dot the earth, for the great work of the millennial era centers around and in these holy edifices.” (Mormon Doctrine, 781) The following picture graphically displays that prophecy being fulfilled.
(Image courtesy of www.ldschurchtemples.com)
From the early days of Moses and well into the last dispensation, the Lord gave commandments to build a house unto His holy name. And in each dispensation, the people gave freely of themselves and their best materials to provide Him that house. In each instance the Lord has accepted these buildings, whether made of canvas and skins or granite and glass, the Lord has had a place to dwell and communicate with His people.
D&C 124:38-39:
38 For, for this cause I commanded Moses that he should build a tabernacle, that they should bear it with them in the wilderness, and to build a house in the land of promise, that those ordinances might be revealed which had been hid from before the world was.
39 Therefore, verily I say unto you, that your anointings, and your washings, and your baptisms for the dead, and your solemn assemblies, and your memorials for your sacrifices by the sons of Levi, and for your oracles in your most holy places wherein you receive conversations, and your statutes and judgments, for the beginning of the revelations and foundation of Zion, and for the glory, honor, and endowment of all her municipals, are ordained by the ordinance of my holy house, which my people are always commanded to build unto my holy name.
Ever since the beginning of mankind, whenever the Lord has had a people, he has commanded them to build a house unto His name. The first recorded instance is the Tabernacle of the Congregation. Initially, Moses constructed what is commonly referred to as the “Provisional Tabernacle”, a preparatory tabernacle for the Tabernacle of the Congregation. In Exodus 25:1-9, the Lord commands Israel to bring forth donations to “make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.” The Lords sets the standard for His house, and from the specific directions given, it is obvious that this house was not for common gathering, but rather a place for the Lord to dwell and commune with His people.
When the Lord asked the Israelites for donations for the Tabernacle, Exodus 36:5-7 states:
5 And they spake unto Moses, saying, The people bring much more than enough for the service of the work, which the Lord commanded to make.
6 And Moses gave commandment, and they caused it to be proclaimed throughout the camp, saying, Let neither man nor woman make any more work for the offering of the sanctuary. So the people were restrained from bringing.
7 For the stuff they had was sufficient for all the work to make it, and too much.
When I think of the Israelites, I think of a people who wandered for 40 years in the wilderness because of their unbelief and inability to follow the Lord. I think of the Law of Moses given to help them remember the Lord because of their stiffneckedness (Mosiah 3:14). But when they were asked to give of themselves and their property for building the tabernacle, they brought “sufficient, and too much.” What a great show of dedication in this example, for whatever inadequacies I may have perceived the Israelites had in following the Lord, they obviously had some good intentions and faithfulness.
The Tabernacle is finished and as a final tribute, they inscribed “HOLINESS TO THE LORD” on the face of the tabernacle, the same verbiage used on latter-day temples (Exodus 39:30-32). And Moses did look upon all the work, and, behold, they had done it as the Lord had commanded, even so had they done it: and Moses blessed them (Exodus 39:43).
The tabernacle was raised for the first time as recorded in Exodus 40:17, 34-38. As a sign that the Lord was with the Israelites, “a cloud covered the tent of the Tabernacle, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.”
Based on the directions to be given later, and the materials used to construct the tabernacle, the tabernacle was obviously meant to be a temporary and movable structure. In Numbers 9:17-18 the Lord reveals when the Israelites should camp and when they should journey in the wilderness:
17 And when the cloud was taken up from the tabernacle, then after that the children of Israel journeyed: and in the place where the cloud abode, there the children of Israel pitched their tents.
18 At the commandment of the Lord the children of Israel journeyed, and at the commandment of the Lord they pitched: as long as the cloud abode upon the tabernacle they rested in their tents.
As long as the cloud was over the tabernacle the Israelites camped; when the cloud departed, they would take down the tabernacle and journey until they came to the place were the cloud abode and there they would set up their camp and raise the tabernacle again. The Israelites followed this pattern throughout their wanderings until they came to Canaan, the Promised Land, and at Shiloh, the tabernacle was given a more “permanent” home.
(Image courtesy of www.ldsces.org)
In 1 Samuel 4:3, the Israelites, during a battle with the Philistines, thought that having the Ark with them would save them from their enemies. As the Ark arrived in camp, the Israelites shouted with such joy that the “earth rang.” However, the Ark did not save them, and the Philistines killed 30,000 “footmen” and took the Ark. The Philistines were then smitten of the Lord and sent the Ark back to Israel, in the hopes that by so doing, the anger of the Lord would cease to be upon them.
Later, David (the same David who defeated Goliath) is chosen king of Israel and in 2 Samuel 6:2,17 David has the Ark retrieved (it was during this journey that Uzzah is smitten dead for trying to steady the Ark) and placed in a temporary tabernacle he made for that occasion.
David’s conscience gets the better of him and he tells the prophet Nathan in 1 Chronicles 17:1-4:
1 Now it came to pass, as David sat in his house, that David said to Nathan the prophet, Lo, I dwell in an house of cedars, but the ark of the covenant of the Lord remaineth under curtains.
2 Then Nathan said unto David, Do all that is in thine heart; for God is with thee.
3 And it came to pass the same night, that the word of God came to Nathan, saying,
4 Go and tell David my servant, Thus saith the Lord, Thou shalt not build me an house to dwell in.
David’s heart was in the right place in desiring to build a more suitable house for the Lord, but in 1 Chronicles 22:7-11,19 David tells his son Solomon why the Lord did not want David to build His house:
7 And David said to Solomon, My son, as for me, it was in my mind to build an house unto the name of the Lord my God:
8 But the word of the Lord came to me, saying, Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars: thou shalt not build an house unto my name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in my sight.
9 Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days.
10 He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.
11 Now, my son, the Lord be with thee; and prosper thou, and build the house of the Lord thy God, as he hath said of thee.
Because David shed too much blood, and I think this includes the incident with Bath-sheeba and Uriah, the Lord delegated the responsibility of building the temple to David’s son, Solomon.
The tabernacle was described in great detail to the Israelites, and the Temple of Solomon followed the basic design, except that it was exactly double the size. Also, instead of canvas and curtains for walls, Solomon used stones and cedars. The lavar that stood in font of the temple entrance now sat upon 12 oxen, representing the 12 tribes of Israel, arranged in groups of three, respectively facing north, south, east and west.
If I read correctly in 1 Kings 5:13-18, approximately 180,000 workers were required to complete the work.
In 1 Kings 8:13, at the dedication of the temple, Solomon states “I have surely built thee an house to dwell in, a settled place for thee to abide in for ever.”
However, because of wickedness on the part of Solomon and his people, the temple was slowly desecrated by a number of kings and nations, and even by the Israelites themselves, until eventually in 586 BC, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, completed the destruction of Solomon’s Temple, destroying it by fire (2 Chronicles 36).
It was prophesied by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 25:8-11) that the Israelites would be in bondage to the Babylonians for 70 years, but at the end of their captivity, they would rebuild the temple under the permission of the king of Persia (Ezra 1:1-4), who then had controlling power among the nations.
Under the direction of Zerubbabel, the Israelites rebuilt the temple, and “many of the priests and Levites and chief of the fathers, who were ancient men, that had seen the first house, when the foundation of this house was laid before their eyes, wept with a loud voice; and many shouted aloud for joy.” (Ezra 3:12)
The Temple of Zerubbabel, named after the “foreman”, would not stand for long. In 168 BC, the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes captured Jerusalem and desecrated the temple by carrying away sacred relics and blasphemously offering swine, an unclean animal under the Law of Moses, as a sacrifice upon the altars of the temple.
The Jews eventually entered into an alliance with the Romans and fell under their leadership. At this stage in History, the Temple of Zerubbabel merges with the Temple of Herod.
Herod the Great was the same man who was King of Judea when Jesus Christ was born. It was this same Herod who ordered an infanticide to kill all infants under the age of two, after hearing from the Magi that a “King of the Jews” had been born in Bethlehem. Herod promised to tear down the existing remains of the temple and erect a new one. The Jews were skeptical of Herod, and were fearful that Herod would not comply with his promise and they would be left without a temple. To keep the peace and allay their fears, Herod then proceeded to restore the existing temple while adding to it. By the time they were finished with the work, so little of the existing temple stood that the Temple of Herod was considered an entirely new creation.
The Temple of Herod even surpassed the Temple of Solomon in grandeur and beauty, but not in sanctity and holiness. The edifice was erected for the aggrandizement of Herod, not for the specific intent of communing with the Lord. Even despite these intentions, the Savior referred to it as “my Father’s house” (John 2:16). The Savior also foretold it’s destruction in Matthew 24:1-2:
1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
The destruction would come under the direction of the Roman Emperor Titus in a bloody confrontation in 70 AD, on the anniversary of the same day and month in which the Temple of Solomon was destroyed by fire.
With the destruction of the Temple of Herod, the period of temple building was ended, at least on the eastern hemisphere, as the dark cloud of apostasy descended upon the earth. For more than 1700 years the world would be without the priesthood of God, and without the priesthood, there was no need for temples, nor was there authorization to officiate in temple ordinances.
In July of 1831, a little over a year from the re-establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ on the earth, revelation was received from God to build the first temple of this dispensation at Independence, Missouri. While the corner stones were laid and dedicated, the actual construction will come at a future day. In March of 1836, the Kirtland Temple was dedicated as the first temple built in the latter days (D&C 109). This temple was eventually deserted as the saints fled for their lives, and “with their departure the sacred Temple became an ordinary house, disowned of the Lord to whose name it had been reared. The building still stands and is used as a meeting-house by a small and comparatively unknown sect.” (Talmage, House of the Lord, p. 12)
After the saints were driven from Nauvoo, Illinois, leaving their recently constructed Nauvoo Temple, they arrived in the Salt Lake Valley, and after only four days in the valley, Brigham Young standing on the ground where the Salt Lake Temple now stands, declared “Here will be the Temple of our God.” Since the official restoration of the Church of Jesus Christ in 1830, there are now 128 operating temples, 7 under construction and 5 announced.
Bruce R. McConkie in his work Mormon Doctrine stated “…the day will come when temples will dot the earth, for the great work of the millennial era centers around and in these holy edifices.” (Mormon Doctrine, 781) The following picture graphically displays that prophecy being fulfilled.
(Image courtesy of www.ldschurchtemples.com)
From the early days of Moses and well into the last dispensation, the Lord gave commandments to build a house unto His holy name. And in each dispensation, the people gave freely of themselves and their best materials to provide Him that house. In each instance the Lord has accepted these buildings, whether made of canvas and skins or granite and glass, the Lord has had a place to dwell and communicate with His people.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Finding Meaning in Suffering
I am currently "reading" Man's Search For Meaning, by Dr. Viktor Frankl. I've been listening to it as I commute to and from work. The book is amazing and I have learned a lot about attitudes in general, but specifically about finding reason and meaning in suffering. The book is about the experiences that Dr. Frankl, a psychologist/psychiatrist, had as a prisoner at a few concentration camps during WWII. What I like about the book is that it doesn't go into terribly gory details about camp life, but rather he focuses on how camp life affected people so differently. Drawing on his experience in psychology, he further developed "logotherapy", which teaches the following:
"The question was whether an ape which was being used to develop poliomyelitis serum, and for this reason punctured again and again, would ever be able to grasp the meaning of its suffering. Unanimously, the group replied that of course it would not; with its limited intelligence, it could not enter into the world of man, i.e., the only world in which the meaning of its suffering would be understandable. Then I pushed forward with the following question: “And what about man? Are you sure that the human world is a terminal point in the evolution of the cosmos? Is it not conceivable that there is still another dimension, a world beyond man’s world; a world in which the question of an ultimate meaning of human suffering would find an answer?”
I really think this is an amazing analogy. Dr. Frankl does not come out and say that God or religion should be the meaning of life to everyone, for it is different to everyone, but the previous quote comes closer to a belief in God than I have heard a lot of philosophers mention. I truly do believe that there is meaning in suffering, and like the example above, we are not the "terminal point in the evolution of the cosmos". I believe that we can learn from suffering, and even though we may not understand the reason now, there is ultimately a reason, even if that reason is only finally discovered in "a world beyond man's world".
- Life has meaning under all circumstances, even the most miserable ones.
- Our main motivation for living is our will to find meaning in life.
- We have freedom to find meaning in what we do, and what we experience, or at least in the stand we take when faced with a situation of unchangeable suffering.
As I was listening, the following jumped out at me. Dr. Frankl was participating in a therapeutic group and posed the following question:
"The question was whether an ape which was being used to develop poliomyelitis serum, and for this reason punctured again and again, would ever be able to grasp the meaning of its suffering. Unanimously, the group replied that of course it would not; with its limited intelligence, it could not enter into the world of man, i.e., the only world in which the meaning of its suffering would be understandable. Then I pushed forward with the following question: “And what about man? Are you sure that the human world is a terminal point in the evolution of the cosmos? Is it not conceivable that there is still another dimension, a world beyond man’s world; a world in which the question of an ultimate meaning of human suffering would find an answer?”
I really think this is an amazing analogy. Dr. Frankl does not come out and say that God or religion should be the meaning of life to everyone, for it is different to everyone, but the previous quote comes closer to a belief in God than I have heard a lot of philosophers mention. I truly do believe that there is meaning in suffering, and like the example above, we are not the "terminal point in the evolution of the cosmos". I believe that we can learn from suffering, and even though we may not understand the reason now, there is ultimately a reason, even if that reason is only finally discovered in "a world beyond man's world".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)