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.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
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".
Monday, July 28, 2008
1776 and the Wrath and Power of God
I just finished reading 1776, by David McCullough. 1776 chronicles the battles during the year 1776 and the impact that year had on the fight for American independence from England.
I originally bought this book for my wife several months ago for her birthday. She loves to read and I had heard many good things about it. The reason I decided to read this particular book, is because of a talk that my wife gave on July 13 in church. As she was preparing the talk and asking me about my opinion, she related to me a couple of things she had learned from reading 1776 and a correlation in The Book of Mormon. My thoughts and beliefs go hand in hand with hers, so I relate what are originally her ideas and I give her the credit for these findings, although there may be a few things that we each picked out that the other didn’t.
In the Book of Mormon, we read of a vision that the Prophet Nephi had in 1 Nephi 13:16-19.
16 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles who had gone forth out of captivity did humble themselves before the Lord; and the power of the Lord was with them.
17 And I beheld that their mother Gentiles were gathered together upon the waters, and upon the land also, to battle against them.
18 And I beheld that the power of God was with them, and also that the wrath of God was upon all those that were gathered together against them to battle.
19 And I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles that had gone out of captivity were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations.
I think it is universally believed that this particular vision is of the colonization of America, and the subsequent Revolutionary War. The key statements in these verses are that the “wrath of God was upon all those that were gathered together against them to battle” and how the Americans (“Gentiles”) were “delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations.”
In 1776 we read countless accounts of George Washington lamenting about his army, how few there were, how untrained they were to fight against what was then considered one of the best, if not the greatest army in the world. His army was referred to as “rabble in arms”, constantly sick, undisciplined, and for the most part largely uncommitted to the cause of the revolution. Washington repeatedly had to motivate them to the cause, plead for those whose military terms were expired to renew and continue the war, and fight dissension and low morale due to sickness (physical & home), lack of pay and the extremities of weather (either too hot or too cold).
Amid all of this, there are a few examples which make it plainly clear to me that the wrath of God was indeed upon those fighting the Americans, and how there were numerous times that the Americans were delivered by the power of God.
The Siege of Boston & Dorchester Heights
In November of 1775, Henry Knox requested to retrieve the artillery that was seized during the capture of Fort Ticonderoga, “an undertaking so enormous, so fraught with certain difficulties, that many thought it impossible.” (1776, p. 59) Knox was going to retrieve 120,000 pounds of artillery and transport them 300 miles during the dead of winter. Knox had counted on using sleds to transport the artillery, but an unseasonable thaw delayed his convoy. Finally after waiting out a blizzard and another thaw, the temperature dropped enough to freeze the ground and allow the sleds to proceed. As they reached the Berkshire Mountains, “… the mountains, steep and tumbled and dissected by deep, narrow valleys, posed a challenge as formidable as any.” (1776, p.84) Knox wrote in his journal “It appeared to me almost a miracle that people with heavy loads should be able to get up and down such hills.” (1776, p.84) This is actually reminiscent of the trek of the Pioneers to Utah. There were many instances that the pioneers traversed mountains and hills that seemed impossible.
Taking Boston, both armies knew, lay in establishing a fortification at Dorchester Heights. George Washington planned on occupying the Heights on a single night, but it would be difficult as “the frozen ground on top was ‘impenetrable as a rock’…which meant that digging trenches and throwing up breastworks in the usual fashion would be impossible, at least in one night and with no noise.”(1776, p. 88)
On the night of March 4th and into the 5th, the anniversary of the Boston Massacre, the Americans moved to occupy the Heights. Under a full moon, many thought the night had been especially prepared by the Almighty. Reverend William Gordon wrote “A finer [night] for working could not have been taken out of the whole 365. It was hazy below [the Heights] so that our people could not be seen, though it was a bright moonlight night above the hills.” (1776, p.92) The task had been accomplished and at daybreak the British commanders looked up on the hill to see the American fortifications, including the arsenal of Fort Ticonderoga. General Howe, the commander-in-chief of the British army was said to have exclaimed “My God, these follows have done more work in one night than I could make my army do in three months.” (1776, p.93) Another British officer thought that work would have taken 15,000-20,000 men to accomplish, when in reality it was done by approximately 1,200 men.
Surely the hand of God was involved in the artillery trek from Ticonderoga and establishing Dorchester Heights, a move that would cause the British retreat from Boston and prove a valuable victory in the fight for American Independence.
The Battle (& Retreat) of Brooklyn
After the British had retreated from Boston, the next battlefield would be in New York. By this time the British had brought in reinforcements from the Hessians (German soldiers hired to help the British fight the Revolutionary War) and in late June, 1776, the British and Hessian fleets began to arrive at the various bays around New York. McCullough states that five of the British warships alone far exceeded the all the American guns on the shore. Over the next month and a half more than 400 ships would arrive at New York. McCullough writes “…British officers happily reminded one another, it was the largest fleet ever seen in American waters. In fact, it was the largest expeditionary force of the eighteenth century, the largest, most powerful force ever sent forth from Britain or any nation.” (1776, p. 148)
On the 21st of August, 1776, in what I think was a warning from God, a “terrifying” storm broke over New York. Of the storm, people said it was “a storm like a hurricane”, “a most terrible storm”, “the most vehement I ever saw”, “an uncommon…awful scene.” (1776, p. 155) The storm as described by Major Abner Benedict was “surcharged with electricity, for the lightning was constantly searching it from limit to limit. Then followed a crash louder than a thousand cannon. … In a few minutes the entire heavens became black as ink, and from horizon to horizon the whole empyrean was ablaze with lightning” and the thunder as one “continuous crash.” (1776, p. 155) In Doctrine & Covenants 43:25, the Lord reveals that He speaks by the “the voice of thunderings, and by the voice of lightnings, and by the voice of tempests, and by the voice of earthquakes, and great hailstorms…”, so it is clear to me that God was in this storm, and like McCullough states, there were many who felt “a night so violent seemed filled with portent.” (1776, p. 155)
As severe a storm this was, the British army pressed on and eventually claimed a victory at Brooklyn. However, in a move that would win him praise from both the Americans and British, Washington’s retreat from Brooklyn appeared to be aided by the Hand of God.
The retreat was to take place during the night of Thursday, into Friday the 30th of August, 1776. Major Benjamin Tallmadge would write of Washington’s decision “To move so large a body of troops…across a river full a mile wide, with a rapid current, in face of a victorious well-disciplined army nearly three times as numerous as his own, and a fleet capable of stopping the navigation…seemed to present most formidable obstacles.” (1776, p. 187) During the crossing of the East River, “as if by design”, the winds shifted to aid the crossing. The event was taking longer than expected, and as daybreak was approaching, ready to reveal the American’s efforts and bring a potential annihilation as the army would be caught between the British Army and the East River, “a heavy fog settled in over the whole of Brooklyn, concealing everything no less than had the night.” (1776, p. 191) One soldier remembered that the fog was so thick that one “could scarcely discern a man at six yards distance.” (1776, p. 191) Across the river, on the New York side, there was no fog at all. In all, 9,000 American troops had evacuated Long Island in the cloak of darkness, without losing a single soul. The British awoke to the same shock as they had the morning the American’s took Dorchester Heights.
The Battle of Trenton
The most famous aspect of the Battle of Trenton, is Washington’s decision to cross the Delaware River and engage in battle with the Hessians, who had been stationed to fortify Trenton.
At this point the American Army morale was at the lowest point, having suffered a tremendous defeat at Brooklyn. As Washington and his troops were getting ready to cross, a fierce “northeasterner” storm blew in, both aiding the crossing by muffling the noise, yet hindering the crossing of the river that was already nearly frozen over. Just making the crossing seemed a miraculous effort, but the battle of the Hessians proved even more aided by the hand of God. During the battle, the American army, “having been on their feet all night, wet, cold, their weapons soaked, went into the fight as if everything depended on them.” (1776, p. 280) The Americans defeated the superior Hessian army, without losing a single life, and only four were wounded. Of the Hessians however, between 21 and 25 had been killed, and 90 wounded. This battle is reminiscent of the Sons of Helaman in the Book of Mormon, an account of the battle at Cumeni, in Alma 57:25-26:
25 And it came to pass that there were two hundred, out of my two thousand and sixty, who had fainted because of the loss of blood; nevertheless, according to the goodness of God, and to our great astonishment, and also the joy of our whole army, there was not one soul of them who did perish; yea, and neither was there one soul among them who had not received many wounds.
26 And now, their preservation was astonishing to our whole army, yea, that they should be spared while there was a thousand of our brethren who were slain. And we do justly ascribe it to the miraculous power of God, because of their exceeding faith in that which they had been taught to believe—that there was a just God, and whosoever did not doubt, that they should be preserved by his marvelous power.
Had it not been for the numerous miracles that took place during the later part of 1775 and 1776, it is altogether possible that the revolution would have failed, and without Divine Intervention, most likely would have, because “on paper” the Americans had no realistic chance of defeating the British. It is plainly manifest to me that indeed, as Nephi had seen in a vision almost 2,400 years earlier, “the power of God was with them, and also that the wrath of God was upon all those that were gathered together against them to battle,” and the “Gentiles that had gone out of captivity were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations.”
I originally bought this book for my wife several months ago for her birthday. She loves to read and I had heard many good things about it. The reason I decided to read this particular book, is because of a talk that my wife gave on July 13 in church. As she was preparing the talk and asking me about my opinion, she related to me a couple of things she had learned from reading 1776 and a correlation in The Book of Mormon. My thoughts and beliefs go hand in hand with hers, so I relate what are originally her ideas and I give her the credit for these findings, although there may be a few things that we each picked out that the other didn’t.
In the Book of Mormon, we read of a vision that the Prophet Nephi had in 1 Nephi 13:16-19.
16 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles who had gone forth out of captivity did humble themselves before the Lord; and the power of the Lord was with them.
17 And I beheld that their mother Gentiles were gathered together upon the waters, and upon the land also, to battle against them.
18 And I beheld that the power of God was with them, and also that the wrath of God was upon all those that were gathered together against them to battle.
19 And I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles that had gone out of captivity were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations.
I think it is universally believed that this particular vision is of the colonization of America, and the subsequent Revolutionary War. The key statements in these verses are that the “wrath of God was upon all those that were gathered together against them to battle” and how the Americans (“Gentiles”) were “delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations.”
In 1776 we read countless accounts of George Washington lamenting about his army, how few there were, how untrained they were to fight against what was then considered one of the best, if not the greatest army in the world. His army was referred to as “rabble in arms”, constantly sick, undisciplined, and for the most part largely uncommitted to the cause of the revolution. Washington repeatedly had to motivate them to the cause, plead for those whose military terms were expired to renew and continue the war, and fight dissension and low morale due to sickness (physical & home), lack of pay and the extremities of weather (either too hot or too cold).
Amid all of this, there are a few examples which make it plainly clear to me that the wrath of God was indeed upon those fighting the Americans, and how there were numerous times that the Americans were delivered by the power of God.
The Siege of Boston & Dorchester Heights
In November of 1775, Henry Knox requested to retrieve the artillery that was seized during the capture of Fort Ticonderoga, “an undertaking so enormous, so fraught with certain difficulties, that many thought it impossible.” (1776, p. 59) Knox was going to retrieve 120,000 pounds of artillery and transport them 300 miles during the dead of winter. Knox had counted on using sleds to transport the artillery, but an unseasonable thaw delayed his convoy. Finally after waiting out a blizzard and another thaw, the temperature dropped enough to freeze the ground and allow the sleds to proceed. As they reached the Berkshire Mountains, “… the mountains, steep and tumbled and dissected by deep, narrow valleys, posed a challenge as formidable as any.” (1776, p.84) Knox wrote in his journal “It appeared to me almost a miracle that people with heavy loads should be able to get up and down such hills.” (1776, p.84) This is actually reminiscent of the trek of the Pioneers to Utah. There were many instances that the pioneers traversed mountains and hills that seemed impossible.
Taking Boston, both armies knew, lay in establishing a fortification at Dorchester Heights. George Washington planned on occupying the Heights on a single night, but it would be difficult as “the frozen ground on top was ‘impenetrable as a rock’…which meant that digging trenches and throwing up breastworks in the usual fashion would be impossible, at least in one night and with no noise.”(1776, p. 88)
On the night of March 4th and into the 5th, the anniversary of the Boston Massacre, the Americans moved to occupy the Heights. Under a full moon, many thought the night had been especially prepared by the Almighty. Reverend William Gordon wrote “A finer [night] for working could not have been taken out of the whole 365. It was hazy below [the Heights] so that our people could not be seen, though it was a bright moonlight night above the hills.” (1776, p.92) The task had been accomplished and at daybreak the British commanders looked up on the hill to see the American fortifications, including the arsenal of Fort Ticonderoga. General Howe, the commander-in-chief of the British army was said to have exclaimed “My God, these follows have done more work in one night than I could make my army do in three months.” (1776, p.93) Another British officer thought that work would have taken 15,000-20,000 men to accomplish, when in reality it was done by approximately 1,200 men.
Surely the hand of God was involved in the artillery trek from Ticonderoga and establishing Dorchester Heights, a move that would cause the British retreat from Boston and prove a valuable victory in the fight for American Independence.
The Battle (& Retreat) of Brooklyn
After the British had retreated from Boston, the next battlefield would be in New York. By this time the British had brought in reinforcements from the Hessians (German soldiers hired to help the British fight the Revolutionary War) and in late June, 1776, the British and Hessian fleets began to arrive at the various bays around New York. McCullough states that five of the British warships alone far exceeded the all the American guns on the shore. Over the next month and a half more than 400 ships would arrive at New York. McCullough writes “…British officers happily reminded one another, it was the largest fleet ever seen in American waters. In fact, it was the largest expeditionary force of the eighteenth century, the largest, most powerful force ever sent forth from Britain or any nation.” (1776, p. 148)
On the 21st of August, 1776, in what I think was a warning from God, a “terrifying” storm broke over New York. Of the storm, people said it was “a storm like a hurricane”, “a most terrible storm”, “the most vehement I ever saw”, “an uncommon…awful scene.” (1776, p. 155) The storm as described by Major Abner Benedict was “surcharged with electricity, for the lightning was constantly searching it from limit to limit. Then followed a crash louder than a thousand cannon. … In a few minutes the entire heavens became black as ink, and from horizon to horizon the whole empyrean was ablaze with lightning” and the thunder as one “continuous crash.” (1776, p. 155) In Doctrine & Covenants 43:25, the Lord reveals that He speaks by the “the voice of thunderings, and by the voice of lightnings, and by the voice of tempests, and by the voice of earthquakes, and great hailstorms…”, so it is clear to me that God was in this storm, and like McCullough states, there were many who felt “a night so violent seemed filled with portent.” (1776, p. 155)
As severe a storm this was, the British army pressed on and eventually claimed a victory at Brooklyn. However, in a move that would win him praise from both the Americans and British, Washington’s retreat from Brooklyn appeared to be aided by the Hand of God.
The retreat was to take place during the night of Thursday, into Friday the 30th of August, 1776. Major Benjamin Tallmadge would write of Washington’s decision “To move so large a body of troops…across a river full a mile wide, with a rapid current, in face of a victorious well-disciplined army nearly three times as numerous as his own, and a fleet capable of stopping the navigation…seemed to present most formidable obstacles.” (1776, p. 187) During the crossing of the East River, “as if by design”, the winds shifted to aid the crossing. The event was taking longer than expected, and as daybreak was approaching, ready to reveal the American’s efforts and bring a potential annihilation as the army would be caught between the British Army and the East River, “a heavy fog settled in over the whole of Brooklyn, concealing everything no less than had the night.” (1776, p. 191) One soldier remembered that the fog was so thick that one “could scarcely discern a man at six yards distance.” (1776, p. 191) Across the river, on the New York side, there was no fog at all. In all, 9,000 American troops had evacuated Long Island in the cloak of darkness, without losing a single soul. The British awoke to the same shock as they had the morning the American’s took Dorchester Heights.
The Battle of Trenton
The most famous aspect of the Battle of Trenton, is Washington’s decision to cross the Delaware River and engage in battle with the Hessians, who had been stationed to fortify Trenton.
At this point the American Army morale was at the lowest point, having suffered a tremendous defeat at Brooklyn. As Washington and his troops were getting ready to cross, a fierce “northeasterner” storm blew in, both aiding the crossing by muffling the noise, yet hindering the crossing of the river that was already nearly frozen over. Just making the crossing seemed a miraculous effort, but the battle of the Hessians proved even more aided by the hand of God. During the battle, the American army, “having been on their feet all night, wet, cold, their weapons soaked, went into the fight as if everything depended on them.” (1776, p. 280) The Americans defeated the superior Hessian army, without losing a single life, and only four were wounded. Of the Hessians however, between 21 and 25 had been killed, and 90 wounded. This battle is reminiscent of the Sons of Helaman in the Book of Mormon, an account of the battle at Cumeni, in Alma 57:25-26:
25 And it came to pass that there were two hundred, out of my two thousand and sixty, who had fainted because of the loss of blood; nevertheless, according to the goodness of God, and to our great astonishment, and also the joy of our whole army, there was not one soul of them who did perish; yea, and neither was there one soul among them who had not received many wounds.
26 And now, their preservation was astonishing to our whole army, yea, that they should be spared while there was a thousand of our brethren who were slain. And we do justly ascribe it to the miraculous power of God, because of their exceeding faith in that which they had been taught to believe—that there was a just God, and whosoever did not doubt, that they should be preserved by his marvelous power.
Had it not been for the numerous miracles that took place during the later part of 1775 and 1776, it is altogether possible that the revolution would have failed, and without Divine Intervention, most likely would have, because “on paper” the Americans had no realistic chance of defeating the British. It is plainly manifest to me that indeed, as Nephi had seen in a vision almost 2,400 years earlier, “the power of God was with them, and also that the wrath of God was upon all those that were gathered together against them to battle,” and the “Gentiles that had gone out of captivity were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations.”
Friday, June 27, 2008
Remembering Joseph, Hyrum & the Martyrdom
Today marks the 164th anniversary of the martyrdom of the Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum. This is always a difficult anniversary for me because of the manner in which it happened. It seems that each year as this anniversary rolls around, and I refresh my memory of the events by reading in the D&C or History of the Church, I continue to be touched as I read the events.
Elder John Taylor, an eyewitness to the events, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and later the 3rd President of the Church wrote the following which is now verse 7 in Section 135 of the Doctrine & Covenants:
“They were innocent of any crime, as they had often been proved before, and were only confined in jail by the conspiracy of traitors and wicked men; and their innocent blood on the floor of Carthage jail is a broad seal affixed to “Mormonism” that cannot be rejected by any court on earth, and their innocent blood on the escutcheon of the State of Illinois, with the broken faith of the State as pledged by the governor, is a witness to the truth of the everlasting gospel that all the world cannot impeach; and their innocent blood on the banner of liberty, and on the magna charta of the United States, is an ambassador for the religion of Jesus Christ, that will touch the hearts of honest men among all nations; and their innocent blood, with the innocent blood of all the martyrs under the altar that John saw, will cry unto the Lord of Hosts till he avenges that blood on the earth. Amen.”
As I think about the events of that day and those following, I can’t help but think of how it all could have been avoided if it weren’t for the actions (or lack thereof) of the Governor of Illinois. I don’t know a lot about Governor Thomas Ford, but my thoughts on him mirror a similar sentiment he said about himself in his book History of Illinois, as quoted in Carthage Conspiracy:
“In his history Ford lamented the possibility that the names of “Nauvoo, and the Carthage Jail, may become holy and venerable names, places of classic interest, in another age; like Jerusalem, the Garden of Gethsemane, the Mount of Olives, and Mount Calvary to the Christian…” Ford wrote that, if this were to be the case, he felt “degraded by the reflection, that the humble governor of an obscure State, who would otherwise be forgotten in a few years, stands a fair chance, like Pilate and Herod, by their official connection with the true religion, of being dragged down to posterity with an immortal name, hitched on to the memory of a miserable imposter.”
I am a little unsure about the statement “miserable imposter”, whether he means himself or Joseph. If he means himself, it’s a pretty accurate statement seeing as how his pretended protection and cowardly acts brought about the martyrdom; however, if he is referring to Joseph, then I guess he considers the Savior a “miserable imposter” as well, since he is comparing himself to those men who helped bring about the Savior’s death.
Elder John Taylor, an eyewitness to the events, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and later the 3rd President of the Church wrote the following which is now verse 7 in Section 135 of the Doctrine & Covenants:
“They were innocent of any crime, as they had often been proved before, and were only confined in jail by the conspiracy of traitors and wicked men; and their innocent blood on the floor of Carthage jail is a broad seal affixed to “Mormonism” that cannot be rejected by any court on earth, and their innocent blood on the escutcheon of the State of Illinois, with the broken faith of the State as pledged by the governor, is a witness to the truth of the everlasting gospel that all the world cannot impeach; and their innocent blood on the banner of liberty, and on the magna charta of the United States, is an ambassador for the religion of Jesus Christ, that will touch the hearts of honest men among all nations; and their innocent blood, with the innocent blood of all the martyrs under the altar that John saw, will cry unto the Lord of Hosts till he avenges that blood on the earth. Amen.”
As I think about the events of that day and those following, I can’t help but think of how it all could have been avoided if it weren’t for the actions (or lack thereof) of the Governor of Illinois. I don’t know a lot about Governor Thomas Ford, but my thoughts on him mirror a similar sentiment he said about himself in his book History of Illinois, as quoted in Carthage Conspiracy:
“In his history Ford lamented the possibility that the names of “Nauvoo, and the Carthage Jail, may become holy and venerable names, places of classic interest, in another age; like Jerusalem, the Garden of Gethsemane, the Mount of Olives, and Mount Calvary to the Christian…” Ford wrote that, if this were to be the case, he felt “degraded by the reflection, that the humble governor of an obscure State, who would otherwise be forgotten in a few years, stands a fair chance, like Pilate and Herod, by their official connection with the true religion, of being dragged down to posterity with an immortal name, hitched on to the memory of a miserable imposter.”
I am a little unsure about the statement “miserable imposter”, whether he means himself or Joseph. If he means himself, it’s a pretty accurate statement seeing as how his pretended protection and cowardly acts brought about the martyrdom; however, if he is referring to Joseph, then I guess he considers the Savior a “miserable imposter” as well, since he is comparing himself to those men who helped bring about the Savior’s death.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Haply Fighting Against God
For the past several months I have participated in and observed “discussions” (to put it nicely) between members of the Church and those who oppose it. Among their many reasons for attacking the church, they cite scriptures that seemingly command them to “attack” the church, like the following scripture:
“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” (Jude 1:3)
So, our critics feel like they have a need to “earnestly contend” with us constantly, instead of just preaching what they believe. I think there is a distinction between preaching what you believe and attacking what others believe. It’s fairly obvious that the LDS Church has an extensive missionary program, and some might see that as “attacking” others’ religious beliefs. Actually, the Church is very respective of others’ beliefs, and does not proselyte in countries where it is forbidden, and trains missionaries to respect those laws. LDS Missionaries go out to preach the gospel, and not to attack others. Now, there may be some who feel they need to ignore this advice, but they are acting of their own accord and contrary to established Missionary rules.
So why do critics of the LDS Church feel they have to attack our beliefs instead of simply preaching theirs? I’m not sure, but there was a non-Christian who had a pretty good alternative solution almost two thousand years ago.
In Acts, chapter 5, the apostles Peter and John are (yet again) cast into prison and are miraculously delivered from prison by an angel, who then tells them to “Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life.” The next day, the two apostles go to the Temple and preach the gospel. The High Priest and his council, after discovering that they are not in the prison, and “the keepers standing without before the doors” as they had been the night before, send forth to have the apostles brought before the council. After asking why they continued to preach the gospel after being “straitly commanded” not to, Peter stated that he would obey God, not man and then indicted the council with the death of Jesus. Upon hearing this, “they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them”.
At this point a man “in the council” stood up to defend the apostles; “a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people”. In other words, this man was a very intelligent and respected man among his peers in the Sanhedrin. In fact, Gamaliel was the Saul’s teacher, before he became Paul the Apostle.
Gamaliel recited two incidents from the past of people who had drawn many men unto them and their cause, and ended up failing and losing their followers. The first he mentions is Theudas. Josephus describes who Gamaliel may have been referring to.
“Now it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus's government.” (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, 5:1)
The next example was Judas of Galilee. Again, according to Josephus, Judas “became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity.”
Judas resented the fact that some Roman rulers came into Judea to “take an account of their substance”. Most of the Jews would have normally despised the idea of taxation, too, but because of the teachings of Joazar, a high priest, they submitted to the taxation; all except for Judas and his group of followers. On the surface, Judas fighting against taxation seems like a justifiable action. However, revolting against taxation wasn’t his only “crime”.
“They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one another in such councils as might be successful, and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same so men received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height. All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; one violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends which used to alleviate our pains; there were also very great robberies and murder of our principal men. This was done in pretense indeed for the public welfare, but in reality for the hopes of gain to themselves; whence arose seditions, and from them murders of men, which sometimes fell on those of their own people, (by the madness of these men towards one another, while their desire was that none of the adverse party might be left,) and sometimes on their enemies”. (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, 1:1)
These men were robbers pure and simple. They hid their atrocities behind their so-called religious beliefs. We are not told how Judas dies or how his sedition is crushed, but we know from Gamaliel’s words (and history, really) that he did fail in his attempt.
Gamaliel’s reasons for describing the outcomes of these seditionists was that, eventually, they were discovered for what they purported to be; charlatans and deceivers. Applying this same concept to the apostles, he states “And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.” (Acts 5:38-39)
Gamaliel was so respected, that what he had to say appeased the council that was ready to kill the two apostles. Instead, the Sanhedrin released them (but not before giving them a good beating) and commanded them not to preach anymore.
The reason why Gamaliel’s words are so interesting to me, is that some people spend so much time and energy fighting against the LDS Church, bringing up old arguments and quoting scriptures (most, if not all of the time, out of context) to try to prove that either they are right or we are wrong or both. And really all they need to do is follow Gamaliel’s council to “let them alone; for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought.”
Maybe that’s why they fight so hard; because after more than 150 years, it has not “come to nought” and that makes them very uncomfortable, maybe to the point where they think they can make it come to nought. So I guess, in a way, Gamaliel’s words have been proven true, which is a pretty harrowing realization to come to if you expected this work to come to nought. What does that tell us about whose work this is?
“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” (Jude 1:3)
So, our critics feel like they have a need to “earnestly contend” with us constantly, instead of just preaching what they believe. I think there is a distinction between preaching what you believe and attacking what others believe. It’s fairly obvious that the LDS Church has an extensive missionary program, and some might see that as “attacking” others’ religious beliefs. Actually, the Church is very respective of others’ beliefs, and does not proselyte in countries where it is forbidden, and trains missionaries to respect those laws. LDS Missionaries go out to preach the gospel, and not to attack others. Now, there may be some who feel they need to ignore this advice, but they are acting of their own accord and contrary to established Missionary rules.
So why do critics of the LDS Church feel they have to attack our beliefs instead of simply preaching theirs? I’m not sure, but there was a non-Christian who had a pretty good alternative solution almost two thousand years ago.
In Acts, chapter 5, the apostles Peter and John are (yet again) cast into prison and are miraculously delivered from prison by an angel, who then tells them to “Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life.” The next day, the two apostles go to the Temple and preach the gospel. The High Priest and his council, after discovering that they are not in the prison, and “the keepers standing without before the doors” as they had been the night before, send forth to have the apostles brought before the council. After asking why they continued to preach the gospel after being “straitly commanded” not to, Peter stated that he would obey God, not man and then indicted the council with the death of Jesus. Upon hearing this, “they were cut to the heart, and took counsel to slay them”.
At this point a man “in the council” stood up to defend the apostles; “a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people”. In other words, this man was a very intelligent and respected man among his peers in the Sanhedrin. In fact, Gamaliel was the Saul’s teacher, before he became Paul the Apostle.
Gamaliel recited two incidents from the past of people who had drawn many men unto them and their cause, and ended up failing and losing their followers. The first he mentions is Theudas. Josephus describes who Gamaliel may have been referring to.
“Now it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus's government.” (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, 5:1)
The next example was Judas of Galilee. Again, according to Josephus, Judas “became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magnanimity.”
Judas resented the fact that some Roman rulers came into Judea to “take an account of their substance”. Most of the Jews would have normally despised the idea of taxation, too, but because of the teachings of Joazar, a high priest, they submitted to the taxation; all except for Judas and his group of followers. On the surface, Judas fighting against taxation seems like a justifiable action. However, revolting against taxation wasn’t his only “crime”.
“They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one another in such councils as might be successful, and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same so men received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height. All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; one violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends which used to alleviate our pains; there were also very great robberies and murder of our principal men. This was done in pretense indeed for the public welfare, but in reality for the hopes of gain to themselves; whence arose seditions, and from them murders of men, which sometimes fell on those of their own people, (by the madness of these men towards one another, while their desire was that none of the adverse party might be left,) and sometimes on their enemies”. (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, 1:1)
These men were robbers pure and simple. They hid their atrocities behind their so-called religious beliefs. We are not told how Judas dies or how his sedition is crushed, but we know from Gamaliel’s words (and history, really) that he did fail in his attempt.
Gamaliel’s reasons for describing the outcomes of these seditionists was that, eventually, they were discovered for what they purported to be; charlatans and deceivers. Applying this same concept to the apostles, he states “And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.” (Acts 5:38-39)
Gamaliel was so respected, that what he had to say appeased the council that was ready to kill the two apostles. Instead, the Sanhedrin released them (but not before giving them a good beating) and commanded them not to preach anymore.
The reason why Gamaliel’s words are so interesting to me, is that some people spend so much time and energy fighting against the LDS Church, bringing up old arguments and quoting scriptures (most, if not all of the time, out of context) to try to prove that either they are right or we are wrong or both. And really all they need to do is follow Gamaliel’s council to “let them alone; for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought.”
Maybe that’s why they fight so hard; because after more than 150 years, it has not “come to nought” and that makes them very uncomfortable, maybe to the point where they think they can make it come to nought. So I guess, in a way, Gamaliel’s words have been proven true, which is a pretty harrowing realization to come to if you expected this work to come to nought. What does that tell us about whose work this is?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)