Another Goliath, Another David

My neighbor and close friend recently shared an insight with me that I felt would be a nice addition to the blog. It has to do with the controversy surrounding Nephi’s killing of Laban in 1 Nephi 4.
Over the last several decades I have met a number of individuals within and without the Church who find it hard to reconcile Nephi’s killing of Laban with what they perceive to be God’s way of dealing with men. Many claim that it is inconsistent with God’s character to command such a thing.
Readers of this story generally understand Laban’s wickedness and the manner in which he trespassed against Nephi and his brothers, they also understand Nephi’s need to acquire the plates, even through intrigue… but they ask “Why did he have to kill Laban?”
To this point I have shared two insights 1) 1 Nephi 4:10-13 and 2) D&C 98:23-32 (both of these are given in full at the bottom of this entry). These two passages explain the Lord’s rationale for requiring Laban’s blood at Nephi’s hands. The insight that my friend shared added upon these two ideas and illustrated just how consistent this experience was with other Old Testament Experiences. Let me share his insights:

Ancient Display of God’s Power
There are a number of times in the Old Testament where, as a testimony to his covenant people, God showed his power by defeating great warriors, armies or nations. This display of power was given each time as a testimony that God was all-powerful and therefore his covenant followers could put their trust in him. Some notable examples include David and Goliath (1 Samuel 17), Gideon and his 300 against the Midianites (Judges 7), Moses against the hosts of Pharoah (Exodus 7-14), Elisha and the unseen host against Syria (2 Kings 6) and Abraham and his 300 against the Assyrian hosts (Genesis 14). In each of these Old Testament examples the Lord displayed his mighty arm by defeating a seemingly unbeatable foe. Each time the Lord destroyed the enemies of his covenant people. Each time the covenant people turned to the Lord and became more submissive.

Nephi’s Unbeatable Foe
Nephi and his brothers gathered outside of Jerusalem casting lots to see who was going to put their life on the line to get the plates from Laban. The lot fell on Laman who was almost killed in his attempt to request the plates. In a second attempt Nephi and his brothers tried to buy the plates, but the mighty Laban took their riches and then commanded the sons of Lehi to be killed. They barely escaped. Laban could not be negotiated with and his power was so great that the plates couldn’t be taken by force. In a third and final attempt to get the plates an angel instructed them that Laban would be delivered into their hands. With no trust in the Lord, however, Laman and Lemuel saw only impossibility. They came as far as the walls of Jerusalem but would go no further saying, “How is it possible that the Lord will deliver Laban into our hands? Behold, he is a mighty man, and he can command fifty, yea, even he can slay fifty; then why not us?” (1 Nep 3:31). Laman and Lemuel identified Laban as an unbeatable foe, one who, according to their experience, could not be stopped even by the Lord. 450 years earlier the hosts of Israel similarly cowered at the great Goliath. The record reads, “When Saul and all Israel heard those words of the Philistine, they were dismayed, and greatly afraid.” (1 Sam. 17:11)

Another David, Another Goliath
Nephi bears testimony to his brothers much as David did to the Host of Israel. He says, “behold [the Lord] is mightier than all the earth, then why not mightier than Laban and his fifty, yea, or even than his tens of thousands?” (1 Nep 4:1). Similarly David asked the Israelites, “who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?” (1 Sam 17:26). At the famous stand-off the young David said to Goliath, “Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to thee in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied” (1 Sam 17:45). David, Like Nephi, had great faith in the Lord and recognized his all-powerful hand while those of lesser faith did not. Here then was another opportunity for the Lord to increase the faith of a family who would ultimately be at the head of a great nation. They would need to know the power of God in order to pass their testimony on to their descendants.

The record shows the simple means by which the Lord brings to pass his purposes in bringing Laban, who was ripe in iniquity, to a justified end and in showing his great power of deliverance to the sons of Nephi.

Belief and Unbelief
Nephi and Sam were greatly strengthened through the experience of getting the brass plates from Laban. Amazingly Laman and Lemuel continued in their unbelief even after such an amazing display of power by the Lord. Nephi later rebuked them saying, “how is it that ye have forgotten what great things the Lord hath done for us, in delivering us out of the hands of Laban, and also that we should obtain the record?” (1 Nep 7:11). Each of them at one time knew the impossibility of overcoming Laban. No one knew better than Laman and Lemuel that Nephi surely couldn’t have done it, he had never spilled the blood of anyone, and here he single-handedly destroyed a great captain of the Jewish army. Still they forgot. A man of faith will always see the hand of the Lord, while such power is invisible to one who puts his trust in the arm of the flesh. Such was the case with Nephi, his brothers and Laban.

Scriptures Illustrating the Lord's Reasoning
1 Nephi 4:10-13
10 And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.
11 And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had 1) sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he 2) would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he 3) also had taken away our property.
12 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;
13 Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.

Doctrine and Covenants 98:23-32
23 Now, I speak unto you concerning your families—if men will smite you, or your families, once, and ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded;
24 But if ye bear it not patiently, it shall be accounted unto you as being meted out as a just measure unto you.
25 And again, if your enemy shall smite you the second time, and you revile not against your enemy, and bear it patiently, your reward shall be an hundredfold.
26 And again, if he shall smite you the third time, and ye bear it patiently, your reward shall be doubled unto you four-fold;
27 And these three testimonies shall stand against your enemy if he repent not, and shall not be blotted out.
28 And now, verily I say unto you, if that enemy shall escape my vengeance, that he be not brought into judgment before me, then ye shall see to it that ye warn him in my name, that he come no more upon you, neither upon your family, even your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.
29 And then, if he shall come upon you or your children, or your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation, I have delivered thine enemy into thine hands;
30 And then if thou wilt spare him, thou shalt be rewarded for thy righteousness; and also thy children and thy children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.
31 Nevertheless, thine enemy is in thine hands; and if thou rewardest him according to his works thou art justified; if he has sought thy life, and thy life is endangered by him, thine enemy is in thine hands and thou art justified.
32 Behold, this is the law I gave unto my servant Nephi, and thy fathers, Joseph, and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham, and all mine ancient prophets and apostles.

Merespective Whatcha-ma-callit????

I have been engaged in wonderful conversations with numerous individuals from various different faiths regarding a plethora of topics. It has been such a rewarding experience, one that I wholeheartedly wish upon anyone seeking truth. First let me say that there are sooooo many good people out there of many differing faiths.
In my conversations I find the same dilemma surfacing again and again and find myself giving the same explanation over and over to different parties. I therefore, am now putting it on my blog for the sake of reference. You will find this post littered with my personal bias, but hopefully you will see my attempts to convey them responsibly.

Merespective Rhetoric?
Okay, so I made this word up…I created the term merespective because I couldn’t find a word that adequately explained what I was trying to communicate. If you know a better one, I am all ears. This word has its roots in Latin. Mere comes from the Latin “Méros” meaning “partial,” or “part of a whole” and is found in words like merely, meridian, and meristem. Spective comes from the Latin Specere meaning “the look at, view”. Rhetoric means “the ability to use language effectively, especially to persuade or influence people”. I have combined the three to refer to the human tendency for opinion leaders to use language effectively to persuade or influence the audience to see their limited perspective or partial view of any given subject.
Let’s take war reporting, for a hypothetical example. We send two war journalists over to report on what they see. One is positioned with a brigade of soldiers in the south, while the other is positioned with a different brigade in the North. In addition to bringing their own experiences to the table affecting what they choose to report on, both see a completely different side to the war. The one on the south sees very little fighting and sees the soldiers primarily involved in striking alliances with the locals. The reporter in the North has the opposite experience finding himself in the midst of constant gunfire. The war rages, inhumanity is consistently paraded accompanied by atrocity after atrocity, from which the journalist feels he is looking into the very jaws of hell.
When it comes time for reporting, each of the reporters must summarize their entire experience in order to effectively communicate to those removed from the war, what is really happening. Both actually see different sides of what is happening and therefore their reports on the war may paint very different pictures. Both are seasoned journalists, and neither of them are lying, yet they contradict one another on every point and intend to persuade the viewers that their merespective is the accurate one.
This principle happens all the time with anyone who is set as a witness of something. All they can give is a testimony of their partial view. We then can add that to the many testimonies that are given to create a picture for ourselves of what is really happening.
I am always interested (not really) to hear critics of our faith outright reject the testimonies of the leading brethren of the LDS Church who give their personal witnesses of the divine, and then to see them turn around and embrace every wind of rumor, speculation, and even outright lies because it conforms with their own opinions. I have read many critics’ versions of the history of our church, sensing all along their disgust and animosity toward the subjects of the history they are giving and then hear the same history, even the same key parts told by one who champions the very things the former despised. I understand, very well that both accounts are a spin of reality, that the details of history are given in subjective bias. I can understand subjectivity, but I cannot excuse lies, sloppy care of context, or outright irresponsibility. I think there should be more of what I like to call “responsible subjectivity”.

Responsible Subjectivity
I put little faith in the elusive term “objectivity.” I feel that such a trait is spoken of far too often and is completely impossible for humans, (including myself, since I am obviously human). I have listened for years now as journalists, news writers, commentators (religious and otherwise), scientists, politicians and many others seek to convey objectivity in the presentation of their ideas… as if they were somehow detached from the human experience. They try to be neither for, nor against the things they speak of. Needless to say I have found such attempts to be absurd. No matter how we as humans try to divorce ourselves from being “interested observers” we bring to the table emotions, past experiences, ideas, and learning that combine to bias us toward or from a certain perspective of any given scenario. This is why we have opinions.
A friend of mine who is also an outspoken critic of the Church of Jesus Christ has repeatedly rejected the words from the leadership of this church on the premise that they are “bias” in their views, and then in the same breath unquestioningly accept the views and perspectives of others who speak against the Church because they are somehow untainted by association with it. I do not understand his reasoning. He rightly sees the bias of our leaders, yet is somehow blinded to the obvious bias of our critics. I see nothing wrong with bias, as long as it is responsible. Both sides carry biases, as all parties ultimately do. What we need look for is not elusive objectivity, but rather responsible subjectivity. While even my words are biased by my own life experiences, I can seek to be as accurate as possible in the bearing of my own witness of things.
I just finished reading a thesis by a Catholic monk who decided to perform a comparative analysis between the LDS doctrine of Exaltation and the Patristic teachings on Theosis. (For anyone who is interested the thesis is called “Partakers of the Divine” and I highly recommend it). The man writing this thesis came to the table with biases. He was also not a member of our church, yet his writing was so careful and so responsible and so tremendously accurate that upon finishing I felt like applauding him for the responsible manner in which he discussed a faith beyond his own. I have never seen this done with such care. More often I have been disappointed in the sloppy manner in which some discuss about my faith what they know so little about. I would rather a person ask me what I believe than try to tell me. And for you out there who feel compelled to write about the LDS faith from an outsider’s perspective, please take a step back and be a little more responsible, and accurate. Get an insider’s opinion rather than assuming your merespective is representative of the whole. Thank you.

That's a lot of Veils

I’ve been contemplating a principle of revelation and just came across two metaphors that have proven useful in understanding it. I was seeking to know why the words of revelation all come in the voice of the author/prophet; why Isaiah sounds like Isaiah and Alma sounds like Alma; why Joseph Smith’s revelations sound like Joseph Smith and those that come to me are in a voice that I am familiar with. I ask, “if these are the voice of the Lord, then why are they all different?”

A Perfect Communication
The conclusion to my prayers and reflections was that God’s Spirit communes with our spirits in perfect communication, giving light and truth in purity. It is then the job of our spirits to communicate the new light to our bodies. In this way, God can pour his spirit out upon the earth and give light and truth in great abundance, yet only those who have learned how to hear the internal whisperings of the spirit understand what is being given. I was reminded of the first useful metaphor as found in Alma 12:9-11 where Alma states,

“…It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.
And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.
And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries…”

In a scripture such as this I think it important to remember that the “heart” being spoken of in a scripture such as this is really our “spirit”. The nature of our heart and therefore the nature of our spirit (whether receptive or not) directly determines whether we receive the greater or lesser portion of the word and ultimately decides whether we gain or lose light.

Each of the prophets therefore might receive the same light from our Heavenly Father but when bearing testimony each does so in the language of his birth, explaining the divine through their own experiential vocabularies, each using unique forms of expressions, metaphors, and symbolism to convey that light to others.

I then came across a second useful metaphor while reading in Islamic commentary. There was a discussion of 70,000 veils being placed between us and the light of God. In this metaphor the more receptive we are to the signs and teachings of God, the more veils are drawn open so that thereby more light from God may penetrate our hearts. The less receptive we are, the more veils are closed distancing us further from, or darkening us to the light of God.

In both cases we are ultimately responsible for the amount of light we receive from God based on a broken heart and a contrite spirit, or rather a spirit that is prepared to receive greater light from above.

Spending Time With Ourselves
Understanding the voice of the spirit does not come automatically. There are so many voices seeking attention in the world. The scriptures demonstrate the importance in such a noisy world of finding time for quiet reflection, pondering, and meditation.
The Lord illustrates for Nicodemus how the spirit is like the wind. We know when it is windy, and which direction it is coming, but we don’t know ultimately where it is coming from (without tools of course), nor can we see it. Nevertheless we know it is there. So is everyone that learns to hear the Spirit. They know when the Spirit is there speaking, though it is hard to explain where it is coming from and of course isn’t seen. John records it in this language, “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. (John 3:8)

It takes effort and grace from above to be able to hear the spirit. One of my favorite examples promoting the idea of spending time in quiet reflection comes from Psalms 2:3-4 where David, speaking of communing with the Lord instructs, “the Lord will hear when I call unto him. Stand in awe, and sin not: commune with your own heart upon your bed, and be still. Selah.” I don’t know that any scriptures say it better for me. If we are to hear the voice of God in the day of great noise we must spend time communing with our own hearts (away from the radio, the ipod, the tv, the magazine, our friends and spouses). We must spend time with ourselves. We are spirit beings clothed in a weak mortal frame during this period of probation. When, therefore, the Spirit of God speaks to our spirit in perfect communication. Only those who have learned to commune with their own hearts (spirits) will understand what is being said.

Of one thing I am certain… God speaks to us in these latter days, but only some can hear him. I have been blessed from time to time to receive answers to my own prayers, and I thank God for his grace and patience with me.

Joseph Smith vs. James Arlington Bennet

While doing my Master's program I came across a letter published in the Times and Season's that I felt captured the essence of Joseph Smith's personality so well that I decided I needed to include it as a link on my blog. I have read many people's descriptions of him, including critics, skeptics, and undying friends and supporters. Nothing, in my mind compares to a candid letter straight from the mouth of Joseph Smith to someone who has been trying to use and abuse him.

A little background info on James Arlington Bennet. He was baptized a member of the Church in 1843 (though his baptism by Brigham Young seems to have been purely for political reasons as noted by his mention about a "frolic in the ocean" with B. Young). The Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint History says, "When Joseph asked him to be his vice presidential running mate, Bennet declined. After the martyrdom of the Prophet in 1844, he left the Church. A year later, however, he visited Nauvoo and declared his intentions to go west with the Saints. He aspired to be leader of the Nauvoo Legion, but when Brigham Young turned him down, Bennet disassociated himself from the Saints and spent the rest of his life in the eastern United States."

Lyndon W. Cook writes, "An apparent unscrupulous opportunist, Bennet had fantasies which included fame as an author, governor of Illinois, general of the Nauvoo Legion, and successor to Joseph Smith."

Check out the letter by clicking on the following link:

http://www.pukrufus.com/downloads/JABennetLetter.pdf

ENJOY!

Gaining Entrance to the Pearly Gates

I have been communicating with a newly acquired friend online the past couple of weeks and we have been having a conversation, the contents of which I think worthy of the blog. It all began with my friend asking me “How do you get to heaven? What can you do to get to heaven?”

Knowing this to be a topic of heated debate throughout Christianity, especially between Protestants and Catholics I figured I had better first address the debate

The Great Dichotomy — Works vs. Grace

Like many teachings of the Bible where seemingly contrasting ideas are put forth, Christians can’t seem to agree as to whether works are necessary for admittance into heaven, or if only belief and trust in the grace of Christ is sufficient. Now obviously this wouldn’t be an issue of debate at all if there weren’t scriptures fully supporting both sides of the argument. Believers are therefore divided into three camps:

1. Those like my friend who believe “there is nothing that we can do to go to heaven. Our entrance to heaven has already been paved for us...Jesus Christ died on the cross for all of our sins. The only way our sins can be covered is if we believe and trust that Jesus died for our sins.”,

2. Then there are those who think the Atonement of Christ to be a very important thing but one that only applies to those who diligently perform acts of righteousness, (i.e. feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the widows and orphans, etc.) and receive the proper ordinances mandated by the Lord (i.e. baptism).

3. You may ask, “then who belongs to group three?” and here is where the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ are found. We really don’t lean to the left or the right on the issue but hold to a balanced view of the two. We believe at once that there is nothing we can really do to get ourselves into heaven (salvation) and rely wholly upon the merits of Jesus Christ, and then also believe that ordinances and acts of righteousness are necessary for our exaltation. See my analogy at the end of this article.

What does the Bible say:

According to the Bible acceptance into heaven is conditional upon two things: 1) The grace of God through Jesus Christ, and 2) our own righteousness. Both become necessary components. Let me share a couple of the scriptures to clarify. I will quote from the NIV though I prefer the KJV for its eloquence.

Ephesians 2:8 instructs, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that none can boast." I think this scripture makes it clear that the lion's share is due to grace, though we need to consider two things: 1) it is by grace according to our faith, and 2) the works Paul repeatedly speaks against are not works of righteousness, but rather unnecessary works of the Law of Moses.

Titus 2:11 instructs, "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope..." the rest of that chapter is excellent and makes clear that the grace of God allows us to then use our agency to act righteously and choose the path leading to heaven. The grace of God overcomes the effects of the fall of Adam which we teach are 1) bodily death and 2) separation from God (or spiritual death). These are overcome unconditionally for all men through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Then it is up to us through righteousness to choose God.

Now that I have shown the importance of Grace I want to highlight a few passages that show the equal necessity of righteousness.

In Matthew 7:19-21 Christ himself says, "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. Not everyone that says to me, "Lord, Lord," will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." I draw the same conclusions from the parable of the Sheep and the Goats found in Matthew 25:31-46. (Look this one up, it is important.)

In John 3:3-8 we learn of the necessity of baptism for gaining entrance into the kingdom of God. Baptism is a sign of both our faith in the Lord and willingness to obey him in all things. Christ says to Nicodemus, "no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." When Nicodemus asks him what he means he continues, "No one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit."

I am familiar with the fact that some Christian persuasions interpret this passage to mean only a spiritual rebirth, but we take seriously the water birth as well (water and spirit). The word baptism comes from Greek βάπτισμα, meaning "immersing" and we follow Christ's example of going down into the water as recorded in Matthew 3:13. Mark also records Christ's words in regards to baptism saying, "Whosoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned" (Mark 16:16). Baptism would therefore be an example of an act of righteousness necessary for us to enter heaven.

Another solid example would be that found in the book of Revelations 20:12 where John in vision says, "And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of Life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done."

One common expression we use in our faith comes from the book of 2 Nephi 25:23 in the book of Mormon where the prophet Nephi writes, "For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." That verse sums it up for me better than any other. It is by Christ's grace that we are saved, but we must not neglect our responsibility to act righteously and follow his teachings.

What the Divergence is Really About

Those in the various Christian persuasions that hold to camps 1 or 2 described above must wonder how Mormons can believe fully in both camps. We hold the same belief in the power of grace and the atonement of Jesus Christ. I believe the difference between Mormons and other persuasions actually lies in our differing understandings of "heaven". Here is where additional scriptures have shed light on the afterworld and the true grace of God. What they see as a contradiction we see simply as statements regarding two very different aspects of the afterlife, viz. Salvation and Exaltation.

According to additional scriptures accepted by members of the Church of Jesus Christ we learn that the afterlife is more complex than a simple dichotomous realm of good and another of seething fire and brimstone. We learn that the afterlife is divided into levels, many levels of glory, as numerous as there are people upon the earth. In a way supporting C.S. Lewis's writings on Heaven and Hell in his book Virtue and Vice. He says, "Your place in heaven will seem to be made for you and you alone, because you were made for it--made for it stitch by stitch as a glove is made for a hand."

According to the scriptures the levels are divided into three main kingdoms of glory... one represented by the stars and the glory thereof, another by the moon and the greater glory thereof, and another by the sun and the far greater glory thereof. According to our doctrines all mankind (except sons of perdition), because of the atonement of Christ will inherit a kingdom of glory, and will therefore enter "heaven" (Salvation). The amount of glory (Exaltation) we receive in the hereafter, however, is dependent upon our acts of righteousness and state of heart. So technically speaking we believe all mankind will be saved in a kingdom of glory (except sons of perdition, those who knowingly choose Satan over God)... not just Christians.

One Final Analogy:

We believe that Christ's suffering made it possible for all of us to enter heaven. Additional revelations on the issue teach us that how we act in this life then determines where we find ourselves in heaven. So that Mercy need not rob justice whereas both are eternal principles.

If I were to make an analogy it might go as follows: If heaven were a country, and each of us were given a mansion in heaven (thanks to the merits of Jesus Christ) then God would live in the Capital City, in the Governing Palace. We all make it into heaven (the country) but we don't all live on the same lot, or street, or city, or even state. Our acts of righteousness would determine the proximity of our mansion to God's... how close we live to him.

It actually is the complexity and depth of the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ that have made me unable to settle for anything less.

What do you mean by, “I know this church is true”?

I had a conversation this past week in the Caribbean with some new friends that inspired me to add this posting. Thank you Beu' lah Mary, Zar and Jonathan.

Inerrancy vs. trustworthiness - semantics

Certain Evangelical branches of Christianity claim something that is quite misunderstood by many inside and outside of their specific persuasion in regards to the Bible. It is derived from a statement frequently used which claims the Bible to be “the inerrant word of God”. To anyone who has read the bible in its entirety, this seems an absurd claim whereas there exists a googillian seeming contradictions and inconsistencies throughout the book. So what do they mean?

A careful examination of the claims of inerrancy show that those educated on the subject are not at all claiming the book, in its current state, to be perfect. (See encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties by Gleason L. Archer, 1982) They understand well that the text of the Bible has been transmitted by mortal men for thousands of years, using limited skills, imperfect language, and a host of other limitations to convey the word of God to successive generations. They simply mean that the Bible, as given in its original state, was correct, inerrant, and pure coming from God himself. The Bible is the word of God (as Mormons would say). The next argument is to try and prove why today’s versions are, or are not trustworthy. (Unfortunately we have no single surviving original manuscript)

Similar misunderstandings

My point in sharing this observation is to point out a similarly misunderstood term used commonly by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This phrase is “I know this church is true.” To outsiders this can be a shocking statement as they watch mortal men guide an organization comprised of completely normal people, acting in roles of leadership and trying their best to work out their own salvation and help others along the way. No one can help but notice the weaknesses of men, the inconsistencies in leaders, the completely human part of this organization… and then to hear someone say that it is true? What do they mean? I personally find the term insufficient in describing what we mean. I prefer to say, “I know that this is the true and living church of Jesus Christ.”

I have come to know this statement to be accurate and would like to explain what I mean.

Unity of the Faith

In Ephesians 4 we learn that “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all.” Here is where much disagreement exists, for anyone looking at Christianity today will notice that according to dogmas, creeds, and doctrines there are many variations of the Spirit, many disagreeing bodies of believers, many differing views of Christ, many forms of baptism, and many diverging teachings of who God is. This is a BIG problem!

We learn just a few verses later that to this end Christ gave gifts unto men… gifts to help us achieve oneness. What are these gifts? They comprise an organization of imperfect men authorized and commissioned to be stewards of truth. He gave to us a church organization comprised of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. Then he explains specifically why such an organization is given: For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

It seems clear that we are all to hold the same faith, the same knowledge of the Son of God and that the role of Christ’s Church is to maintain the integrity of that church. I have been to LDS worship services all over the world now and am pleased to note that wherever I have attended a service by the Church of Jesus Christ, the doctrines are consistent. There is only one teaching about the Spirit, the Lord, God the Father, baptism, etc. I believe the doctrines of this Church to be consistent with things as they really are, were and will be (i.e. TRUTH).

What it means to be Living

Yes, mere men are in the leading roles of this Church, but Christ is at the Head. Revelation is a correct principle of truth and it is by revelation that our leaders are led, and then by that same revelation that we can receive confirmation that their decisions and teachings are consistent with God’s will. It is modern, current revelation that makes this church LIVING. And it is the fact that it is a living church that makes it “true” for Christ is at its head. Without such a profoundly central detail the Church of Jesus Christ is no different than any other Christian persuasion. Without the direct guidance of the Savior, the church would be dead… and therefore untrue.

The Lord says in section 1 of the Doctrine and Covenants that the Church of Jesus Christ is “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually”

True… living… as a collective body. All three of these details are imperative. Individually we are all prone to gross error, but collectively we stand a far greater chance of adhering to God’s will. We must be united, something I see within my own faith.

An Authoritative Gift from God

To all who feel threatened by what must appear as an “authoritarian church” I would suggest you reconsider, for none who belong to this church feel threatened by such a prospect, and we prefer the term "authoritative (Thanks Rockwood). Christ is our King, and God is our God and they lead their work as sovereigns. Their Church therefore is truly authoritative, but is governed by their great love, and eternal principles of truth and agency. Such authoritativeness is not to be feared. We see the centralized organization of the Church as a gift to help us on our journey back to God, and not as the only vehicle with heavenly access. The Church is not saved… individuals are, but the Church has been provided as a gift from God to be the custodian of truth, to maintain the integrity of Christ’s teachings and to break the grip of false teachings, so that we don’t have to be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine. As the Church of Jesus Christ rolls forth to fill the earth all who join will experience the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God,” spoken of by Paul, yet unavailable in the largely divisive persuasions of traditional Christianity.

Religious Buffet 2 - a Response

A trusted friend of mine of the Evangelical persuasion, whom I use as a sounding board, posted a response on his blog  http://aletheiaquest.blogspot.com/ "Religious Buffet"

His response was to a question I posed about concerns for a lack of unity in the Christian world. How doctrines become watered down.

In his response he pointed out the weakness of individuals without really  addressing the organizational dilemma. He made a few statements about the ways of the Church of Jesus Christ that I would like to address.

Below is an edited quote of his:

"This problem is an inherent weakness in Protestantism in general because it is not, like Mormonism and Roman Catholicism an authoritarian structure. The problems of the very apparent shallow and uncommitted Christianity referenced in the quote (see his blog) are only possible when people have the freedom to choose how and where they worship. Obviously, if one accepts that the LDS prophet and the priesthood are the authority of God on earth, then one has no choice when that authority says he must go to a certain ward at a certain time, give a certain percentage of his money, etc."

My response:

One point seems left undone. How would you suggest this problem relates to the Ephesians 4? One of the advantages I find in the "authoritarian structure" mentioned above is that it satisfies the chaotic dilemma found throughout traditional Christianity while still allowing a person to believe as they wish. 

In the Church of Jesus Christ, while accounting for the entire spectrum of faithfulness, or lack thereof, I find there is "one body, and one Spirit,... one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, (v.4-6). Wherever I have attended a ward other than my own (anywhere in the world) I find a consistency in our faith and understanding of principles of truth. But as you have illustrated inconsistency in the genuineness of the members' intentions. This brings me to the actual point of the quote that I sent. Further down in chapter 4 we read that Christ, when he ascended up on high, gave gifts unto men... and gave them apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers (in our interpretation this would suggest a church organization) for the express purpose of helping with the lack of faithfulness... in v.12 we read that he gave them "for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. Perfect unity.

The dilemma I see with the "religious buffet" is how it measures up to these scriptures in Ephesians. I understand the protestant perspective on authority, organization, the purpose of a church, etc. But I find that wanting compared to the "authoritarian structure" of Mormonism mentioned above.

One quick comment on your remark that such a structure limits "the freedom to choose how and where they worship". As an outsider I can see how it would appear that way. I would suggest that there is more freedom to be found where laws of truth exist, than in a system where anything goes. It is the truth that sets us free, and living according to principles of truth that allows us the freedom to live a life full of joy and contribution. There is a lot more freedom in our system than would appear to an outsider. The policies you speak of are purely for the sake of organization. I would compare them to a trip to McDonalds. We stand in line to order food because we have learned that it will be easier and faster for everyone if we do so... We are free to leave the line at any time but we may never be served. We can't say that McDonalds is inhibiting our freedom to act because they ask us to stay in line. The same goes with policies of the Church. They facilitate a better structure... and when it comes to beliefs and doctrines, I truly am surprised that there is as much consistency as there is. There is NO official commentary on any of our scriptures. We are taught to individually read and understand them and use them as the measuring stick of our belief. You will never find our leaders forcing a belief, but rather persuading, by use of the scriptures, to see a principle in the light of truth.

The Celestial Law of Marriage

I promised a friend of mine that I would include an entry on my blog regarding why members of the Church of Jesus Christ accept the doctrine of celestial marriage as requisite to gaining exaltation when he suggests there is no Bible support. The following summarizes my feelings on the issue.

Marriage is Honourable... Adultery is Not.

Critics of the doctrine of celestial marriage frequently and, in my judgment, erroneously site Paul's letters in 1 Cor. 7 as a rejection of the doctrine. Though married themselves many of them ignorantly champion the doctrine of celibacy which I whole-heartedly refute. As a father of 5 who has served full-time for 2 years seeking to convert the godless to the God of Abraham, I have learned first-hand that the most important and effective missionary work happens within the walls of a righteous home where both parents fear God and seek to live in accordance with His will. Furthermore, while Paul has obviously said things that could undermine the institution of marriage, he is also the most quoted champion of it. His words must therefore be read within their specific contexts rather than being taken as statements of general truth. A comprehensive examination of his teachings to the Corinthians illustrate his contempt for fornication and adultery. Contrarily he champions chastity before marriage and complete fidelity within the bonds of marriage. Applying this lens to his lectures to the Corinthians makes the issue plain. He was definitely speaking on behalf of marriage. To review a series of scriptures that show the obvious position of the Lord and the early Apostles in regards to marriage I would first like to cite Gen.1:28 where God gave a commandment to the family of men saying, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth”. The seventh commandment says, “Thou shalt not commit adultery” (Ex 20:14). So we are all commanded to multiply and replenish the earth yet not commit fornication and adultery.  This excludes all options save marriage. (Heb. 13:4 - Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.) The second chapter of Genesis backs up to the creation of Eve saying, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (v.24). We were created to marry and multiply. Now obviously modern marriage arrangements are a social construct, but since the beginning of mankind there has been an arrangement that would set a man and woman apart from others to cleave (be united) unto one another. All throughout the Old and New Testaments we learn of God's contempt for the sins of adultery and fornication which become obsolete within a righteous marriage relationship.  

Paul was a Proponent of Marriage

A quick run through of the Pauline scriptures that support the institution of marriage include 1 Tim 4:1-3 where Paul gives examples of those who give “heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of the devil” among which are those who forbid to marry (v.3). Self-prescribed celibacy, as he discusses it here, would be considered a doctrine of the devil. In 1 Cor. 7 we find Paul speaking expressly against the sins of adultery and fornication and then saying, “ let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband”. Pay attention in this chapter to what he says is a commandment from the Lord and what he expressly says is NOT a commandment but his own thoughts on the issue. (Read D&C 74, it's short). In vs.8 when he says, “ I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.” I am convinced that Paul is talking about remaining chaste... not unmarried. 1 Cor. 11:11 is probably the most significant of his teachings that relate to an eternal principle of marriage. The KJV says, “neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” Can we get any clearer than that?

Introduction of Ordinances

While I believe that many members of the First Century Church of Jesus Christ accepted and practiced the doctrine of celestial marriage, I understand that there is no solid New Testament proof of this. So I will not seek to prove such through the New Testament. Nevertheless, even if the Lord waited until this the last dispensation to introduce such a critical doctrine I would not be surprised. A parallel ordinance might help to clarify my convictions. In the Old Testament we find no solid proof that baptism was required for salvation, yet Christ is clear that “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark 16:16), and “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5). While Members of the Church of Jesus Christ have their explanations for this, how does a mainstream protestant explain the perfect Mercy of God in relation to these scriptures and earlier peoples who were more worthy than they for the kingdom of God. Jesus made it clear that there is a covenantal ordinance that must take place. Similarly it is not inconsistent for Christ to reveal another saving ordinance after much of the earth has already come and gone as long as he provides means for past peoples to meet the same requirements. This is the purpose of the Spirit World (see next section), to provide this chance.

Salvation vs. Exaltation

There is a fundamental difference in the way Mainstream Protestants and members of the Church of Jesus Christ envision the afterlife as indicative of written teachings. Mormons do not believe in a simple dichotomous afterlife where everyone is divided into two camps: Heaven or Hell (Actually we do, but we call it the Spirit World and see it not as our final resting place but a transitional place where spirits have one final chance to accept or reject the doctrines and ordinances of salvation. (1 Pet. 3:18-20). Following the Spirit World is the Final Judgment as spoken of by John the Revelator (Rev. 20:12). It is after this judgment that all souls who are deserving of salvation shall receive a kingdom of glory perfectly complimentary to the life we lived, the nature of our hearts, and our acceptance of Christ's Atonement. The scriptures speak of three kingdoms of glory that vary in the amount of glory depending on their proximity to God. (D&C 74, 2 Cor. 12:2, 1 Cor. 15:40-42). Each kingdom is divided into a multitude of levels each varying in glory so that each soul receives their perfect due. To make a long explanation short. We believe that salvation will come to all who attain a kingdom of glory, which comes through a combination of the perfect grace of God and our own works of goodness. Exaltation, on the other hand, comes to a select group who inherit the highest level of the highest kingdom. (see D&C 131, 132). Therefore we often agree with other Christians when speaking of salvation, but do not see eye to eye when speaking of exaltation. Celestial marriage relates to exaltation.

Christ Rejects Divorce and Sustains Marriage

Jesus Christ, when confronted by the Pharisees about divorce in Matthew 19:3-9 (and Mark 10:2-12) Jesus responded by explaining that God “made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh'. Here Jesus confirms that Old Testament account. He continues warning, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder (separate).” My favorite part of the story actually comes next when the Pharisees defend divorce by saying that Moses commanded it as a prophet. Jesus soundly rebukes them explaining that Moses gave the commandment because of the hardness of the people's hearts. He said, “but from the  beginning it was not so.” There we have it. From the beginning we were meant to be together... not separate. 

Culture vs. Truth

In response to an entry on http://aletheiaquest.blogspot.com/ titled "On Priesthood Authority in Mormonism" I have posted the following entry

A Long Overdue Shift in Blame 

When Jesus was confronted by Pharisees on the issue of divorce as recorded in Matthew 19:3-11. He explained that from the beginning men and women were meant to be united not divided (which we currently use to support the ideals of marriage) , "Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." (v.6). So the pharisees then began to ask Jesus why Moses commanded divorce in certain situations. (there is a parallel here to that of the priesthood issue). Christ's response is very telling, and he did not hold the prophet responsible as our critics do. I quote, "Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning." (v.8 NIV) He then strongly denounced divorce.

Here Jesus explained how a true prophet of God (Moses) commanded something against God's will... not because of his own biases or misconceptions, but rather because of the hardness of the people's hearts.

I know from their teachings and examples that the leaders of the LDS Church from the early years to the present have always been prayerful followers of the same God worshipped by all of Christianity, espousing the same teachings from the Bible and more. Prayerful, but not infallible. Leader after leader was confronted with the issue of blacks and the priesthood and I am confident they each took the issue to the Lord, just as one would expect any righteous leader to do. I am sure they did. Each received their answer and each were required to wait. The time was not yet. I submit that the blame for the blacks being kept from the priesthood is wrongly placed on the shoulders of the leaders of this church (just as divorce may be wrongly placed on Moses' shoulders). The Lord knows the hearts of all men, and I am confident that because of the hardness of the hearts of the membership of the LDS Church of that time that Lord knew the time was not yet. Our world was still embroiled in racist division and the time was just not yet, and so the Leaders were left to use scripture and logic to support the Lord's decision. Brigham Young and his predecessors confined the priesthood to a small homogenous group because of the hardness of the hearts of the early membership... unfortunately the hatred and division were two-sided and in many places still are. I imagine many of our black brothers and sisters were not yet ready either.

In short, the membership of the LDS Church and all who accepted the prevailing culture were primarily at fault, though the blame is only placed on the Leaders by critics of our faith.

Rising Above Cultural Norms... Since When?

In response to your statement "those outside the Church would naturally expect LDS general authorities to always have the discernment and moral fortitude to rise above the cultural norms (like racism) that are so inconsistent with Christian teaching." I must simply ask why Christ, Paul, and Peter, nor any of the other leaders of the early church (since Adam :)) denounced slavery, nor called an end to it, but rather told slaves to serve their masters well. How does this relate to such an unfair standard of requiring normal men to rise above cultural norms? Was Christ himself subject to a cultural norm (according to the precedence set forth), or were other issues at play? I would suggest the latter. (For the sake of reference: Eph. 6:5, Col 3:22, 1 Pet 2:18, 1 Tim 6:1, Titus 2:9, Matthew 10:24)

I would beware of confusing political correctness with God's standards of righteousness (lest we be caught promoting cultural ideals that are clearly inconsistent with God's such as homosexuality as of late). While in places they cross one another the ways of men are not one and the same with the ideals of God... and maybe in the eternal scheme of things we are really comparing apples with oranges. Most likely God dislikes slavery, but understands that in this world we are all slaves to something, so he teaches how to gain freedom by transcending the cultures of this world. In this way while chained in physical or temporal bondage we can at the same time be spiritually free. 

The Priesthood Question

As is always the case my comments are my own, my personal reflections on topics of importance to me. I welcome your thoughts and challenges to my way of thinking.

God has given the priesthood to man so that His power can be manifested among the children of men in an orderly way—so that His purposes may be fulfilled. God never intended to give the authority to act and administer in his name to all people, but rather a reserved portion that made valiant decisions in this life and perhaps in their previous experience. Evidence for this can easily be found in every book of scripture in every age where the priesthood has been given by God to man. Even still, the priesthood is not solely a mark of personal valiance or honor. It is given to man for God’s purposes to be fulfilled, not man’s. Otherwise we speak of priestcraft, not priesthood. I have come to see great wisdom in God’s giving this priesthood to some and not all, for example His giving it to men and not women. By doing so we must rely upon one another to make it active in family units—the basic unit of the gospel. When the intact family unit is discarded by society the blessings of the priesthood go with it, as it is no longer readily accessible in the home. When families remain worthy and intact, however, the authority to preside and bless are efficacious and contribute to the strength and vitality of that family.

The gift of Christ’s gospel is not the priesthood, which some may have mistaken it to be. The gifts of His gospel include all of the gifts of the Spirit, which are made available to all of His children but are reserved for His faithful, seeking ones.

Unlike the priesthood, which has been reserved for a few, to suit God’s needs, the blessings of the gospel and the gift of the Holy Ghost are made available to all of God’s children, EVERY LAST ONE. We are only made partakers of these great gifts, however, as we humble ourselves before God and are baptized into His church and kingdom. All of those who humble themselves before God and are baptized and receive His word will be blessed by having continual access to the Holy Spirit of Truth. This is the greatest blessing that can come to mankind while in this earthly probation. Far greater blessings lay in the next estate, of course.

Giving the priesthood unto the children of men is God’s way of keeping order and bringing to pass His work in His vast kingdom and is an oath and covenant made to and with the human race. It is not expedient that every person hold the priesthood for it is not the holding of the priesthood that causes conversion in one’s breast. Rather it is an order of service through which God can bless His children, while maximizing the utility of the agency that has been given to mankind. Some must choose to serve, while others must choose to be served, regardless of who holds the priesthood.

Thoughts came to mind of certain metaphors such as the body of Christ where all members are needed, but do not perform the same function or have the same level of utility. I also have considered that while many hold the priesthood some hold the greater (Melchizedek) and some hold the lesser (Aaronic). Furthermore, there are many levels of duty and responsibility within the priesthood organization. There is obviously a need for great variety in this regard. The authority to act in God’s name never has been distributed evenly. It is given according to His wisdom, and His timing.

Any thoughts?

Samson, a story for our day?

I would like to say something about the story of Samson from the book of Judges. I have had great difficulties with this story for more than a decade until I finally took it to Heavenly Father in prayer. I could not see its relevance as scripture. I was reminded more of the Illiad and the Odyssey and such tales of godless honor and warring.

I tried and tried to resolve the dissonance caused by this story through reason and logic, through study and discussion, but not prayer.

I came to hate the story of Samson and treat it with disgust; using it as an example that the Old Testament has been corrupted by the enemies of righteousness. Why else would such a story exist that seems to champion his wickedness? The way Samson is portrayed in the Old Testament is not unlike the portrayal of modern-day movie stars. Their heroism stems from their large statures, their nice figures, and their ability to fight and get what they want. This is how Samson is treated. But what of the integrity of the heart? What of the desire to act in righteousness before God? This is not a part of the story of Samson as we know it.

Against his parents’ wishes and the Jewish tradition Samson asks for the hand of a woman of Timnath. His pleas are not unlike that of a spoiled child, “Get her for me, daddy! I like her daddy.” (Jud14:3). He fed his parent honey made in the carcass of a lion, surely against the Law of Moses. He rose up and killed 30 men because they discovered the answer to his riddle. (Red Flags going up everywhere). When he was dishonored by losing the hand of the woman from Timnath he turned upon the inhabitants of that land and burned up their fields of corn and vineyards of olives. But that was only the beginning. He then slew them with a great slaughter. Then when the Philistines came with their armies to take him he slew a thousand more men. He later went unto the harlot Delilah who was not only a harlot, but of the Philistines as well. He not only broke principles of the Law of Moses, he consistently broke the BIG commandments. Amidst this sinful saga we get one little glimpse of seeming goodness in Samson. We learn that he judged Israel for 20 years. Now this detail is not a light thing. The Judges of Israel were chosen from the righteous of Israel, at least in theory. What from Samson’s story besides his strength gave him the right to be a judge in Israel?

I argued for some time that such a story could only mean that the bible had been changed from its original state or such wickedness would never have been celebrated. Then I had a shocking and most pleasant revelation that has helped me to see the value of this story more clearly.

As I pondered and prayed about this particular story, my understanding seemed suddenly clearer and I felt impressed that Samson had served the Lord faithfully for many years and was justified in his ways…

but then he fell.

His story is one full of tragedy, for after living a life of faithfulness (20 years as a judge of Israel), and knowing the Lord well and the Lord’s will regarding him, he forsook the covenants he had made and faltered, giving way to his sensual desires. His fall began gradually and because he was a judge of Israel he was not checked for his behavior, but rather he likely used his position of power to satisfy his carnal desires. At such a point the Spirit could no longer be with him.

The idea that has made this story so clearly relevant came next. This was the idea that to the extent that Samson kept his covenants he was protected. He was a Nazarite, so as he forsook strong drink and stayed the razor from his head, for example, he was protected from the cunning designs of men, but as his heart had failed him and was set henceforth on things of the world and no longer on things of heaven, he soon forsook even those covenants. He was blinded by his appetite for power and sensuality and quickly fell from his place. While the Bible only gives account of his head being shaved by Delilah, the Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus discusses how all of the conversations with Delilah, when she convinced him to do so many things, happened while he was drunk! A Nazarite is not supposed to be drunk…which means he forsook even the most basic of the covenants he made with the Lord.

His life is one to be remembered, but not revered or followed. He wasn’t forsaken by the Lord until he had completely forsaken even the outward covenants he had made with the Lord. The thought occurred to me that there are many Christians today who outwardly keep commandments and covenants they have made with the Lord by following codes of health (i.e. Word of Wisdom), for example, and wearing their garments, BUT THEIR HEARTS HAVE ALSO FAILED THEM or have gradually begun to do so as they seek to satisfy their own carnal desires rather than seek the things of heaven. In a very real way Samson is a tale of our day…and a warning.

The story of Samson now has value to me and has become one of my favorites.

My Reading of the Qur'an

I have been reading the Qur'an lately because I have several close friends that are or were Muslim. I have found the book to be of the highest quality, and have decided that I believe Muhammad was a prophet...in the sense that I believe he really was visited by an angel and really did a great work for God in converting a godless people back to God. I do not believe however that his prophetic calling was complete because he could not accept the divinity of Jesus Christ. This I attribute to the culture of the day and human weakness.

Muhammad had access to the writings of the New Testament, he was familiar with the state of Christianity in 600 AD, he was protected at times by the Byzantine Christians and saw them as allies (particularly the Christian Ethiopian King). He knew well what had taken place in the debates of the 4th and 5th centuries that led to the many Christian Creeds and he soundly rejected some of their conclusions...particularly the trinity doctrine and the deification of Christ. The Quran states very clearly how the Jews received revelation at one time...but had forsaken them, and then the Christians, they received the revelations of God at one time...but also had forsaken them...something that I believe happened following the death of Christ. The great falling away that Paul speaks of.

This is all very interesting to me because I believe that Christianity and the world at large fell into a period of darkness for many many centuries after the death of Christ. In fact history shows us that it went through several periods of religious decline and then restoration before Christ. Muhammad saw his mission as that of a restorer.

Muhammad taught that Jesus was a great prophet, a perfect man, an apostle of the one true God, but still his servant. He believed in all his signs and miracles and openly taught of his great coming in the end of times, but denied any teaching that made Christ equal to Allah. This flies in the face of the Trinity doctrine as embraced by much of the Christian world which either makes Jesus also the Father, or his equal (depending on which Christian you talk to). I believe they are both wrong.

I believe that Jesus Christ, after accomplishing his mission, received of the Father's fullness and therefore has become a God himself, but in the heavenly hierarchy God the Father is the Greatest of all and all will be less than him in Glory forever since any glory we, His spirit children, attain adds to his. This includes Christ, our brother, as I believe Him to be.

All in all, I am enjoying the Qur'an and trying to understand from their source material the similarities and differences between our faiths. I find no excuse in their teachings for terrorist activities. Not in the Qur'an. Self defense yes, but nothing to justify murderous terrorism.

Some may wonder how I can believe that Muhammad could be a prophet when he rejected Christianity. Firstly I do not believe Christianity then, was what Christianity is now. But how could Muhammad be a prophet and still reject the divinity of Christ? I contribute such a failure to the weakness of men and compare this instance to that of other Bible Prophets. Jonah tried to run away from his calling, but went and preached to the Ninevites and was hailed as a prophet even though he wanted no mercy for them and was rebuked by the Lord. King David is still hailed a prophet king even after he caused the death of Uriah after committing adultery with his wife Bathsheba. Many of the psalms that prophesy of Christ's coming and mission were written in David's old age, after this moral fall. How could he have received such profound revelations quoted to this day by Christians throughout the world, prophesying of the birth, life and death of Jesus Christ in greater plainness than most other Old Testament prophets, after he had committed such wickedness and betrayed the Lord in such a manner. There are many examples of those who were chosen by God to do a work, despite their rejection of critical principles related to God's will.

It is in this light that I see Muhammad as one who was chosen to do a work, however partial it was. After all, he was the instrument through which an entire pagan nation was converted back to the God of Abraham when neither the Jews nor the Christians of the time could do so. Go Muhammad! I bet our Father is proud of what he accomplished and I am sure Muhammad accepts the divinity of Christ now. :)

Introduction to the Urim and Thummim blog

White seemed to be the appropriate color for this Blog.

My intention here is to have a place to post thoughts of religious nature that are important enough to share with others, yet not so private and personal that I feel anxiety over such postings. I have had experiences in my life that are much too special and much too sacred to share in such a venue as this, and I am grateful to know that the heavens are open. Our Father in Heaven is very much aware of us, and is pouring out light and truth in this great latter day in preparation for the grand return of His Son, Jesus Christ. It is they whom I worship, and to them that I devote this blog.

This blog, however, is not for them . My intentions are to have a place where family and friends may come to know my testimony of the true and living God of this world, a way of seeing what goes through my mind as I study the books of scripture and the books of men, when I compare the ways of the world and the ways of the Lord.