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?