As a missionary in Guatemala, every day I woke up with the goal of "bringing souls unto Christ." That was the big goal. From there, as an LDS missionary, I further believed that really the only way a soul could "come unto Christ" was through repentance, baptism by immersion at the hand of someone with authorized priesthood authority, confirmation by the same priesthood and then ultimately making covenants in a Mormon temple. Sometimes we were able to bring people to the waters of baptism, sometimes all we could do was bear testimony. And in rare cases, we saw some who would enter the temple.
But none of that can happen unless we, and the people who agreed with us, accept one crucial premise: that there is only one true, authorized-and-endorsed-by-God religion on the earth. And by virtue of that premise, all other religions and philosophies are false.
From a religious and philosophical belief, everything hinges on that premise for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Time and time again, leaders of the church, from the beginning, to today, have maintained that there is no middle ground. Either it's Christ's restored church and kingdom on the earth today, or it is a fraud. I will never forget the words of the Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley when he said in 2003, "Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing."
As a missionary, I asked people to always re-evaluate their beliefs and in that process, they should consider reading the Book of Mormon and ask God if it was true or not. At that time I sincerely believed in truth and that we are all on a life-long journey to find un-alterable and un-changing truths. Today, I still believe this. I think we all ought to be open to feedback and checking our compasses to see if we are still heading in the direction of truth. We all ought to be on the lookout for lies and half-truths in our quest. We all ought to be mindful of where we build our homes. We may think we have built on rock, but when torments and rains and winds come and our house sways, cracks and tumbles, we may need to re-consider where we rebuild our home. And when we play a sport, such as football or soccer, we ought to expect that the posts or goal won't move for the duration of the game, otherwise the game may be pointless.
And as I asked others to re-evaluate their life decisions, religious beliefs and philosophy, I too should be willing to do the same. After all, when the stakes are this high (a religion is either endorsed by God or not), I ought to take this seriously!
My "testimony" for the first 30 or so years of my life was roughly built on this framework:
The Book of Mormon is true (historically and philosophically), because I read it, agreed with most of its teachings and when I prayed about it, God caused me to feel good, peaceful and reassured.
Since the Book of Mormon is true, I now know Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, since he was called of God to translate the golden plates using the Urim and Thummim and breastplate into English.
And everything else that stems from Joseph Smith (teachings, actions, doctrine) is from God since he was called by God.
Anything else that didn't "feel right" or caused a "stupor of thought" was of Satan. A lot of "anti-Mormon" rumors were spread by Satan, including Joseph using a peep-stone in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon or marrying other mens' wives. Anything Gerald or Sandra Tanner said, was also false and "anti-Mormon."
So, you might be able to imagine my predicament when I began to read Rough Stone Rolling in 2008 and 2009 and learned that "anti-Mormon" rumors and lies were indeed accurate! And not only did Rough Stone Rolling confirm these things as fact, but the Church also produced essays admitting that many doctrines were now "theories advanced by men." What would you do the moment you suspect the compass you have been using is inaccurate? How would you feel when the news is delivered to you that your home, which you thought was built on rock, is actually not? That is how I began to feel. I was at a cross-road and had a couple of choices: 1) ignore it all or 2) confront it and find the truth. I chose to confront it.
I finished reading Rough Stone Rolling and proceeded to investigate more. I entered the world of accusations and apologetics. Gone were the days of trusting my feelings. Now I was trying to de-tangle fact from fiction; truth from half-truth, both from leaders and apologists of the church and from its critics.
I won't review all the aspects of the Church doctrine I disagree with now, in this blog post - there are plenty of resources on-line that get into all that. However, I will say that if there were just one or two issues, and that were all, then maybe I could keep them on a "mental shelf" and still maintain a strong belief in the dogma of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But that is simply not the case. Time and time again, I've concluded that what is unique about the Church is not good, and what is good about the Church is not unique.
As I begin to wrap up this blog post, I'll note some of the unique things about the Church, which I think are not good. I'll phrase them in such a way using Christ as a spiritual north on a spiritual compass.
Would Christ use a scrying or peep stone (different from the Urim and Thummim) to translate ancient Egyptian scripture?
Would he be less than truthful about his abilities to translate ancient Egyptian text?
Would he call one of his apostles to use a scrying stone and be less than truthful about his abilities to translate ancient Egyptian text?
Would Christ marry another man's wife, especially after establishing commandments to not commit adultery and coveting?
Would He command his followers to do the same?
Would He deny eternal blessings to some children of God based on the color of their skin or some other God-given genetic factor?
Would He command or encourage his apostles to lie or deceive others or use carefully worded denials?
Would He prioritize building worldly assets over feeding the hungry?
Would He change his doctrine based on political or social pressure?
Would He excommunicate His followers for trying to make His religion a better and more safe place for its members and children while ignoring and not excommunicating physical and sexual abusers?
And would He accuse you or anyone of being ignorant, wanting to sin or being offended if you did discover any of the above?
Obviously, that is a lot to unpack. If any of that causes you to scratch your head or cause you concern, I know exactly how you feel. It is not a good feeling. But you have to ask yourself, if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were not true, would you want to know? We asked this question, in the positive format, all the time during our missionary service. I think the negative version of the question is just as valid and important.
Also, time and time again, in Sunday School, seminary and priesthood classes and in private conversations, we would often point to other religions who would do some or all of the above and consider this as evidence that that religion is not of God ("by their fruits ye shall know them"). Why would we not apply this same standard to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
I want to conclude with one more thought for you to consider. I have not lost my faith. In all this journey of re-evaluating my religion and philosophy for the past ten years, I learned what it means to "walk through the valley of the shadow of death" (Psalms 23:4). The torch of certainty was taken from me and I was no longer spoon-fed what I must believe. Now, I have to truly trust in God that things will work out fine; that He is still leading my life and that He has a purpose for me. I often wonder if this is what Adam and Eve felt like after leaving the Garden of Eden. I have concluded, this ten year re-evaluation has greatly increased my faith and trust in God.
Showing posts with label Polygamy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Polygamy. Show all posts
Monday, December 31, 2018
Saturday, July 07, 2018
July Week 2: Covenants
Review: Ordinances
Last week, we talked about why we need priesthood ordinances. Ordinances are to helps us translate commandments into actions, so that we can be worthy to live and persist in God's presence.
Ordinances are symbolic - which remind us of certain things - which in turn help us to remember to do our duty to God and our neighbors. Again, everything ties back to the two great commandments of loving God and loving others.
Now that we understand the why of ordinances, we shift to how do we commit to these commandments, and how do we help others commit to these commandments.
We call these commitments covenants.
Covenants are simply commitments to keep the commandments.
Why Do Covenants "Work"?
Before we get into examples of covenants, let's think about the process of making covenants for a minute. We have these two great commandments and in a lot of ways, commandments are sacrifices of the ego. There are a lot of things that we don't want to do. We may want to party and have a good time and we want everything to go our way. So how do we get people to commit to love God and others?
This is were persuasion and compliance come into play.
There are roughly six persuasion techniques that work on a lot of people. In brief they are:
1. Reciprocity
2. Scarcity
3. Authority
4. Consistency
5. Liking
6. Consensus
All of these techniques factor into religion and marketing and politics. For today's lesson about covenants, we are going to focus on the fourth in the list above: consistency.
Below is a video that briefly explains all of them, but now, we are only going to focus on consistency.
A lot of times in my life as a member of the church, teachers have often used the phrase "milk before meat." This alludes to the fact that you cannot give a baby meat, because they don't have teeth and they could choke on the food and die. Instead, you give the baby milk, then solid food and then eventually the child or young person can eat meat.
Covenants are very similar in the church. Leaders don't ask, nor will they allow, new members to go to the temple right away after joining the church. If they did, they would be weirded out or think it very strange. Other religions are similar, such as Scientology, where they don't let members 'advance quickly' or do things right away. Rather, they get members to commit to smaller things before committing to bigger things.
In the example from the video, the researchers wanted commitment from the neighborhood to post a large sign on the street. By asking them "cold-turkey" most refused and would not commit. But if the researchers were able to get them to commit to a smaller promise and then follow up with the bigger commitment, more people were willing to comply and commit.
This is why we make multiple covenants through our life; such as baptism, priesthood ordination, and temple ordinances. This is also why, in primary, young women's and young men's programs, we ask people to commit to smaller things - such as offering a prayer, giving a talk, going to a service project, helping clean the church and other things. In hundreds of little ways, we are always asking each other to commit to keeping the commandments. Then when it is time to make a bigger commitment (covenant), people are more willing.
The other part of the video describes how people commit to do something. When someone seemingly makes a voluntary and public commitment, they are much more likely to keep that commitment. In the video, he talked about patients committing to an appointment at the doctor. From a doctor's perspective, patients missing their appointments is not a good thing. He wants them to keep their appointments. So, in order to increase the level of commitment among patients, the doctor will have the patient write down the date and time of the appointments rather than the secretary. When they publicly committed to writing the date and time, they were much more likely to keep the appointments.
Similarly in the church, all covenants are done publicly. This is why we invite friends and family to baptisms, ordinations, missionary farewells, temple ordinances and weddings. Even though the temple is not open for the entire public, many families will attend when someone goes to the temple for the first time.
What Covenants Do We Make?
Let's spend some time talking about the covenants we make. What are they?
Baptismal Covenant
- read Mosiah 18:8-10, D&C 20:37
The Sacrament
- read Moroni 4 and Moroni 5, D&C 20:77, 79
Priesthood Covenant
- read D&C 84:33-44
Temple Covenants
- read Endowed From On High Lesson 4
Marriage Covenant
- the church calls this "the new and everlasting covenant"
- sometimes called (and is related to) the Abrahamic covenant
- when it was first revealed, it really meant members we asked to enter into a polygamous and/or polyandrous marriage
- see D&C 132, particularly verse 32 "do the works of Abraham" and then later vs. 58-66
- the church no longer practices "live" polygamous marriages, but does approve "serial" polygamous marriages
- note: President Nelson and President Oaks are sealed (married for eternity) to two wives, even though they had the option to marry their 2nd wife for "time only"
- see "Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo"
- see "Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah"
- see "The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage"
Last week, we talked about why we need priesthood ordinances. Ordinances are to helps us translate commandments into actions, so that we can be worthy to live and persist in God's presence.
Ordinances are symbolic - which remind us of certain things - which in turn help us to remember to do our duty to God and our neighbors. Again, everything ties back to the two great commandments of loving God and loving others.
Now that we understand the why of ordinances, we shift to how do we commit to these commandments, and how do we help others commit to these commandments.
We call these commitments covenants.
Covenants are simply commitments to keep the commandments.
Why Do Covenants "Work"?
Before we get into examples of covenants, let's think about the process of making covenants for a minute. We have these two great commandments and in a lot of ways, commandments are sacrifices of the ego. There are a lot of things that we don't want to do. We may want to party and have a good time and we want everything to go our way. So how do we get people to commit to love God and others?
This is were persuasion and compliance come into play.
There are roughly six persuasion techniques that work on a lot of people. In brief they are:
1. Reciprocity
2. Scarcity
3. Authority
4. Consistency
5. Liking
6. Consensus
All of these techniques factor into religion and marketing and politics. For today's lesson about covenants, we are going to focus on the fourth in the list above: consistency.
Below is a video that briefly explains all of them, but now, we are only going to focus on consistency.
A lot of times in my life as a member of the church, teachers have often used the phrase "milk before meat." This alludes to the fact that you cannot give a baby meat, because they don't have teeth and they could choke on the food and die. Instead, you give the baby milk, then solid food and then eventually the child or young person can eat meat.
Covenants are very similar in the church. Leaders don't ask, nor will they allow, new members to go to the temple right away after joining the church. If they did, they would be weirded out or think it very strange. Other religions are similar, such as Scientology, where they don't let members 'advance quickly' or do things right away. Rather, they get members to commit to smaller things before committing to bigger things.
In the example from the video, the researchers wanted commitment from the neighborhood to post a large sign on the street. By asking them "cold-turkey" most refused and would not commit. But if the researchers were able to get them to commit to a smaller promise and then follow up with the bigger commitment, more people were willing to comply and commit.
This is why we make multiple covenants through our life; such as baptism, priesthood ordination, and temple ordinances. This is also why, in primary, young women's and young men's programs, we ask people to commit to smaller things - such as offering a prayer, giving a talk, going to a service project, helping clean the church and other things. In hundreds of little ways, we are always asking each other to commit to keeping the commandments. Then when it is time to make a bigger commitment (covenant), people are more willing.
The other part of the video describes how people commit to do something. When someone seemingly makes a voluntary and public commitment, they are much more likely to keep that commitment. In the video, he talked about patients committing to an appointment at the doctor. From a doctor's perspective, patients missing their appointments is not a good thing. He wants them to keep their appointments. So, in order to increase the level of commitment among patients, the doctor will have the patient write down the date and time of the appointments rather than the secretary. When they publicly committed to writing the date and time, they were much more likely to keep the appointments.
Similarly in the church, all covenants are done publicly. This is why we invite friends and family to baptisms, ordinations, missionary farewells, temple ordinances and weddings. Even though the temple is not open for the entire public, many families will attend when someone goes to the temple for the first time.
What Covenants Do We Make?
Let's spend some time talking about the covenants we make. What are they?
Baptismal Covenant
- read Mosiah 18:8-10, D&C 20:37
The Sacrament
- read Moroni 4 and Moroni 5, D&C 20:77, 79
Priesthood Covenant
- read D&C 84:33-44
Temple Covenants
- read Endowed From On High Lesson 4
Marriage Covenant
- the church calls this "the new and everlasting covenant"
- sometimes called (and is related to) the Abrahamic covenant
- when it was first revealed, it really meant members we asked to enter into a polygamous and/or polyandrous marriage
- see D&C 132, particularly verse 32 "do the works of Abraham" and then later vs. 58-66
- the church no longer practices "live" polygamous marriages, but does approve "serial" polygamous marriages
- note: President Nelson and President Oaks are sealed (married for eternity) to two wives, even though they had the option to marry their 2nd wife for "time only"
- see "Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo"
- see "Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah"
- see "The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage"
Saturday, April 14, 2018
April Week 3 - Apostasy & Restoration
How can I liken the events of the apostasy and restoration to my life?
What does the word Apostasy mean?
It is almost always used in a religious context
It means, "the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief"
But isn't it really just a fancy way of saying someone got new information or their convictions changed and they decided to do something different?
As a missionary, I asked many Catholics and Evangelicals to apostatize from their religious beliefs and convictions
What does the word Dogma mean?
"a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true"
Then read a Dr. Seuss book to the class: The Sneetches and The Zax
What were the convictions or beliefs of the Sneetches and Zax?
Did some change their mind? Some Sneetches did, but the Zax did not.
Did any of it matter? (not really, in fact the whole thing is laughable and sad. The one dude made a ton of money off of the ridiculousness of the Sneetches wanting to be "right", while the Zax - that is just sad.)
What is the relationship between Apostasy and Dr. Seuss?
What beliefs and dogmas did the Sneetches and Zax have?
Did the Sneetches apostatize? Did the Zax?
At some point, you have to ask yourself if your beliefs and dogmas (or what you're being told to believe), really matters or not. Then you have to decide: what really matters in this life?
Let's look at a few examples:
What are core beliefs of Islam?
- Belief in Allah as the one and only God
- Belief in angels
- Belief in holy books
- Belief in the prophets (Adam, Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus)
- Belief in Judgement Day
- Belief in Predestination
What are core beliefs of Judaism?
- God exists; is one and unique; and is incorporeal (no body); is eternal
- Pray to God and no other
- Belief in the Prophets
- The Written Torah (first five books of Bible) - there is or will not be any other Torah
- God knows the thoughts and deeds of men
- God will reward the good and punish the wicked
- The Messiah will come
- The dead will be resurrected
What are the core beliefs of Christianity?
- Belief in God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son of Go and the Holy Spirit
- The death, descent into hell, resurrection and ascension of Christ
- The holiness of the Church and the communion of saints
- Christ's second coming, the Day of Judgement and salvation of the faithful
Even within Christianity; there is a fundamental dispute about the nature of God, along with other topics.
So you have to ask yourself a few questions:
1. Does belief in a dogma matter?
a. Some people think it is all spaghetti (see CotFSM)
b. Some become agnostic or atheist
c. For others, it is important to belief in a dogma
2. If so, then you are faced with a decision about which one?
3. Are they all correct? Are they all incorrect? Is there just one that is endorsed by God? Or are there two, three?
What does Apostasy mean in the Mormon context?
After Christianity was established, Mormons believe the power, beliefs and traditions of the Apostles were lost. Catholics believe it was never lost - power went to Peter and down through the Popes.
All through the time of the Apostles and down through the many hundreds and thousands of years, it was just the Catholic church with a few deviations.
Watch this 26 minute video, which I think, does a pretty good job explaining how we got here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH79F0Hn56U … focus on the explanation. Towards the end, he reveals his opinion and you can decide to agree or disagree.
Then a guy by the name of Martin Luther came along and protested against the Catholic church - thus started the Reformation as well as Protestant Religions.
As a side note, check out this mind-blowing podcast about Martin Luther and the Muster Rebellion (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN8A4ygoEgo / https://player.fm/series/dan-carlins-hardcore-history/show-48-prophets-of-doom)
The bigger new churches / denominations are:
Lutheran (i.e. Martin Luther)
Anglican
Calvinist
Methodist
Baptist
Among this time with all the "new" churches established, a new wave spiritualism / revivalism began in upstate New York. There was so much preaching and debating among the churches there, it was referred to as the Burned Over District (see the Wikipedia entry on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burned-over_district)
It was during this time that Joseph Smith had his own reckoning with religion and would soon introduce the Mormon version of the Restoration of the gospel via the translation of the Book of Mormon, the visitation from John the Baptist for the Aaronic Priesthood and Peter, James and John for the Melchizedek Priesthood. And then temples, Masonic rituals and polygamy were introduced followed by multiple iterations of Mormon beliefs from the 1850s to the present day based on "continuing revelation."
What does the word Apostasy mean?
It is almost always used in a religious context
It means, "the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief"
But isn't it really just a fancy way of saying someone got new information or their convictions changed and they decided to do something different?
As a missionary, I asked many Catholics and Evangelicals to apostatize from their religious beliefs and convictions
What does the word Dogma mean?
"a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true"
Then read a Dr. Seuss book to the class: The Sneetches and The Zax
What were the convictions or beliefs of the Sneetches and Zax?
Did some change their mind? Some Sneetches did, but the Zax did not.
Did any of it matter? (not really, in fact the whole thing is laughable and sad. The one dude made a ton of money off of the ridiculousness of the Sneetches wanting to be "right", while the Zax - that is just sad.)
What is the relationship between Apostasy and Dr. Seuss?
What beliefs and dogmas did the Sneetches and Zax have?
Did the Sneetches apostatize? Did the Zax?
At some point, you have to ask yourself if your beliefs and dogmas (or what you're being told to believe), really matters or not. Then you have to decide: what really matters in this life?
Let's look at a few examples:
What are core beliefs of Islam?
- Belief in Allah as the one and only God
- Belief in angels
- Belief in holy books
- Belief in the prophets (Adam, Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus)
- Belief in Judgement Day
- Belief in Predestination
What are core beliefs of Judaism?
- God exists; is one and unique; and is incorporeal (no body); is eternal
- Pray to God and no other
- Belief in the Prophets
- The Written Torah (first five books of Bible) - there is or will not be any other Torah
- God knows the thoughts and deeds of men
- God will reward the good and punish the wicked
- The Messiah will come
- The dead will be resurrected
What are the core beliefs of Christianity?
- Belief in God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son of Go and the Holy Spirit
- The death, descent into hell, resurrection and ascension of Christ
- The holiness of the Church and the communion of saints
- Christ's second coming, the Day of Judgement and salvation of the faithful
Even within Christianity; there is a fundamental dispute about the nature of God, along with other topics.
So you have to ask yourself a few questions:
1. Does belief in a dogma matter?
a. Some people think it is all spaghetti (see CotFSM)
b. Some become agnostic or atheist
c. For others, it is important to belief in a dogma
2. If so, then you are faced with a decision about which one?
3. Are they all correct? Are they all incorrect? Is there just one that is endorsed by God? Or are there two, three?
What does Apostasy mean in the Mormon context?
After Christianity was established, Mormons believe the power, beliefs and traditions of the Apostles were lost. Catholics believe it was never lost - power went to Peter and down through the Popes.
All through the time of the Apostles and down through the many hundreds and thousands of years, it was just the Catholic church with a few deviations.
Watch this 26 minute video, which I think, does a pretty good job explaining how we got here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH79F0Hn56U … focus on the explanation. Towards the end, he reveals his opinion and you can decide to agree or disagree.
Then a guy by the name of Martin Luther came along and protested against the Catholic church - thus started the Reformation as well as Protestant Religions.
As a side note, check out this mind-blowing podcast about Martin Luther and the Muster Rebellion (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN8A4ygoEgo / https://player.fm/series/dan-carlins-hardcore-history/show-48-prophets-of-doom)
The bigger new churches / denominations are:
Lutheran (i.e. Martin Luther)
Anglican
Calvinist
Methodist
Baptist
Among this time with all the "new" churches established, a new wave spiritualism / revivalism began in upstate New York. There was so much preaching and debating among the churches there, it was referred to as the Burned Over District (see the Wikipedia entry on this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burned-over_district)
It was during this time that Joseph Smith had his own reckoning with religion and would soon introduce the Mormon version of the Restoration of the gospel via the translation of the Book of Mormon, the visitation from John the Baptist for the Aaronic Priesthood and Peter, James and John for the Melchizedek Priesthood. And then temples, Masonic rituals and polygamy were introduced followed by multiple iterations of Mormon beliefs from the 1850s to the present day based on "continuing revelation."
Monday, May 14, 2012
Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman
I have to admit, my testimony has gone through several phases since that first reading of the book. I started reading it for a second time in January of 2012 - this time reading it more in depth and considering the words of Bushman.
Below, I've written about a few things that have stuck out to me, that I consider significant for my own testimony. In some cases, I expound a bit more. For other parts, I just state things as they are.
The First Vision
Joseph received the "First Vision" in the early part of 1820. There are many accounts of the vision. Bushman talks of two main accounts; the one in 1832 and the one in 1838.
It is interesting to note, that we never really know if Joseph told his parents and family of the "First Vision". As Bushman notes in the book, many of the early converts were drawn to the religion because of the restoration gifts of God and the idea of gathering Zion before the coming of Christ. The "First Vision" did not play into their conversion, unlike today's introduction of the Church to investigators.
In the 1832 account, the emphasis was on receiving forgiveness of sins. The "pillar of light" was present and it was "the Lord" who he saw and spoke with.
In 1835 and subsequent versions, more details emerged - the dark power that kept him from speaking; that he heard sounds of walking. In these other versions, he saw two personages and they both spoke to him. In the 1838 version, he made it clear the two personages were God the Father and his son Jesus Christ. In 1835 and 1838 versions, emphasis was placed on the lack of truth in other churches.
Another thing that Bushman notes about the First Vision as well as other visions, is that Joseph was very slow to say anything about them to other people. In fact, Moroni had to command him to tell his father about his visit from Moroni. The vision in the Kirtland temple is another example ... see below for more info on this. In a podcast, Bushman thinks that perhaps the reason Joseph was slow to share these experiences was because of the culture. There were many people proclaiming visions, but that they may have been seen as "kooks" and Joseph did not want to be seen as in the same vein as these people.
I've often thought about this. We are taught that "sacred experiences" are indeed sacred and should usually not be shared with others. It's the whole "pearls before the swine" idea. But we, as a Church today, are OK with sharing the First Vision and other visions of the prophet. We are comfortable with Lehi's and Nephi's vision; with Alma's visitation from an angel; with Enos' experience; with Paul's conversion and on and on and on. But why are we reluctant to speak of experiences that are happening today - right now? Why are we taught not to share those experiences? Would we quickly discount others' spiritual experiences? Would we react the same way the Methodist minister did when Joseph told him? Is that why we don't share them? If that is the case, then it's the lack of faith on the hearer's part, while, perhaps, others who would hear it would be edified.
The Book of Mormon
The traditional story of how the Book of Mormon was translated is Joseph putting on the breastplate and Urim and Thummim, casting his gaze onto the plates and seeing the reformed Egyptian turn into English words. Furthermore, it would seem that Joseph just knew to "put on" the breastplate and spectacles and begin the translation - but this was not so. As Bushman states on page 63, "Developing a method took time."
The whole process is not really known. But we do know that he copied characters; had them sent to scholars to translate and to verify. There is also this passage from Bushman: "Neither Joseph nor Oliver explained how translation worked, but Joseph did not pretend to look at the 'reformed Egyptian' words, the language on the plates, according to the book's own description. The plates lay covered on the table, while Joseph's head was in a hat looking at the seerstone which by this time had replaced the interpreters. The varying explanations of the perplexing process fall roughly into two categories: composition and transcription. The first holds that Joseph was the author of the book. He composed it out of knowledge and imaginings collected in his own mind, perhaps aided by inspiration. He had stuffed his head with ideas for sermons, Christian doctrine, biblical language, multiple characters, stories of adventure, social criticism, theories of Indian origins, ideas about Mesoamerican civilization, and many other matters. During translation, he composed it all into a narrative dictated over the space of three months in Harmony and Fayette."
Bushman describes the 'composition' method, but I'm not going to quote that here. I will quote what he wrote about 'transcription.'
"The transcription theory has Joseph Smith 'seeing' the Book of Mormon text in the seerstone or the Urim and Thummim. He saw the words in the stone as he had seen lost objects or treasure and dictated them to his secretary. The eyewitnesses who described translation, Joseph Knight, Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer, who was in the house during the last weeks of translation, understood translation as transcription. Referring to the seerstone as a Urim and Thummim, Knight said: 'Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkned his Eyes then he would take a sentance and it would apper in Brite Roman Letters. Then he would tell the writer and he would write it. Then that would go away the next sentance would Come and so on.'"
"Joseph himself said almost nothing about his method but implied transcription when he said that 'the Lord had prepared spectacles for to read the Book.' Close scrutiny of the original manuscript (by a believing scholar) seems to support transcription. Judging from the way Cowdery wrote down the words, Joseph saw twenty to thirty words at a time, dictated them, and then waited for the next twenty to appear. Difficult names (Zenoch, Amalickiah) were spelled out. By any measure, transcription was a miraculous process, calling for a huge leap of faith to believe, yet, paradoxically, it is more in harmony with the young Joseph of the historical record than is composition. Transcription theory gives us a Joseph with a miraculous gift that evolved naturally out of his earlier treasure-seeking. The boy who gazed into stones and saw treasure grew up to become a translator who looked into a stone and saw words."
A word about the seerstone (or seer stone as found on lds.org). The image of Joseph putting his head into his hat to see his seerstone is not a common image in the Church. I've never even seen an image of Joseph using the Urim & Thummim and breastplate. Rather, the image that does come to mind is Joseph gazing on the plates (sans seerstone or U&T) while Oliver sits across the table writing. But the fact that a stone Joseph found in 1822 was being used in the translation of the Book of Mormon is an interesting one. Bushman talks about this in his book - the theory is that Joseph learned of the Gospel in the context of the treasure and magic culture that existed at that time.
Comparing my childhood/teenage view of the translation of the Book of Mormon with this new (to me), more accurate description of the translation is interesting. In my mind, the two views are vastly different. My childhood view is simple and very clean. The reality view is more enticing. But my fundamental question is this: why, as a child, did I have to be taught the clean version of the story? If anything, it would have been far easier to believe as a child, the story of Joseph finding a stone while digging a well and then using that stone to translate the Book of Mormon. Perhaps the "clean" version is told so as not to distract the learner with the idea that there are seerstones just laying around the earth - rather the focus should be on the work of God. That's just a thought. But to finish that thought - why would the Church jump to that conclusion? Is it because others found a seerstone too? And to prevent others from from finding a using a seerstone (a true one or a false one)? I don't know. But the fact remains - the version I was taught was not the whole truth and this is not an isolated example - it's a pattern.D&C 110 is an important section in the scriptures and Church History. As a seminary student, I was taught (or at least I viewed it as being taught) that during the dedication of the Kirtland temple, Joseph and Oliver saw Jesus Christ "standing on the breast work of the pulpit before them, and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold, in color like amber: his eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was like the pure snow, his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun, and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the Voice of Jehovah, saying I am the first and the last, I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain. I am your Advocate with the Father." They also saw Moses, Elias and Elijah, who in turn delivered keys to Joseph and Oliver. In my mind, I saw them stepping behind a veil, while the rest of the congregation waited for them. After being visited, they return to the congregation to tell them the marvelous experience ... but they don't.
Bushman informs us the "vision was not included in editions of the Doctrine and Covenants published during Joseph's lifetime, and no manuscript copies exist save Warren Cowdery's and the one Willard Richards copied into Joseph's history for the Church newspaper in 1843. Joseph never mentioned the event in his other writings. There is no evidence he told the Kirtland Saints."
"The episode behind the veil is mysteriously suspended at the end of the diary without comment or explanation, as if Joseph was stilled by the event." Bushman goes on to say that the formal revelations the Saints were used to receiving from Joseph seem to stop and that he was receiving "incommunicable revelations" the Saints "could not bear."
This was something new to me. Again, I viewed this revelation of Joseph and Oliver seeing Christ in the Kirtland temple as something grand - a bulwark of doctrine for the Saints. But they never knew this vision happened until seven years later. In fact, the sole purpose of building the temple was so that the Saints could receive their endowment - to see and know Christ personally. Meetings occurred in the temple from January to April - many outpourings of the Spirit occurred, but not as many saw the face of God as was hoped. Bushman writes, "Not many saw the face of God or the Savior, but enough had been given to say that the endowment was now theirs. As one brother wrote later, 'Some brethren expressed themselves as being disappointed at not receiving more and greater manifestations of the power of God, but for our part, we had found the pearl of great price, and our soul was happy and contented, and we rejoiced in the Lord.' Joseph told the quorums 'that I had now completed the organization of the church and we had passed through all the necessary ceremonies, that I had given them all the instruction they needed.' Now they needed to 'build up the kingdom of God." (pp. 318-19). And then, when Joseph and Oliver thought the endowment was essentially over, they see the greatest of all the visions - Jesus Christ ... and then they don't say a word. Maybe, as Bushman alludes, more was revealed than the Saints were ready for and this is why they didn't say anything at the time.
Zion
I don't have anything specific to say about Zion. I've always held the same belief and opinion about Zion and the book just reaffirmed my opinion. Namely - that the Saints kept having to give up on it over and over again. Almost from the start of the church, they had a dream of Zion. And whenever they tried to establish it, they failed. All the knowledge that was given to the Saints has stayed with us. But perhaps the single most important thing to them was establishing Zion - and that was the one thing they could not get and keep. Now, Zion is not so much a central place for the Saints to live in, rather it's a watered-down Region-Stake-Ward concept. It's palatable, but not necessarily satisfying.
Word of Wisdom
Just some minor observations abot the WoW as I read the book.
The WoW was given in February 1833. I've always been taught that the WoW at the time it was give was just that - a word for the wise, but not necessarily a commandment. It was later codified by the Saints living in Utah, along with the interpretations of what "hot drinks" meant.
In first few months of 1838, Oliver was accused of "various infractions of the Word of Wisdom ... Cowdery admitted to drinking tea three times a day for his health, and the Whitmers contended tea and coffee were not covered by the revelation." It would seem the WoW had some force back then.
Another passage from when Joseph was in Nauvoo: "Through the late fall and winter of 1843 and 1844, Joseph and Emma's relationship broke down only once. During Sunday dinner on November 5, Joseph became ill, rushed to the door, and vomited so violently that he dislocated his jaw. 'Every symptom of poison,' Richards noted in Joseph's diary. That night at the prayer meeting, Richards wrote in code that Joseph and Emma did not dress in the usual special clothing, a sign they were too much at odds to participate. The next day, Richards wrote that Joseph was 'busy with domestic concerns.' Years later, in the anti-Emma atmosphere of Utah, Brigham Young spoke of a meeting where Joseph accused his wife of slipping poison into his coffee. Brigham interpreted Emma's refusal to answer as an admission of guilt." Bushman later goes on to say the accusation was "unfounded" and that Joseph was prone to violent vomiting and that he had dislocated his jaw before. But in all this, what caught my attention was Joseph drinking coffee in 1843.
At time of his leg operation, he would not drink a strong drink. But later, there were numerous times when he drank wine. In fact, during the Nauvoo chapters of the book, I was surprised at how many parties and social dinners they had at the mansion. Wine seemed to be served often at these parties. Perhaps there was a fundamental difference, in peoples' minds, between strong drink and mere wine.
Polygamy
This seems like such a burned-over topic in Church History. But the key thing that I learned from Bushman's book was that the original teaching of "Celestial" marriage was marrying multiple "spiritual" wives and that in order to obtain the highest kingdom, a man must enter into this new and everlasting covenant. This teaching has since shifted from polygamy to mean one man marrying one woman in the temple for time and eternity.
Other things to note on this topic ... Bushman alludes that this doctrine began around the time of the dedication of the Kirtland temple. It was never openly taught. This doctrine was always taught in secret. Joseph denied it publicly. Emma hated the doctrine and the thought of polygamy - Joseph was stuck between eternal damnation (for not practicing it) and his wrathful wife (who he loved dearly).
I see the practicality of most doctrines. But I don't see it for polygamy. Yeah, there's Jacob 2, but I don't think there was a great need to "raise seed" back in 1836-88. Maybe it was for the point of "restoring all things", but if that was the case, wouldn't it have been sufficient to introduce it; perform it once and call it good until it was actually needed?
King Follet Discourse
Every missionary wanted a copy of the King Follett Sermon. When I worked in the copy center at the MTC my freshman year at BYU, we had copies of it on standby to sell to missionaries. I don't know if my memory is accurate or not, but I seem to remember we could not sell copies of the sermon anymore at one point.
As Bushman notes, it was the doctrine of polygamy and multiple gods that essentially got Joseph killed. It was just too much for people in that day. But the feeling I got from reading Bushman was that this was major, major doctrine for the 20,000 Saints assembled on April 7, 1844. But to this day, the sermon remains absent from the D&C.
One of his last quotes
About a week after the King Follett discourse, Joseph gave his final public sermon on June 16, 1844. From Bushman's book: "Joseph new his leaps would terrify less intrepid souls. 'I despise the idea of be scared to death,' he said upon completing his proof of God the Father having a father. 'When things that are great are passed over with[ou]t. even a thot I want to see all in all its bearings & hug it to my bosom.' Then came a sentence that captured his spirit perfectly: 'I never hear[d] of a man being d[amne]d for bel[ievin]g too much but they are d[amne]d for unbel[ief].' A few minutes later he stopped talking. The sky was pouring rain."
And that seems to sum it up - Joseph brought a lot of ideas into the world. The final few ideas cost him his life, but the fact remains that we have those ideas because of Joseph's desire to believe and gain knowledge from God.
Final Thoughts
Rough Stone Rolling is a fantastic book. For someone who was raised in the Chruch and was taught all the wonderful things about Joseph Smith and Church History and never taught a thing about the "dark secrets" of the Church, reading this book was a bit like reading the journal of someone you look up to ... and when you read it, you realize they really aren't the person you perceived them to be. You realize they are human - just like you - they have faults, sins and short-comings. There is a bit of a let-down. But then you realize no one is perfect except Christ.
If anything, you should feel confident that if the Lord approves of and loves Joseph, then he also loves us! Joseph and the church were in debt. They broke the law of the land. They didn't always keep the commandments. They were forced to make tough Adam/Eve/Fruit and Nephi/Laban/Thou-shalt-not-kill choices. When all was said and done, Joseph just wanted to do what the Lord wanted him to do. And if we can say that all we did was what the Lord wanted us to do, then despite all our faults and short-comings, we can feel confident in the Lord's love and approval for us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)