A Bible, A Bible, I Want a New Bible

Recently I finished reading Misquoting Jesus by one of my favorite agnostic religious subject authors. Compared to his The Lost Christianities I found several religious and philosophical differences to my own. for instance, I don't believe that we can come to any real conclusions about the "original autographs" of the Biblical writers. At best we can come to an approximation, even using the earliest and "best" sources. On the more conservative side of the arguments, I don't believe that the KJV is not to be trusted over any other translation. At worst it is no better than the majority. Too often the author and textualists, if we are to believe he represents them, break their own rules. I especially don’t believe that the Bible needs to be perfect (as Bart D. Ehrman believes) in order to be divinely inspired. Where he sees human hands everywhere and God nowhere, I see God everywhere using imperfect human hands.

At any rate, the book has helped me become more interested in Biblical scholarship and interpretation. I must agree that the KJV is not the best source for accuracy in interpretation of the Bible. I still will argue that it is the best literary Bible ever produced. Another argument I also agree with is that the LDS Scriptural tradition is tied so intimately with the KJV that replacing it would do more harm than good. Theological teachings, revelations, and official sermons would lose too many coherencies.

Still, I do think that a reliable translation with more nuanced understanding of Biblical textual history should be encouraged. It is this reason that I have searched for a better Bible to read for study. I am not troubled by the many differences between many translations. This goes deeper than just a belief that the original autographs are unrecoverable, but today's text still inspired. From my own studies of the development of the Scriptures by Joseph Smith (especially the Doctrine and Covenants) Revelation is very flexible. Once they are on paper, it doesn't mean they are untouchable. Rather, they are open to changes, revisions and re-visions, clarifications, and etc. Revelations from 1830 could be, and sometimes are, different from readings of the same text in 1845. One of the Witnesses of the Book of Mormon left the Church over this flexibility. The Bible, having many hands in the writing and preservation over centuries, is equally open to the same. Obviously, those who aren’t “Mormon” will not see it this way or trust the source of LDS inspiration.

Personally, I find “Mormons” ambivalent about the "inerrancy" idea, especially when talking with Christian evangilicals. Yet, in practice they are very literalist themselves - to a point. In other words, Mormons are very literalist with the stories and miracles. When questioned farther, they are usually very open about the non-binding nature of the text itself. It is a very careful viewpoint. That is why so many seem interested in learning Greek, Hebrew, and Latin yet disregard “Higher Criticism” that often sounds irreligious. They accept problems with its text and transmission and not its core history and theology.

And so I started a search for the most recent, "scientifically" produced (i.e. using all manuscripts available), English, and doctrinally sufficient Scriptural Translation. I am looking for, if one exists, a more accurate Scripture than the KJV. At the least, one that is closer to the Greek and Hebrew – with a little Latin – manuscripts, without a lot of theological tampering. So far I have gotten the most positive responses about the NEB, NRSV, and the Jerusalem Bible.

I have come to the conclusion that NET Bible is the closest to what I am searching for. I know others have suggested "Blue Letter Bible," but I refuse to support them. They are so openly anti-Mormon that it sickens me even to consider them. I am sure the sponsors of Bible.org are equally bad with that, but at least I don't have to go to the front door with an unwelcome reminder. You can download it for free as well.

Reasons for 1830 Restoration Date

There are two ways to approach the problem of why it took more than a thousand years to restore the gospel to the earth. Since we are dealing with a specific date some have taken the way of Millerites and other millenialists. Looking at Bible text history they have extrapolated the prophetic meaning of 1830 the way others have done so for the return of Christ. Mathematically and textually such mapping of history is not possible beyond recognition of stated events. Even the events mentioned as necessary for signs are sometimes unclear. The other way is to recognized some political or religious events we know of and decide they are necessary prelude to the establishment of the Church. They usually mention only two major circumstances; the Christian Reformation and the U.S. Revolutionary War.

I agree in theory to the second alternative, and have never believed in the first one as reliable. The usual list of prelude ends up short and incomplete. History has a way of compounding itself, sometimes backtracking when it had moved forward. It should be no surprise that I have come up with a more detailed explanation of why it took so long for the Restoration.

The Great Apostasy: We can’t get to the end without starting from the beginning. It is not my intention to talk about how this happened, or when it was complete. Needless to say, the Apostasy is the reason the Restoration was needed. I would even guess that Constantine is the apex of the final demise of the ancient church and the start of the restoration.

Paganism ends and Christianity Spreads: Sadly, it is no surprise that “Mormonism” has been most successful in its short history among those who have already embraced Christianity. It is amazing that the ancient church was spread among a pagan world, but it seems that also brought it to ruin. At any rate, once Christianity became the official religion of the Western World it became both powerful and large. The old enemies were banished from the realm, and only Muslims and barbarians checked the spread of Christianity. A vast field for harvest was formed.

Enlightenment: The dark ages had to end before new light could begin to spread. People in the West started to question everything. Science and philosophy spread new ideas and opened up the way for major changes in history. It challenged the establishments that had ultimate power and checked progress. Eventually, there would be rebellion against the old ways. This new life of the West would not be an easy birth.

Printing Press: It is perhaps this event that had the most influence since the time of the Apostasy itself toward the conditions needed for the Restoration. Before that time the teachings of the Bible were open to a select few. Those few sometimes manipulated both the text and the teachings contained in them. This happened from the very start of the spread of the Christian message as soon as letters could be written. Once the printing press was developed, many more people could read the message for themselves. They started to see things differently from how they were originally taught by the official representatives. Beyond that, scripture and revelation could be shared with many. There would be minimal tampering of the message. The words of a book might as well be set in stone.

Reformation: The message might still be imperfect and dependant on the false teachings of a fallen church, but at least there were options. People no longer had to look for the answers from one source. They could decide for themselves what and who to believe. This set up the conditions for new churches.

The United States: This, and the Reformation, is usually where all other event related reasons start. Even these are incomplete. The United States is important for more than the Constitution. It is the place that the Nephites had lived and where the Book of Mormon was hidden. It is a place where ideas from the Enlightenment and Reformation coagulated to form a relatively free society. The open land offered a way for beleaguered Saints to get away from enemies and live in the desert, much like the faithful has done since Enoch. Most importantly, it is a land especially blessed by God for His people to live – along with the land of Israel.

Choice Spirit: Finally, the Restoration had to wait for a boy named Joseph Smith Jr. to be born. Perhaps God could have chosen anyone of similar qualities. God certainly warned he could be replaced. At any rate, he came at a time when historical events had climaxed. A New World with new ideas was born and ready to flourish. He wasn’t the only one to claim visions, revelations, and a new message related to the old teachings. Then again, Jesus was not the only one declaring a messianic hope for Israel during his times. If anything, such an abundance of competing prophets is its own sign of the times of extraordinary divine history. The Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ had come.

This is simply a sketch of the reasons for such a late date of the restoration. History had to have time for developing the right conditions. There is no way to say if an earlier date would have brought a miscarriage for the Restoration. Ultimately, but incomplete as it always is, the real answer to the question of why 1830 is because it was God’s will. Time for Him is inconsequential.

An Underrated Joseph

This is the third and last in a series of discussions on biographies of Joseph Smith. It is a look at the best and worst of important works dealing with his life. Each criticism is broken down into three sections: positive aspects, negative aspects, and implications.

Joseph Smith: The First Mormon by Donna Hill

Positive: This biography manages to do something that others have not reached. It treats Joseph Smith and his friends and enemies as people. She does more than talk about what people say and do, but how they felt during their experiences. The way this is accomplished is to allow sources to tell the story, often revealing what those involved felt about events. It becomes much more personal than other biographies have been written. Her extensive use of a variety of sources also helps the reader feel they are making discoveries right along with her. Whenever she narrates the story, she allows a quote or two to fill in the details.

No matter how controversial the subject, she remains as neutral as possible. As an “orthodox believer” none of what she talked about was troubling. Her approach was never like correlation or trying to be revisionist. It seemed like good story telling with the inclusion of pertinent information. There was nothing new and groundbreaking, but the book did seem to fill in the details. As great as the biography was, it is still strange that it remains to this day in the background.

Negative: The start of her problems might be the title of the book. The saying goes that you should never judge a book by its cover, but in this instance it becomes hard to ignore such a boring name. I have tried to think of a more interesting title appropriate to her writing without success. It would have to be a quote from one of Joseph Smith’s Nauvoo sermons to follow precedent.

Another weakness occurs right after Liberty Jail about the time Nauvoo was to be established. She decides to write some essays about such topics as polygamy and the priesthood ban. As important as these subjects are, they detract from her otherwise wonderful linear narration. She loses focus and never gets it back. Perhaps I should give the Nauvoo section another read, but it seems the personal nature of her writing never recovers from the tangents. What could have been my personal definitive biography of Joseph Smith flounders.

Implications: It seems that biographies on Joseph Smith can either be about the history or the personality and never completely both. Some may believe that they are dealing with both by focusing on one, but it is never that easy. Donna Hill comes close to achieving that combination, but misses the mark. It would be great if there was an author that could combine the talents of both Bushman and Hill as they compliment each other. Luckily, we can read what they wrote and compare the two.

Rough Synthesis of Smith

This is the second in a series of discussions on biographies of Joseph Smith. It is a look at the best and worst of important works dealing with his life. Each criticism is broken down into three sections: positive aspects, negative aspects, and implications.

Rough Stone Rolling by Richard L. Bushman

Positive: Most of what makes this particular book good was done in Joseph Smith and the Beginning of Mormonism by the same author. There is a lot of information crammed together in a seamless narrative. It takes careful concentration to not miss a source or worth while insight, either of Joseph Smith or history of the LDS Church. Personally, I don't think his complete biography is as "can't put down" engaging as his shorter work. Still, part of that is his commitment to telling the whole story of a singular individual. It probably would have been much better to try and write two volumes. Then again, that could just be wishful thinking on my part with how much I enjoyed the book.

What he does proves how good of an author and historian he can be at his best. Instead of going simply from one incident to another as most biographies by nature do, he treats each chapter as an essay on several topics. This wouldn't work well with a lesser writer (as I will explain on my third installment), but it seems to fit the intentions of Bushman. Again, I can't help but be reminded of B.H. Roberts who seems even more to be a architype of Mormon history writing than ever. This time, instead of the bibliography it is the theology that comes to mind. Bushman returns Joseph Smith to his rightful place; a theologian and community building prophet. The book tries to look at Joseph Smith on his own terms, rather than define those terms for him. True, that is something that a believing Mormon might do who agrees with him more than disagrees. The brilliancy is that for the most part this isn't an apologetic as much as a study of religious ideas expressed and developed. For once Joseph Smith's theology and organizational building are focused on as much as his history and trials or motivations. For that alone the book should be commended. You come away from this book understanding Joseph Smith, because you understand his religious ideas. Without that foundation the man cannot be fathomed.

What marks this book as "definitive" where others lack is Bushman's synthesis of decades long studies. He doesn't seem to ignore major works simply because he disagrees with them. In fact, he uses them to get a clearer picture. He has his favorites to be sure, but not at the quick rejection of others. It might not be the most comprehensive book about Joseph Smith, but it is for studies about him. I had waited about ten years for the release of this book after reading his first major biographical treatment. Such a passing of time ended up crucial to the end result. This is a must read for Mormon history enthusiasts and others.

Negative: His strength is also his weakness. There is not a lot, if anything, new in the book. The main problem with the book might be my own. There is really very few new things or insights that haven't been expressed elsewhere. Perhaps that just says something about the state of Joseph Smith history research. There was nothing substantially new to be said. All of it was written somewhere by someone in this book or that symposium. However, he has only claimed to be an historian and not an investigator. His genious and that of this book is that he can take desperate elements and create a life rather than an argument or test subject.

Still, Joseph Smith sometimes did get lost in the shuffle of his essay approach. He could have used more personal sources, such as journals and letters, for a more intimate treatment of the people involved. That includes Joseph Smith where personality becomes essay subject a few times. Perhaps a look at the inner individual was not the main concern of the book. It was labeled "A Cultural Biography" on the cover. With that in mind, Bushman did well exploring Joseph Smith's influence from and creation of culture. There is another book that has a better personal approach, although often overlooked and underrated. That will be talked about later.

Implications: I have already said some things above that would go here. Two main points I would like to reiterate. First, in order to understand Joseph Smith the biographer has to take his religion seriously - even if they don't believe it. Otherwise it becomes expose and not biography. You can't seperate the man from what he considered his mission. Second, after ten years the amount of new information seems to have hit a brick wall. The Joseph Smith papers project might change that, but we have yet to see. Finally, even with no new info, there is plenty that exists to evaluate a complex religious personality in several ways.

Next Installment: Joseph Smith the First Mormon by Donna Hill

Still Not a Real History

This is the first in a series of discussions on biographies of Joseph Smith. It is a look at the best and worst of important works dealing with his life. Each criticism is broken down into three sections: positive aspects, negative aspects, and implications.

No Man Knows My History by Fawn M. Brody

Positive: It is hard for me to pick out much good out of her book, as its whole purpose is to attack and destroy the reputation of Joseph Smith and those who believe him to be a prophet. Yet, to be completely fair I am going to try. It is clear that she is an engaging writer with a smooth writing style. Dealing with as complicated a subject as she is, the text remains easy to read and directly to the point. There is no awkwardness to the flow as readers are able to follow the arguments effortlessly.

She is the first to really look closely at a number of original newspapers and documents. Most other biographies used The History of the Church practically as the only document. It was because of her that the real discussion of things could get off the ground and be discussed. However, how much "original" information and sources were new to her work is arguable. You cannot look at her bibliographical notes without a reminder of B.H. Roberts' historical works. She used far less unknown material than what it at first seems. Most of her "discoveries" come from examinations of long neglected newspaper articles of Joseph Smith's day. Still, she started the New Mormon History; both for good and bad.

Negative: The books biggest problem starts nearly from the first page. As was said, it is too full of bias and expose narrative to be of much historical use. That the vast majority of historians and lay people use this as the definitive biography shows an ignorance and lack of charity toward him and his followers. The facts are slanted and evidence pieced together by innuendo. For a more in-depth study of the vast flaws of the book, it is best to read "No Mame, That's Not History" by Hugh Nibley.

She uses two bait and switch tactics to redirect the evidence more toward her liking. The first is to say something happened, or didn't happen, by emphasising something totally different. An example of that is the classic accusation that Joseph Smith didn't beat his wife at a particular moment, as if he had done so at other times without any evidence that he ever did. Second and more troublesome for her use of sources is expressing reservations about the writings, but using them anyway as the main information. That goes as much for anti-Mormon as for pro-Mormon sources. Those parts that don't fit her preconcieved ideas are tossed aside while those that do are branded as indespensable. Yet, they often come from the same documents without justifying the choice with at times anything more than an out of context throw away statement from somewhere else.

I would suggest ignoring this work if it wasn't so important as a history making book on its own. She pretty much invented the Liberal, Atheistic, Expose driven history of Mormonism seen today. Still, she did write it at a time when "Historical Jesus" studies were slowly gaining momentum in the United States. It much more resembles them than a general biography. Both have at the center a disdain for faith and the divine.

Implications: Her book has never fully been looked at for the number of flaws and false evidence. There was a whole book dedicated to looking at "The God Makers" and refuting its lies. The same could easily be done with this book for anyone who is interested in such a task. It would be time consuming to be sure. There is a lot of information available for use. Still, it wouldn't be impossible and already there has been many chinks in the armor from years of studies. It would be the ultimate attack on the Sunstone and Signiture Books group as this is their sacred scripture.

Luckily for those like myself who love and have faith in LDS Church history and doctrine, hers is not the last word. There are two other books that I feel do a more admirable job of understanding Joseph Smith. They don't have as much of an underlying axe to grind. At least one of them is a bonefide and well respected historian. His book will be looked at next time.

Next Installment: Rough Stone Rolling by Richard L. Bushman

Putting a Toe back in the Water

It has been about a month since I last wrote anything. After so much work (and it does take time to do these things if you are doing them right) I felt a need to back away. There were too many other things that were more importance in my life. Not that there wasn't time enough for blogging and doing something else. Rather, I was emotionally drained from writing what was essentially ignored. My motivations for keeping the blog going were challenged. Finally, I decided to take a break to question why I was working so hard with limited results.

slight rant: At first I was going to be a voice for the bloggernacle's disenfranchised Conservative voice. It didn't backfire, as much as fizzle. I blame this partly on the Mormon Archipelego where if you aren't on that, you aren't getting noticed. I tried to have my blog placed on at least the nasceant section, sending an e-mail to the exclusive club. Alas, the "powers that be" didn't even have the courtesy of writing back saying not interested. I even sent a short-short story to "Popcorn Popping" and didn't get any "return-to-sender" message. Is there a conspiracy? I don't know.

However, I am going to give this another try. My new motivation is simply that I am a writer. No matter who reads or doesn't read my stuff, there is no way for me to get away from my passion. Not that I was ever away from typing what was in my mind. The time I wasn't here, my computer keyboard was busy editing my finished novel. Soon my computer will start working on my second novel again; having finished three chapters previously.

Will I be consistant? Probably not like before where I missed one week at the most. Thoughts will be written down when I feel like it; more than out of a sad obligation toward an audience that doesn't exist. For those who might care, be watching for my first REAL blog return the first week of next month. It is going to be a comparative look at the three most important and informative biographies of Joseph Smith (and the only ones worth reading if you are going to read any of them). You can probably guess what two out of the three are, and not be surprised by the third.

Addendum: It would be nice to hear from others who feel "left out" of the sandbox. Post your grievences and your blogs here if you would like. Perhaps you can be placed on my "other Bloggers" section. At the least I will come visit you and leave a nice comment. Of course, if you haven't noticed already, my preference is for the more Conservative and less Diary writers.

Ethics of "Mormon" Art

A comment in an Interview of Mormon playwrite Eric Samuelsen brought to mind some ethical and moral implication of religious writing. He said:

The public relations people for the Church have their job to do. Our job as artists is to tell real stories about real people, and not worry about ideology . . .

In Stake Conference, one speaker talked about seeing a movie with her husband, and she said something like 'we started watching the movie, and heard some bad language, and
immediately we knew we needed to leave the theater, and so we did, and it didn't even matter if we got our money back--we'd kept our thoughts pure.' We've all heard variations on that talk a thousand times. And I can't judge--maybe the Spirit was whispering to her, and maybe that movie, for her, would have been spiritually damaging. But just once before I die, I'd like to hear someone say 'I went to this movie, and I heard some bad language, and my initial impulse was to leave, but I stayed, and I had a life-changing positive experience.'
I hear all this rhetoric about 'worldly art,' and I never have any idea what they're talking about. I don't think 'worldly art' even exists. I don't think it's a meaningful distinction, between 'worldly' and 'unworldly' (or, I don't know, transcendent). I think art is a testimony, and I think it's pretty much always morally good. I do think that there's such a thing as poorly executed art.

I found his comments to be very disturbing as a religious believer. I now know I will never knowingly read, watch, or contribute to anything he ever does. A person who cannot be offended by small evils can never be saved from grosser evils.

What I mean is exactly what I said. When we give in to saying "this isn't bad because it only has one bad thing" or "this isn't bad because the rest is good," or worst of all,"this isn't bad compared to THAT thing," then it becomes harder and harder to recognize and stay away from those things that truely are bad. Too many people become sensitive to serious things by not avoiding the little things in life. Before you know it, your faith and morals are lost. Not that you think they are lost, and that is the worst part. You lose sense of right and wrong because nothing is wrong compared to THAT thing - whatever new "thing" you find worse than the other things.

I agree with OSC in his essays "The problem of Evil in Fiction" and "On Art, Morals, and Morality" in his book "A Storyteller in Zion," that we must accept that evil or wrong must be portrayed to make a story interesting and meaningful. What I don't agree with is that we must engage in evil and wrong in our stories (such as swearing) that can be described or even implied rather than used. It is a great bit of critical work on writing and religious audience. However, I don't think OSC ever said (and in fact he has said the opposite) that art was without ideology (or neutral). Anyone who uses that argument for anything is not on my list of people to support as artists.

Art is power. Those who hold power must recognize the need for judgement from every angle. Wanting the responsibility or not, artists are fundimentally PR people. If they didn't want to say something or make some kind of point about themelves or the world - no matter how trivial -they wouldn't be making art. Those who read Asher Lev might not be judging Judaism (who is to say they aren't?), but they are definantly judging the author in relation to Judaism. If you read any interviews or critism of the books, the relationship of Judaism and the author almost always comes up. I would imagine the same would happen with Mormon stories if they ever got known beyond the Wasatch Front. It certainly comes up with Neil LaBute.

Why I wouldn't want to contribute to Eric Samuelsen from his interview is that his views on art conflict too much with mine. As such, I can already tell, including the venue of where his work has been printed (a whole diff discussion), that I would be offended by his work. Even if not offended, at least uncomfortable and not in a thoughtful way. The power of any message would be soured by his approach.

I don't believe art should be institutional propaganda; outside of the institution. That is one of the reasons I think LDS art is still too conventional and boring. However, I do think there are "standards" that are tied to the institution as believers. And, tandentially, that translates into art as at least tentative institutional support.

A New Gathering

Watching such series as "Cops," "Dog the Bounty Hunter" and "Homicide: 48 Hours" on television has been an eye opener. These shows follow law enforcement around as they work to catch criminals. Some of the worst of humanity can be seen lying, cheating, stealing, fighting, and generally doing evil things. In many cases, these are daily news stories placed up close. It reminds me of the Second letter of Paul to Timothy explaining the condition of the world:

1 THIS know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,

7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.

I know there are good people everywhere, but it has become hard to point them out in today's filth. We may all be born innocent, but our spirits seem over influenced by the material bodies and satanic suggestions. Many people are crying out for a better society built around the ideas of integrety, honesty, morality, and most importantly faith in God.

One of the constant themes during the foundation of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was the building up of Zion. This was more than simply learning to live a good Christian life. It was the concept of gathering together as a people and building up a community of believers. It was believed that the Saints could help usher in the Second Coming of Christ by forming a group worthy of God's favor. Due to negative circumstances both inside and outside the faith the dream was never realized. A new era started, as explained by Bruce R. McConkie in his .Peru Talk several years ago:

We are in the midst of a period of change and realignment where one of the basic doctrines of the Restoration is concerned.

We were directed in the day of Joseph Smith to do one thing with reference to the gathering of Israel and the building up of Zion. Today we are counseled to turn away from the past and do something entirely different. . .

. . . We are living in a new day. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is fast becoming a worldwide church. Congregations of Saints are now, or soon will be, strong enough to support and sustain their members no matter where they reside. Temples are being built wherever the need justifies. We can foresee many temples in South America in process of time.

Stakes of Zion are also being organized at the ends of the earth. In this connection, let us ponder these truths: A stake of Zion is a part of Zion. You cannot create a stake of Zion without creating a part of Zion. Zion is the pure in heart; we gain purity of heart by baptism and by obedience. A stake has geographical boundaries. To create a stake is like founding a City of Holiness. Every stake on earth is the gathering place for the lost sheep of Israel who live in its area.

The gathering place for Peruvians is in the stakes of Zion in Peru, or in the places which soon will become stakes. The gathering place for Chileans is in Chile; for Bolivians it is in Bolivia; for Koreans it is in Korea; and so it goes through all the length and breadth of the earth. Scattered Israel in every nation is called to gather to the fold of Christ, to the stakes of Zion, as such are established in their nations.

Isaiah prophesied that the Lord “shall cause them that come of Jacob to take root; Israel shall blossom and bud, and fill the face of the world with fruit.” The Lord’s promise is: “Ye shall be gathered one by one, O ye children of Israel.” (Isa. 27:6, 12.)

That is to say—Israel shall be gathered one by one, family by family, unto the stakes of Zion established in all parts of the earth so that the whole earth shall be blessed with the fruits of the gospel.

This then is the counsel of the Brethren: Build up Zion, but build it up in the area where God has given you birth and nationality. Build it up where he has given you citizenship, family, and friends. Zion is here in South America and the Saints who comprise this part of Zion are and should be a leavening influence for good in all these nations.

And know this: God will bless that nation which so orders its affairs as to further his work.

His work includes the building up of Zion in the last days. He has commissioned us to do that work for him. The foundations of Zion have already been laid in North America, in South America, in Europe, in Asia, in the South Pacific and in every place where there are stakes of Zion. But Zion is not yet perfected in any of these places. When she is perfected, it will be as it was with Zion of old—the Lord will come and dwell with his people.

The condition of the World today makes me wonder it is time to renew the idea of gathering the Saints closer together. I don't mean the almost unconscious gathering to Idaho and Utah. Rather, a commitment to gather with a goal in mind to create a particular community. I don't think it would be improbable to form gated communities with specific ideals. The days of deadly persecution, in the United States at least, are in the past. It even seems possible for LDS members to go back to Independance Missouri if they desired and bought up land. Money and the Law are more important today that they ever were in the early years.

Such a plan won't be easy, and not all problems will suddenly no longer exist. But, polygamous "Mormons" seem to be proving a new religious gathering in the middle of a pluralistic democracy can be possible in small groups. The closest modern example of a "mainstream Mormonism" built community is Provo, UT and Rexburg, ID. Both are centers of LDS learning. Like Joseph Smith's vision of the center of Zion as a large Temple University complex, these two places act as gathering areas for the Church's young and growing. It might be possible to study them and decide how to improve on the "accidental providence" of their existance as LDS communities.

Questions naturally arise. Where would such a community be built? What would be the laws and standards? What legal ramifications still exist? How ready are the Saints for such an experiment? Does it go against modern revelation as to our current mission to the world? Is it desireable?

Answers to these questions are vital to achieving any new gathering. Perhaps the online world of blogging is the closest Mormons can come these days to a seperate community of believers. Of course, the main reason for gathering in the days of Joseph Smith was to build Temples for the people. These days Temples can come to the people. Zion still remains a dream that all Saints desire to see become reality. Perhaps the most important starting point is in our hearts and homes.

Jesus was No Wimp

Many people picture Jesus Christ as sitting with lambs and doting over children. His message is filled with ideas about love and acceptance of strangers. These are not bad ideas and do represent the core of his teachings. Yet, there is part of Jesus that is often overlooked in today's "free love" and "politically correct" society. He was a tough guy who wasn't afraid to speak his mind or face danger.

Not much is known about his first thirty years. What is known is that he lived a hard life filled with much hard labor. The modern English says he was a carpenter. This means he would have worked with heavy materials without the help of mechanical tools. Some question the original Greek word used for the word "carpenter" and believe he was more like a general laborer. That still doesn't take away from the fact he would have lived a hard life. Physically he wouldn't be the thin waif often pictured in artwork through the centuries.

He could also be fearless and brash. Walking on water is used to express the idea of doing the impossible. Yet, an even greater miracle is the calming of the stormy sea during a fishing trip. The manly apostles worried that the ship was going to be swallowed up by the waves. Jesus, on the other hand, stood up to nature's rage. The waters and winds became calm and they were able to safely return to land.

Love might be his principle characteristic, but he could be mean when he felt justified. His mission was almost exclusively to the Jews, and he made that clear. One time he basically called the Gentiles "dogs" who were not worthy of his attention. A woman acknowledged the humble position of her Greek heritage in the scheme of Covenant history and begged mercy. Jesus took pity on the woman and healed one of her relatives from a distance. The lesson was to be tough, but be prepared to show compassion to those who are not offended by what you see as your mission in life. On the other hand, he showed no compassion for a small fig tree that didn't bear fruit. It was shrivled to nothing. Some, who see Jesus as simply a harmless kitten, believe this is uncharacteristic of Jesus and probably didn't happen. Yet, the lesson was clear. Israel of that generation as the fig tree was ready to be destroyed. Not a very nice and loving idea.

Among the strongest pictures of Jesus was his last days on Earth as a mortal. This was best portrayed in the movie "Passion of the Christ," even if it went beyond what it probably was like. Still, with even half of that as true it would have been nearly unbearable. He was tortured, mocked, and eventually nailed to a cross and hardly spoke. The two times he came off as "wimpy" was asking his Father for a different way and crying to his Father that he was abandoned. Yet, he let go of his doubts and finished the greatest sacrifice of time and eternity.

The sacrifice of the Atonment allowed Jesus the Christ to overcame Death and Hell; no tasks for the faint of heart. John's vision of the Heavely Jesus was hardly the feminine flower of a smiling man (Revelation 19:11-16):

11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.

It might be hard to know what to do with such a picture in our day when peace, love, and acceptance are the only aspects of Jesus most people consider. What can be learned is that strength, courage, and boldness are as important as compassion and charity. At times they go hand in hand when faced with the cruelty and evil of the World around us. Lets remember the life and sacrifice of Jesus Christ as a moment of strength and courage and not fear or weakness. Too often we act like our faith is more like a shrinking violet than a tall redwood.

Faith is the Word We Live

I was reading A Photographic Object Lesson on Desire and felt like talking about the strength of religious faith. This is especially important in a world where faith is either hard to come by or dangerous. Yet, for a Latter-day Saint (like any believer in God) faith is what holds us together. Lose your faith and you are not really a Latter-day Saint, even if you say you are Mormon by culture. Religion is not a culture. When it becomes a culture without religious conviction than it becomes worthless.

And that, I am afraid, is where too many Mormons get caught up in modern Western Society. Too many scientists, philosophers, professors, and millionairs think too highly of themsleves. What they can see and demostrate becomes what they live. They find joy in what cannot last. This is not new, and Jesus explained the situation:

5 A sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the way side; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it.

6 And some fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture.

7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprang up with it, and choked it.

8 And other fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an hundredfold. And when he had said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

9 And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be?

10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.

12 Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

13 They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.

14 And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection.

15 But that on the good ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience.

16 ¶ No man, when he hath lighted a candle, covereth it with a vessel, or putteth it under a bed; but setteth it on a candlestick, that they which enter in may see the light.

17 For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.

18 Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have.
-- Luke 8: 5-18

Religion is a faith and not a science. Ultimately, however, it is because faith is the only way we can learn to live eternity on our own. God could teach us all about everything. what that doesn't do is allow us to decide for ourselves and make personal decisions with our own observations. Left alone we become our true selves. I do not pretend to understand the specifics, but it seems clear from the Scriptures that faith is what makes things work in the hereafter, with knowledge only the groundwork. Knowledge is the engine, but Faith is the gas that makes it run.

The opposite of faith is fear and doubt. If we have faith we shall not fear, because we have something that is untouchable by pundits and unbelievers. This isn't to say faith is not hard won and hard kept. What it is saying is that we cannot give up on what we believe because someone else tells us we are wrong. Let them think that. They can only kill the body. Only we can let them kill the soul.

We live too much in a time, at least for Latter-day Saints, when our trials are more of our own making. Satan has no more power than we give him and we have given him too much. It is time to reject the mocking of those who think faith is simply a desease of the mind or self-dilusion. According to Moroni, such attitudes are self-delusional themselves:

19 And if there were miracles wrought then, why has God ceased to be a God of miracles and yet be an unchangeable Being? And behold, I say unto you he changeth not; if so he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles.

20 And the reason why he ceaseth to do miracles among the children of men is because that they dwindle in unbelief, and depart from the right way, and know not the God in whom they should trust.

21 Behold, I say unto you that whoso believeth in Christ, doubting nothing, whatsoever he shall ask the Father in the name of Christ it shall be granted him; and this promise is unto all, even unto the ends of the earth.

Deciding if something is real or not is what FAITH is all about. Reject what you feel is right because you could be wrong is the first step toward rejecting God. And that, I believe, is the attitude that closes someone off to Revelation and Miracles. Those who deny the prophets, question the scriptures, and close themselves off to a living God do not know the power of the Holy Ghost. God will let them have their materialistic desires. True Latter-day Saints live by Faith, Hope, and Charity as believers. Knowledge is mostly reserved for the day we die.

God as the Unified Theory

For many years I have been interested in the topic of Mormonism and science, particularly in relation to scriptures and physics. One of my favorite books Science, Religion, and Mormon Cosmology by by Erich Robert Paul was my first serious introduction to the problems and challenges of science and Mormon theology. There are plenty of scientific theories that don't match LDS teachings. What is surprising for me are the many times scientific theory has seemed to reflect LDS teachings. Along the way I have even discovered that LDS theology seems to answer some scientific questions; even if unprovable in peer review journals. One of the most ambitious answers seems to be about the mysterious Unified Theory. Scriptures indicated that the Power of God holds everything together and keeps the universe functioning.

For those who might not know, it will be good to explain the problem. Physics tries to explain the behavior of matter and energy contained in fields, such as gravity and electricity. As explained at whatis:

The theory of relativity explains the nature and behavior of all phenomena on the macroscopic level (things that are visible to the naked eye); quantum theory explains the nature and behavior of all phenomena on the microscopic (atomic and subatomic) level. Perplexingly, however, the two theories are incompatible. Unconvinced that nature would prescribe totally different modes of behavior for phenomena that were simply scaled differently, Einstein sought a theory that would reconcile the two apparently irreconcilable theories that form the basis of modern physics.

Einstein failed, and so has everyone else. There have been some pretty good guess work, but no solid leads. Discovering a realistic theory could change how we view the world forever.

I am not about to scientifically explain a Unified Theory of my own. To be honest, I don't completely understand the science behind the quest. Science is of general interest, and math has never been kind to me. What I intend to do is show that there is a theological answer in Mormonism to the great debate.

In Doctrine and Covenants 88:42-47 we learn that there are several Kingdoms, and each one has a law given:

42 And again, verily I say unto you, he hath given a lawunto all things, by which they move in their times and their seasons;

43 And their courses are fixed, even the courses of the heavens and the earth, which comprehend the earth and all the planets.

44 And they give light to each other in their times and in their seasons, in their minutes, in their hours, in their days, in their weeks, in their months, in their years—all these are one year with God, but not with man.

45 The earth rolls upon her wings, and the sun giveth his light by day, and the moon giveth her light by night, and the stars also give their light, as they roll upon their wings in their glory, in the midst of the power of God.

46 Unto what shall I liken these kingdoms, that ye may understand?

47 Behold, all these are kingdoms, and any man who hath seen any or the least of these hath seen God moving in his majesty and power

Scientific theory seems to agree with the scripture. Most things can be explained using some theoretical or mathematical ground work that is specific to the problem explored. In fact, science is built around the idea of repeatable results. Any deviance from the tested assumptions usually indicates a science mistake or new discovery. And, as stated in physics, there are at least two (maybe three) Kingdoms of study. The quoted scripture deals mostly with Einstinian time-space macro-universals.

Despite the focus on the macro kingdoms, there is mention of at least one important quantum phenomena. Light is seen as a unifying force penetrating and controlling the elements. Thus, it would seem scripturally that light, important as it is to both Einstinian and quantum theory, holds the key to understanding universal law. Scripturally The power of light doesn't come from the light itself, but from God:

49 The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not; nevertheless, the day shall come when you shall comprehend even God, being quickened in him and by him.

50 Then shall ye know that ye have seen me, that I am, and that I am the true light that is in you, and that you are in me; otherwise ye could not abound.

51 Behold, I will liken these kingdoms unto a man having a field, and he sent forth his servants into the field to dig in the field . . .

56 And the lord of the field went unto the first in the first hour, and tarried with him all that hour, and he was made glad with the light of the countenance of his lord.

57 And then he withdrew from the first that he might visit the second also, and the third, and the fourth, and so on unto the twelfth.

58 And thus they all received the light of the countenance of their lord, every man in his hour, and in his time, and in his season—

59 Beginning at the first, and so on unto the last, and from the last unto the first, and from the first unto the last;

60 Every man in his own aorder, until his hour was finished, even according as his lord had commanded him, that his lord might be glorified in him, and he in his lord, that they all might be glorified.

In the scriptures just quoted, God controls and even changes elements using light. That most illusive of particles (or waves) controls time, space, and even the elements. And, light is much more than illumination; it is knowledge. To understand God is to have light and therefore Glory.

That is not all that LDS Scripture answers about the unified theory. Another question is what holds things together without a complete desintegration. Some scientists say that eventually the universe will virtually lose all energy and vanish. Every time they think a discovery is made to prove this idea (such as the "expanding universe" theory), another discovery (like the "rubber band effect" theory) makes things difficult. Lehi attributes the continual existance of the universe to the Atonement:

6 Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth.

7 Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered . . .

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first-born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

Theologically, using LDS Scriptures, the "Unified Theory" is the Power of God. That power is associated with light as a governing field for both the material and spiritual world. The Atonement of Christ keeps the universe from a complete collapse, and allows things to paradoxically expand or progress. With God, everything becomes possible.

Purpose of the Temple

Why do we go to the Temple or even have them? It would be easy to just read the many articles from General Authorities illuminating the answers. Perhaps that would be the best way to learn. My purpose is to catagorize the reasons for a quick reminder of why Temple attendance is important. A few will be my own ideas independant of any previous statements.

Introduction into spiritual adulthood. As has been explained before, many people who go for the first time find the experience strange. It can be a shock to the spiritual expectations from years of church attendance. Most of Latter-day Saint worship is restrained and holds little ceremony. It can be very disorienting to suddenly find yourself in a highly stylized and symbolic service.

I think there is a reason for this, and one that is overlooked by newcomers and initiated alike. Many cultures have ceremonies that mark the time of adulthood. Many of them are unlike anything the person has gone through before. The idea is to test the strength of an individual for the harsher realities of life. Finishing the ordeal teaches the person becoming an adult about themself. The Temple is similar, only there is a spiritual rather than a physical reorientation. The participant has left the old life and entered a new one.

Finding the Kingdom of Heaven within ourselves. Many have compared the Temple to the Gate of Heaven, where you enter into the Spiritual realm of God. Hugh Nibley has said a temple represents both the center of the Universe where the physical and spiritual unite. It is at the Temple that we are reminded of both our place and our potential in the vastness of Eternity. We follow Adam and Eve from the Garden of Immortality and stagnation, the growth and sacrifice of Mortality, and finally to the Exaltation and Eternal Life of the Celestial World. Our mission and destiny is brought to rememberance. We are promised the possibility of becoming the seed of the Son of God.

Making Covenants and symbolically utilizing the Atonement. Latter-day Saints are a covenant people. Like many other Christians, we are asked to take upon us the name of Christ. It is in the Temple that we most boldly take on the blessing and the challenge to become more like Christ in our conduct and faith. We make promises to remain moral individuals, and Loyal to Christ and what we consider to be His Church on Earth. In return, and through symbolic actions, we are able to progress and change through the Atonement of Christ toward Exaltation.

Bring Salvation to others. The most important purpose of the Temple is to bridge the gap between the living and the dead. Modern prophets, starting with Joseph Smith, have emphasised this aspect of Temple service. Joseph Smith explained it best in Doct.& Cov. 128 when talking about work for the dead:

17 And again, in connection with this quotation I will give you a quotation from one of the prophets, who had his eye fixed on the restoration of the priesthood, the glories to be revealed in the last days, and in an especial manner this most glorious of all subjects belonging to the everlasting gospel, namely, the baptism for the dead; for Malachi says, last chapter, verses 5th and 6th: Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

18 I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands. It is sufficient to know, in this case, that the earth will be smitten with a curse unless there is a welding link of some kind or other between the fathers and the children, upon some subject or other—and behold what is that subject? It is the baptism for the dead. For we without them cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect. Neither can they nor we be made perfect without those who have died in the gospel also; for it is necessary in the ushering in of the dispensation of the fulness of times, which dispensation is now beginning to usher in, that a whole and complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and powers, and glories should take place, and be revealed from the days of Adam even to the present time. And not only this, but those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in this, the dispensation of the fulness of times.

when the purpose of the Temple is realized, both in the work and in ourselves, the Kingdom of God will become stronger. Both the living and the dead will have a greater hope in Christ and His Atonement. The dream of Zion will possible when more Latter-day Saints take the Temple seriously for what it is; a House of God for the Salvation of His Children.

Readings for Understanding the Temple

Continuing with this month's theme of understanding the Temple more fully, I have made a list of my favorite sources. As you can see the list has been broken up into two catagories. The first group is writings by Mormons and the other is not. Please be warned: all these books are heavy reading. The usual introductory recommended is not listed.

LATTER-DAY SAINT SOURCES FOR TEMPLE UNDERSTANDING:

My Father's House: Temple Worship and Symbolism in the New Testament
by Richard Neitzel Holzapfel



The Gate of Heaven by Matthew B. Brown



Temple and Cosmos by Hugh Nibley



The Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount: A Latter-day Saint Approach by John Welch



The Lost Language of Symbolism by Alonzo Gaskill



NON-MORMON SOURCES FOR TEMPLE UNDERSTANDING:

The Great Angel by Margaret Barker



The Revelation of Jesus Christ: The Revelation of Jesus Christ: Which God Gave to Him to Show to His Servants What Must Soon Take Place (Revelation 1.1) by Margaret Barker



You can find more information about Margaret Barker at Thinly Veiled where there is a list of her works with excerpts.

The Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell



The Sacred and Profane: The Nature of Religion by Mircea Eliade



Images and Symbols by Mircea Eliade



More information can be found at
Resources for Understanding the History
and Symbolism of LDS Temples for a larger comprehensive list.

Garden of Eden and Evolution as One

This is a post I made as a guest blogger over at The Blogger of Jared about how Evolution and the Garden of Eden might be related. There are some points that I might return to later, such as the idea that the fall brought death; the thorniest issue. You can read other people's responses at the link, or add your own here.



To put it simply, I believe in Evolution as part of the Creation. I also believe in The Garden of Eden, complete with real persons named Adam and Eve. This presents a serious conundrum. Part of our problem is that we are trying to put a round block into a square peg. The two things of The Garden of Eden and Biological Evolution just don't seem to go together. When we try reconciliation, it only ends up messing with one or the other. The importance or existence of one of the two becomes seriously questioned. Assuming that both are correct, how can they be made to co-exist? For years I have been doing a little theological speculation thought experiment on the subject. From my research I have come to a tentative conclusion that they can relate.


First, we must realize that scientific understanding of Creation is not too different from the Scriptural explanations of how it all started. The first day was about the creation of the elemental forces of the universe, particularly light (Gen 1:1-5). The second day talks about the Earth's planetary formation. The land and water are separated from each other, with water probably becoming liquefied below and gaseous above (Gen 1:6-8). After this, the Scriptural account becomes more scrambled from what we know scientifically. Most of the out of order information has to do with the development of time (Abraham 4:13-17). It is more of a conceptual than a creative development, finding uses for what has already been formed.

It is at this point that a very sketchy presentation of Evolution can be read in the material. The first mention of living things is plants, rather than animals (Abraham 4:11-12). This seems consistent with what is known of Earth's development. Plants were the first living things to develop on land. Animals followed later. Reading about the development of animal life can be interpreted to support the idea that life originated in the oceans, as Evolutionary theory postulates:

And the Gods prepared the waters that they might bring forth great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters were to bring forth abundantly after their kind; and every winged fowl after their kind. And the God's saw they would be obeyed, and that their plan was good. (Abraham 4:21)

The Scriptures then state that every creature will bring forth after their kind. For those who don't believe in Evolution, they see this as an indication that changes can't happen. A lion can't bring forth a bear. It wouldn't be after their kind. However, the theory of Evolution doesn't say that is possible either. Any developments would be dependent on the sharing of DNA between two parents. Drastic mutations would hurt the chances for survival. Besides, fossil discoveries seem to provide strong evidence that life has never been static. To me it is about reading two different versions of the same event. God simply didn't fill in the details.

At this point the Garden of Eden must be introduced. Reading of Adam and Eve seems to be a refutation of all that went before. I don't believe that is completely true. Perhaps they have little to do with each other. They both happened, but not for the same reasons. Evolution was in one corner developing life and The Garden in another changing human nature.

The Garden of Eden was most likely the first Temple on the Earth (see The Gate of Heaven by Matthew B. Brown, pg. 26 - 33), and by nature separate from the rest of the planet. Some similarities to the Temple are the Presence of God, a central location, a place where sacred rivers run (see Rev. 22:1), having precious materials that High Priests wear, and etc. It is clear from reading the Scriptural account that the Garden of Eden was a specific place. Modern Revelation has located the Garden of Eden having been in Jackson County Missouri. Like the City of Enoch, it no longer exists on the Earth and might have been taken up to Heaven.

Eventually, although it would have to near the end of Evolution, Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden. It was at this time when the Lord God made coats of skin and clothed them (Moses 4: 27), sending them back to "till the ground from whence he was taken"(Moses 4:29). Adam and Eve had once again become part of the world we know. Pres. Brigham Young said that Adam was born like any person. Perhaps Adam and Eve were taken from the Evolutionary process, made a Son and Daughter of God through Temple ordinances, and returned back when they had become spiritually prepared for a life of choice.

Discovering the Sacred in the Temple

Years ago I first entered the Temple as an emerging adult about to enter the mission field. Although many memories of that experience are vague, there were some thoughts and feelings that are not forgotten. Like many who enter for the first time, it is never what was imagined even after careful (and proper) research. It was strange to see and participate in such a richly symbolic activity. I think, however, that first shock is for a purpose known as initiation. Many cultures have unique and demanding rituals that bridge the gap between the child and adult world. Two reactions are possible. The first is fear of the unknown and never going back. The other, and the one that brought me back, was a need to understand. Years later, I would like to leave some suggestions how to get more out of Temple attendance.

Do not be afraid to return. This should go for all those who might attend for the first time, or have not gone back. Spiritual rewards will outstrip any discomfort from the unusual experience. There are some things in life that must be carefully cultivated in order to enjoy. Learning from the Temple takes time, patience, and prayerful contemplation. Searching the Scriptures is essential to coming to understand the symbolism and meaning behind the experience.

Become familiar with Covenants. We take upon ourselves the name of Jesus Christ at the time of Baptism. This includes a covenant to obey the Commandments of God:

15 Yea, I say unto you come and fear not, and lay aside every sin, which easily doth beset you, which doth bind you down to destruction, yea, come and go forth, and show unto your God that ye are willing to repent of your sins and enter into a covenant with him to keep his commandments, and witness it unto him this day by going into the waters of baptism.

16 And whosoever doeth this, and keepeth the commandments of God from thenceforth, the same will remember that I say unto him, yea, he will remember that I have said unto him, he shall have eternal life, according to the testimony of the Holy Spirit, which testifieth in me.

- Alma 7:15-16

The Temple contains similar covenants we have made at the time of our Baptism. They are split into three different areas. The first is covenants we make as individuals. the second set of covenants we make in regards to family responsibilities. The last set of covenants has to do with our membership in the community of Saints. Become familiar with the Ten Commandments and that we should love God and neighbor. Finally, we should do more than recite covenants, but live them with faith. The more covenants we keep, the more blessings we reap.

Recognize the meanings of symbols. Surprisingly, most of the symbolic meanings found in the Temple experience are spelled out in either words or relationships. Watch carefully what happens and listen for any narrative explanations. The key to undestanding a great deal of the Temple is knowing we are the central focus. It is a representative journey from pre-mortal existance to our return to Heavenly Father through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. This is where a good understanding of Scripture is most helpful, noticing the various allusions to scriptural teachings introduced in new and personal ways.

Use the less understood parts to your advantage. Memory is a vital purpose of the Temple experience. It seeks to bring to mind our place in the Universe and Plan of Salvation. If you do not understand something, try to at least remember it during the rest of the time. It could end up relating to another thing you do undestand, bringing meaning to both. Even if you still don't understand it, focus on what you do know and remember what you don't for later. Part of the joy of continually going to the Temple is that we learn something new each participation.

These are, from my experience over the years, important steps to gaining a sacred respect for the Temple. It takes more than a passive response to become spiritually invigorated by the rich texture that is the Temple.

Let us truly be a temple-attending and a temple-loving people. We should hasten to the temple as frequently, yet prudently, as our personal circumstances allow. We should go not only for our kindred dead but also for the personal blessing of temple worship, for the sanctity and safety that are within those hallowed and consecrated walls. As we attend the temple, we learn more richly and deeply the purpose of life and the significance of the atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. Let us make the temple, with temple worship and temple covenants and temple marriage, our ultimate earthly goal and the supreme mortal experience . . .

. . . All of our efforts in proclaiming the gospel, perfecting the Saints, and redeeming the dead lead to the holy temple. This is because the temple ordinances are absolutely crucial; we cannot return to God’s presence without them. I encourage everyone to worthily attend the temple or to work toward the day when you can enter that holy house to receive your ordinances and covenants. As the prophets have said, the temple is a place of beauty; it is a place of revelation; it is a place of peace. It is the house of the Lord. It is holy unto the Lord. It must be holy and important to us.

- Howard W. Hunter, “A Temple-Motivated People,” Ensign, Feb. 1995, 2

Mormon Spirituality

Many years ago I had wondered what constituted a Mormon spiritual life. The question was brought about by critical comments that the LDS religion was mostly materialistic with its emphasis of an Earthly Kingdom of God and rejection of spirit/body dualism. Usually this criticism comes from those who either believe in "faith only" salvation or believe spiritual matters should mostly be separate from secular concerns. Research on the subject has brought me to a conclusion that might sound too much like a truism than a profound discovery. Mormonism teaches that true spirituality comes from self-sacrifice in the service toward others.

Almost from the start, the concept of self-sacrifice as spiritual power has been a central Mormon teaching. What can be considered the first Priesthood manual stated:

Let us here observe that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation. For from the first existence of man, the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things. It is through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life. And it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are well pleasing in the sight of God.

- Lectures on Faith, N.B. Lundwall Ed., pg 58.

The question is, to what end do we sacrifice? Christianity in general, and Jesus Christ in particular, has stated that giving of ourselves for others is the greatest form of worship. Letting go of our own wants, needs, and desires leads us closer to God and Salvation. Matthew Ch. 25: 40, 45 states:

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

These are statements of action. The fate and fortunes of Eternity rests on what each of us do to others. We can be kind, generous, helpful, forgiving, and other positive things or we can do the opposite. Service becomes more than just an action of faith, but the very process of faith. King Benjamin in the Book of Mormon was perhaps even more blunt in connecting service with worship in his famous sermon to his people:

16 Behold, I say unto you that because I said unto you that I had spent my days in your service, I do not desire to boast, for I have only been in the service of God.

17 And behold, I tell you these things that ye may learn wisdom; that ye may learn that when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God.

18 Behold, ye have called me your king; and if I, whom ye call your king, do labor to serve you, then ought not ye to labor to serve one another?

19 And behold also, if I, whom ye call your king, who has spent his days in your service, and yet has been in the service of God, do merit any thanks from you, O how you ought to thank your heavenly King!

Both Jesus' statements and King Benjamin's statements about service seem to suggest a royal duty for the subjects to serve others. We are, more or less, doing the will of God as Lord and King. Any less than this is actually a type of ingratitude or, in Jesus' example, disloyalty and spiritual treason. This is, in effect, a point that Abinadi was making to the Priests of King Noah. They had flaunted their positions and completely rejected the true reasons for having Priesthood authority. Instead, they try to make Abinadi into a fool by quoting Isa. 52:7 with its declaration that prophets will have positive messages. In return, Abinadi argues ( see Mosiah Ch. 15 ) only those who serve God and follow his Commandments are worthy of giving positive messages. And the only way to follow God's Commandments is by having Faith in Christ, the Son of God and Father of Prophets, who the Priests of Noah have rejected.

Faith in Christ through Service to others is the central tenent of Mormon spirituality. As LDS President Hinkley stated:

Without sacrifice there is no true worship of God. I become increasingly convinced of that every day. "The Father gave his Son, and the Son gave his life," and we do not worship unless we give-give of our substance, give of our time, give of our strength, give of our talent, give of our faith, give of our testimonies.

-Elder Gordon B. Hinkley, BYU Speaches of the Year, Oct 16, 1962.

It is time to adjust more than just our priorities. We should, as Latter-day Saints, adjust our attitude toward building the Kingdom of God. This includes doing our duties, whatever our callings, with happiness and a sense of worship. Preaching the Gospel, Perfecting the Saints, and Redeeming the Dead are acts of Faith that lead to our own Salvation. We draw closer to God by doing more for others. Service is the definition of Mormon spirituality that the theology ultimately points.

What's in a Name? Lamanite Redux

All this talk of Lamanites and DNA is not only old, it is really meaningless. Because of a major news "story" in the LA Times, a completely irrelavant discussion has been resurrected. The more informed treatments can be found here, and this place, and finally here with plenty of counter arguments. Personally, I don't think DNA and what it tells us about the Book of Mormon is the correct question. What is really at issue is what does "Lamanite" and "Nephite" mean? How much of the identification is familial and how much is rhetorical? It might be a little of both and far from mainly one.

The Book of Mormon started out classifying the Lamanites as Lehi's decendants; mostly the brothers of Nephi. That is true enough. Something, however, happened that quickly made that identification muddled. Almost from the start the Lamanites consisted of at least two groups of unrelated peoples. There was Laman and Lemual and then sons of Ishmael. The Nephites had Sam and daughters (perhaps with some sons) of Ishmael. Soon, other groups start popping up everywhere. Some don't even seem to have a cursory relationship to Lehi. In fact, and this is what most Mormons miss and Hugh Nibley constantly pointed out, the primary ancestors of the Book of Mormon peoples were Jaredites! Nephites and Lamanites are meeting the Jaredites everywhere according to name patterns. I think the Mulekites might have been Nephites who ran into a large population of Jaredites and incorporated themselves into the political structure. Both the Mulekite Nephites and Jaredites lost their original cultural connections. The point is, there were other groups living and mingling with each other.

Along with the above diversified populations, there was an event that totally and completely destroyed the very concept of Lamanite and Nephite as family relationships. It was the coming of Jesus Christ. During his ministry both the Lamanites and Nephites, and all other peoples, became one community. It lasted at least a hundred years. After this short era of unity, Lamanite and Nephite became a religio-social designation.

4 Ne. 1: 20
20 And he kept it eighty and four years, and there was still peace in the land, save it were a small part of the people who had revolted from the church and taken upon them the name of Lamanites; therefore there began to be Lamanites again in the land.

It was a self-identy more than family lineage; although some sense of relationships might have inspired the usage. Even then, the designations became fragmented into other sub-groups. One of the most major writers/editors of the Book of Mormon seemed aware that his literally a Nephite was important enough to mention. There were plenty of other groups who weren't.

Mormon 1: 5-10
5 And I, Mormon, being a descendant of Nephi, (and my father’s name was Mormon) I remembered the things which Ammaron commanded me.

6 And it came to pass that I, being eleven years old, was carried by my father into the land southward, even to the land of Zarahemla.

7 The whole face of the land had become covered with buildings, and the people were as numerous almost, as it were the sand of the sea.

8 And it came to pass in this year there began to be a war between the Nephites, who consisted of the Nephites and the Jacobites and the Josephites and the Zoramites; and this war was between the Nephites, and the Lamanites and the Lemuelites and the Ishmaelites.

9 Now the Lamanites and the Lemuelites and the Ishmaelites were called Lamanites, and the two parties were Nephites and Lamanites.

10 And it came to pass that the war began to be among them in the borders of Zarahemla, by the waters of Sidon.

Criticism has been made that early and many modern LDS Church authorities have said that all Native Americans are Lamanites. It is claimed this make it official doctrine. The one place that should set the tone for official doctrine, the Doctrine and Covenants, is not as clear on the subject as first supposed. The Doctrine and Covenants follows the Book of Mormon in catagorizing and then qualifying the names.

D&C 3: 16-20
16 Nevertheless, my work shall go forth, for inasmuch as the knowledge of a Savior has come unto the world, through the testimony of the Jews, even so shall the knowledge of a Savior come unto my people—

17 And to the Nephites, and the Jacobites, and the Josephites, and the Zoramites, through the testimony of their fathers—

18 And this testimony shall come to the knowledge of the Lamanites, and the Lemuelites, and the Ishmaelites, who dwindled in unbelief because of the iniquity of their fathers, whom the Lord has suffered to destroy their brethren the Nephites, because of their iniquities and their abominations.

19 And for this very purpose are these plates preserved, which contain these records—that the promises of the Lord might be fulfilled, which he made to his people;

20 And that the Lamanites might come to the knowledge of their fathers, and that they might know the promises of the Lord, and that they may believe the gospel and rely upon the merits of Jesus Christ, and be glorified through faith in his name, and that through their repentance they might be saved. Amen.

Even in the Doctrine and Covenants there is a hint of a political, as much as lineal, meaning behind the names when it comes to teaching the gospel. A rejection of the gospel seems to be one of the ways to gain the designation "Lamanite" beyond who were your ancestors.

D&C 10:48
48 Yea, and this was their faith—that my gospel, which I gave unto them that they might preach in their days, might come unto their brethren the Lamanites, and also all that had become Lamanites because of their dissensions.

It would be nice to know what percent is "brotheren" and "dissenters" in the makeup. As it is, that could be anyone's guess. There is no doubt that the names Nephite and Lamanite still hold very specific family meaning. When you speak of Lamanite, it can very well be understood as having a relation to Lehi. However, the relationship is thin. It is more like saying Latter-day Saints are of the House of Israel. True enough from a spiritual standpoint. If we are to believe the Scriptures that is true from actual fact; as long as we understand the dilution of the original Israelite blood in our Gentile genes. So, from that perspective the Lamanites are the main progenators of Native Americans. Problem is, that isn't saying much. The original gene pool was mixed up, changed, scattered, and redefined long before Columbus. The answer to the DNA question is in the Book of Mormon. It just takes some paying attention.

Morality of Technology

I was listening to a Sunday School lesson and a comment by the teacher made me pause. He said, to paraphrase, technology is not good or evil only by how it is used. This isn't the first time the statement has been made. For example:

In contrast, as we look at the media today from any vantage point, I think we would have to say that Lucifer’s influence is far more prevalent than the Lord’s. We are in a war. This war is the same war that raged in the premortal world. Lucifer and his followers are committed to an evil direction. . .

. . . As we consider the importance of nourishing our intellects with the promising potential of superhighway resources, we must be ever cautious about our choices of programs and the impact of media upon our lives. Those who understand our Heavenly Father’s eternal plan for the joy and happiness of His children will be better prepared to not only make good choices but also provide good choices as the information superhighway rolls across the world. The computer, television, satellite, microchip, and even the telephone all can bless and enhance our lives, or can make them miserable.

- M. Russell Ballard, “Filling the World with Goodness and Truth,” Ensign, July 1996, 10

There is little question that technology has its advantages. The New Testament is full of Paul complaining of his inability to teach to various congregations because of the time it took for words or persons to travel. Today a modern Apostle can be heard almost instantaneously or travel to the far reaches of the world in only days. Problem areas are easily accessable and organization a simple click on the keyboard. Through the marvel of television and satallites the words of Apostles and Prophets cannot be mistaken. Faces can become as familiar as if they had visited in person.

Despite all that, one must look at technology with the criterion of "use" to see if it is more good or evil. My conclusion is that technology is mostly evil. Television, radio, and the Internet are largely filled with pornography, hatred, violence, and "satanic" ideology. Most other inventions have complicated our lives at the same time it has made them easier - as recent disasters have proven such complete lack of survival skills without vast amounts of outside help. Even though we now have controlled or eradicated ancient deseases or physical problems, weapons have become deadlier to the point of easily destroying humanity off the face of the Earth. Technology has even created greater gaps between the rich and the poor, with more toys available and less things the poor can do without.

One possible solution is to seriously limit the amount of radio, television, and Internet within our lives. Become more aquanted with making things by hand and interacting face to face as friends and neighbors. Humanity has become a vast network, but not a commmunity. Often Mormons are mistaken for Amish who reject most modern inventions. Perhaps that isn't a bad group to be associated. It is time for Latter-day Saints to become less willing to take technology for granted. We are too lazy with important things, too busy with superficial things, and too distracted from spritual things. Indications are that both our physical and spiritual health is at risk.

I would recommend reading Find Your Own Grove, although I disagree with its conclusions. The problem is not our inability to interact with nature, but to find silence that is important to contemplation. Too many voices are shouting for our attention and we allow them too much space. Lets share some ideas how to declutter the techno-jungle and pop-culture pandering.

Era of Religious Respect?

The use of "respect" rather than "tolerance" in the title is very important. They are not the same words, and can have very specific meanings. Toleration is often used as a blunt instrument that silences voices and forces acceptance with tyrannical consiquences. To respect something doesn't always mean accepting as of equal importance. Respect is why I feel it is right for the cartoons to run and it is right for the Mulsims to demostrate against them. At the same time, intolerance is the reason why I feel it is wrong for the cartoons to run and it is wrong for the Muslims to demonstrate. Respect is about accepting the existance and important of viewpoints. Tolerance is simply intolerance of particular viewpoints that aren't within the accepted norm of permissable discussion.

The Muslim outcry over blasphemous cartoons has created a discussion between freedom of expression and decourum, democracy and religious passion. It is a discussion that secularists have thought unworthy of consideration when it comes to Christians. For too long Western secularism, especially of the Hollywood kind, has treated Christian beliefs as childish at best and dangerous at worst. What has the Christian reaction been? A stimied, but gradually louder, voice of dissent.

Hopefully the demonstrations by vocal Muslims will energize religious people in the West to resist their own beliefs getting brutalized. The problem is that Muslim demonstrators should not be role models for the future war against secularized society. Militantism is considered both unChristian and an exchange of one bad thing for another. It is, however, the resistance that Christians should emulate as they contend for the faith. But, there is something about taking actions that speak louder than words as long as it isn't violent. As examples:



NBC pulls the plug
on 'Book of Daniel'

Nashville's WSMV-TV General Manager Elden Hale, Jr. said: "Based on a review of the first three episodes and the clearly voiced concerns from our viewers, we have determined that the program 'The Book of Daniel' is not appropriate for broadcast television in this community."

After the first three episodes, only Burlington Coat Factory was left as a national sponsor.

The heat began to generate for the show following WND's first story. Shortly afterward, the American Family Association launched a national boycott, citing WND's story.

AFA Chairman Donald E. Wildmon said NBC's decision to cancel the program is instructive.

"This shows the average American that he doesn't have to simply sit back and take the trash being offered on TV, but he can get involved and fight back with his pocketbook," he said.

The network had to absorb millions of dollars in losses each time it aired the program, Wildmon pointed out, because the show's sponsors bailed out.

"We want to thank the 678,394 individuals who sent e-mails to NBC and the thousands who called and e-mailed their local affiliates," he added.

Besides Nashville, other NBC affiliates across the nation either never aired the show or stopped broadcasting it. They included Hattiesburg, Miss.; Meridian, Miss.; Jackson, Miss.; Amarillo, Texas; Wichita, Kan.; Beaumont, Texas; and Terre Haute, Ind.

Only six episodes of the "Book of Daniel" were shot. Kevin Reilly, NBC Entertainment president, said the network's reluctance to order more episodes had more to do with the series' sluggish ratings performance than controversy.

NBC halts Britney's
crucifixion mockery

Reacting to pressure from Christian groups, NBC canceled an episode of "Will & Grace" that featured Britney Spears as a conservative who hosts a cooking segment called "Cruci-fixin's" on a Christian TV network.

NBC last week was forced to pull its highly touted new show "The Book of Daniel" because of charges its portrayal of Jesus was blasphemous.

The point is that Western society should learn how to be more respectful of faith. It shouldn't take a Fawtwa like stance in the decision to show respect. On the other hand, all religious people should understand enough of how Muslims feel about the sacred to reject the violence without throwing out the message.

It still leaves a question of how Mormons should respond to disrespect for the sacred. After all, there are some things in the LDS religion that have the same "don't touch" policy (although for different reasons) that Muslims do about their prophet. Should we take a stronger stand or ignore it as immature posturing?