Separate From the World

For the past few years President Hinkley has tried to make people of the world, particularly the United States, more familiar with Mormons. He has gone on television many times and talked about his faith and the Church in general. It is hard to say how successful that has been in changing perceptions. His main message has been that Latter-day Saints are different, but not weird. Although "weird" is a matter of opinion, the gospel demands that we be different from the world. Those who wish to "be in the world, but not of it," often are not sure where to draw the line.

Missionary Work and non-Christians

When Joseph Smith had his First Vision, or presented the Book of Mormon as his first public sermon, the message was clearly for the Christians of his day. Ever since then most missionary work has been geared toward those who recognize "The Gospel" as a set of particular theology. They might not agree on the specifics of the theology, but they would not misunderstand the message. As a group that would like to become a "World" rather than a "Regional" religion, Mormonism's success among non-Christian society has been far from promising. To the chagrin of many Christian denominations it seems that Mormons are destined to follow the coat tails of other sects missionaries. That might be so, even by God's design.

Still, it would be nice to think what could possibly be an approach that opens up more missionary work among Taoists, Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims, etc. Is the message of the Restoration simply that? The Creedal Christians teach of Jesus Christ, and Mormons teach of a return to the original Christian authority. Looking at European Christians' recent response to Mormon missionary work and the "among the fastest growing" doesn't sound very possible to sustain. Ironically, it is in Africa that the growth has been most noticeable aside from the Western Hemisphere. Even then, it is mostly among those who have been taught Christianity and already have faith in Jesus Christ as Savior. Most of the rest of those who follow other religions are deaf to Mormon missionaries or don't have a chance to hear them teach.

The future of the LDS Church, as trends seem to indicate, is not among the Westernized Christians who are losing their faith and morals as the years progress. It is to be found among the non-Christians who are not afraid to declare God in public and base their lives off of their own prophets and Scripture. What can Mormon missionaries learn from other denomination Christian missionaries? Should we learn from them? It is beyond my personal observations and any kinds of expertise to even start answering those questions.

Ammon can be the start of a template in reconciling these difficulties. His first missionary activity was not to preach the word, but to live it in service:

22 And the king inquired of Ammon if it were his desire to dwell in the land among the Lamanites, or among his people.

23 And Ammon said unto him: Yea, I desire to dwell among this people for a time; yea, and perhaps until the day I die.

24 And it came to pass that king Lamoni was much pleased with Ammon, and caused that his bands should be loosed; and he would that Ammon should take one of his daughters to wife.

25 But Ammon said unto him: Nay, but I will be thy servant. Therefore Ammon became a aservant to king Lamoni. And it came to pass that he was set among other servants to watch the flocks of Lamoni, according to the custom of the Lamanites.
-- Alma 17:22-25

It is often said that Mormon missionaries are seen as simply uber-Americans for good and bad. There is plenty of truth in this. Now, according to LDS Scripture this is also what God intended. However, there is also warning that flagrant disregard for the reason God chose America as center of the Restoration would be disastrous. It might be prudent, God willing, that an Apostle actually live and work full time in an Asian or African country. Better yet, that a person from those places who are strong in the faith and yet come from a completely foreign background are called as Mormon missionary ambassadors. This would be for both directions - teaching the Gospel to one group, and customs, belief, and etc. to the Saints.

Ultimately, it comes down to what would interest a non-Christian to be interested in a blatantly Christian (regardless of sectarian creedal arguments) religion. Right now there are too many political, aside from religious or cultural, boundaries to make the question of immediate concern. Most of Asia and the Middle East are off limits to any Christian. Even the inroads that have been made between Muslims and Mormons are seriously compromised by equal amounts of zealous claims of theological truth. India is a country that, although still volatile, has the most promise for ripe missionary work.

The person that comes to mind most with these issues is the "Apostle to the Gentiles" Paul who seemed to arguably navigate between the Jewish world and the Roman one. His success, like what was pointed out as a suggestion above, seemed to be his dual citizenship in Israel and Rome. Better yet, his familiarity with both cultures. Perhaps what continues to make the idea of a greater non-Christian missionary effort so enticing is his proclamation:

14 I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.

15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

And it could be added; to the Asian, Euro-Indian, African, as well as the European. If Western civilization is slowly dying (as I believe it is from its own peculiar social isolationism) the question of missionary work among non-Christians is becoming more relevant. The LDS Church has a chance to greatly expand its numbers in an honest world-religion status. Such a situation can only happen when the Saints step back from its tiny larger shell of a shell and consider the greater picture. Having an expanded vision and different approaches (whatever they might be) could make "are Mormons Christians?" seem trivial and banal inter-sectarian fighting. Having success outside of "Westernized culture" could make for a greater diversity of faith and an expanded definition of Zion.

Personal Responsibility is Dying

For the past few years I have had a job where I hear lots of excuses for not fulfilling commitments. Many think that they can just yell a little louder, cry a little longer, and generally give the biggest fish story and everything will just go away. Considering that the business has to make money, and these people are using the product, it is amazing how forgiving the company already is - and in some instances by law. Yet, many of these people act as if it is the company's fault they can't pay. It is as if America for them has become a Communist State where everything is free. I don't work for a credit card company, but I have seen the same thing with them as well. The slogan has become "buy this NOW and pay LATER," with many adding their own, ". . . if at all and no consequences." This is nothing new, but the idea of personal responsibility is approaching a lost virtue.

The trouble is that personal responsibility is absolutely essential to a healthy civilization. When no one accepts mistakes there cannot be a corrective. Worse, what is replacing this is not a lack of concern, but blaming others. When no one takes responsibility, but everyone thinks its the other person's fault, it shouldn't come as a surprise that society is seriously fractured. At a personal level, recognizing mistakes is the first step toward repentance and true happiness:

When faced with the consequences of transgression, rather than looking to ourselves as the source of the discomfort which always accompanies sin, many of us tend to blame someone else. Rather than getting out of a vicious and senseless circle, we fault our neighbor for our pain and try to pass it on. But to repent we must leave the circle.

The first step in the repentance process has always been simply to recognize that we have done wrong. If we are so hedged about by pride, rationalization, machismo, or a misdirected sense of self-esteem as to prevent us from ever admitting that we are part of the problem, we are in trouble. We then may not even know of our need to repent. We will have no idea whether the Lord is pleased with us or not and may become “past feeling.” (1 Ne. 17:45.) But all men, everywhere, must repent. (See 3 Ne. 11:32.) To fail to do so is to perish. (See Luke 13:3; Hel. 7:28.)

To excuse misconduct by blaming others is presumptuous at best and is fatally flawed with regard to spiritual things, for “we believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.” (A of F 1:2.) This not only means that we will not be punished for what Adam did in the Garden, but also that we cannot excuse our own behavior by pointing a finger to Adam or anyone else. The real danger in failing to accept responsibility for our own actions is that unless we do, we may never even enter on the strait and narrow path. Misconduct that does not require repentance may be pleasant at first, but it will not be for long. And it will never lead us to eternal life.
-- F. Burton Howard, “Repentance,” Ensign, May 1991, 12

My experiences have made me more hesitant to help other people. I know this goes against the teaching that we should help without question when others are in need. The problem is, just giving to people no matter what might be putting them - and society - in a worse situation. They become beholden to handouts and start living off others. Instead of trying to find solutions and change for the better, they act as if everyone and everything is conspiring against them. Eventually, all avenues are exhausted and the only thing they are left with is poverty and anger. Seeing people like that (and there are many) makes others less likely to show compassion when another truly in need comes along.

Perhaps it isn't about not giving, but trying to give more wisely. Next time someone comes along asking for help, the first thing I will do is ask what have you done or thought of doing to get yourself out of the situation? Most likely that won't help for those I meet haphazard on the street. Then again, there I go blaming others and not taking responsibility for those in need. It is a spiral that is drowning us all.

Romney is no JFK

. . . and that might not be a bad thing for his intended constituency. For about six months the "anti-Mormon" diatribe has been mostly the creation of a liberal press out to give the impression of an epic battle that only exists in their imagination. After all, the only ones that have been posting scathing attacks on Mitt's faith have been the Media with quotes in the stories and some Liberals; hardly a place for Evangelical Christian voices. For that reason, the media have been the ones that have created the "Mormon question" out of thin cloth. The near silence of the Christian Right, despite the untrustworthy polls, on the Mormon faith of Romney seemed a relief.

That has slowly changed. The religious opposition to Mitt's Mormonism has gained some steam among Republican Religious Right advocates. That isn't to say there haven't been outspoken Evangelical Christians who have given support to the Presidential bid. However, there does seem to be a sharp split between those who think it should bar him and those who think it shouldn't. Despite the loud advice that Romney should give a similar rousing "JFK and the Catholic Question" speech, the party and the politics Romney finds himself in could actually make it a failure.

The most important difference is that the Republican Party is not the same as when JFK talked to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. More importantly, JFK was a Democrat in a country relatively secure in the idea of a national religious commonality. Back then there was no Religious Right. Such a movement of conservative religious political activists was still underground from the time of the repeal of alcohol prohibition. That stunning national rebuke, according to some historians, caused the Evangelical movement to turn inwards and shun politics. It wasn't until the 60s when the social traditions of the United States were questioned and attacked that a Religious Right slowly gained political momentum. Now they are in full bloom and very potent.

Religion does matter to a large segment of the Republican party. It has yet to be proven how much of an inclusive or exclusive brand of religiosity is involved. What is known is that any presidential candidate in the primaries has to face issues of faith, or be rejected by a powerful group of voters. That is why Romney cannot act like JFK. Any attack on religious political participation to the degree that Kennedy expressed would alienate the core religious voters. For instance, Romney could never (and probably would never) say anything like:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President -- should he be Catholic -- how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him.

or:

I believe in a President whose views on religion are his own private affair, neither imposed upon him by the nation, nor imposed by the nation upon him¹ as a condition to holding that office.

and:

I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition -- to judge me on the basis of 14 years in the Congress, on my declared stands against an Ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools -- which I attended myself

Where JFK could get away with this then, as he was a Democrat and his true audience was outside the halls of his speech, those words are anathema to the Republican Religious Right at this time. For starters, many believe that the idea of Separation of Church and State is an un-Constitutional lie and discriminatory to people of faith. Second, related to the former, aid to parochial schools and boycotts against public schools are considered a fight for the rights of religious people to have a voice.

It is for this reason Romney must be very careful about what he says when distancing himself from religious issues. Unlike JFK, who many suspected was Catholic in name only and had a large general election Catholic support, Romney doesn't have the luxury or the political philosophy to draw a sharp line. That would cost him as much support in the primaries as it might save him in the general election. As explained elsewhere about the religious audience he would be talking with:

Romney and his advisers compare the speech he will give to John Kennedy's appearance before the Houston Ministerial Association in which he addressed concerns about his Catholicism by talking about "an America where the separation of church and state is absolute." Romney can't say exactly that, since many of the supporters he's courting think the doctrine of separation of church and state is not enshrined in the Constitution and has been used by liberals to take religion out of public life. Plus, he's not asking that his faith not be an issue. He wants it to be an issue. He's running on it, but he wants to be the one to draw the line marking where his faith ends.

The best intellectual argument Romney could use isn't available to him, which is that all religions have their odd traditions and beliefs that look highly quirky under close examination. Romney could use my Catholic Church as an example, but in doing so, he'd risk alienating another key constituency. Imagine what fun he could have had with the Charismatics, some of whom speak in tongues or drink snake venom.

And so Romney is stuck in the middle of a very delicate balance. He is trying to come off (and arguably with more success than compared to the other two legitimate contenders) as "The Conservative" choice, but not have to deal with the "cultic beliefs" that his natural constituents brand him as having. As things have picked up outside the print establishment, his chances are not looking good. At best he has some strong support among Evangelical leaders, but the ground forces are fidgety.

It would be best to take up the mantra of conservative commentator Hugh Hewett, "I'm not looking for a pastor. I'm looking for a President," if the Religious Right is going to have any power in '08 elections. There is still time for that to happen, but no speech is going to sooth souls when faith is more than a side issue. Certainly Giuliani and McCain haven't been friendly to the religiously motivated. It will have to be up to the people to decide if theology or public morality is the ideals driving the political wagon. Those who say you can't have one without the other might find themselves standing alone.

Supremacy of Revelation

One of the more interesting ideas in By the Hand of Mormon by Terryl L. Givens is the idea that the Book of Mormon introduces a form of revelation that is rejected by most Western religions. He states that almost all Christians have described the word “Revelation” as a metaphorical transmission of God’s revealing Himself. There is no actual concrete information that is given to a person who contacts the Divine entity. The argument seems to be that to claim a direct communication of actual words is to 1) ascribe anthropomorphism to God who is not human and 2) be open to fanaticism and heresy. However, the Book of Mormon explicitly introduces “dialogic revelation” as a true sign of faith and spiritual development. It should be part of the lives of everyone:

The Book of Mormon here becomes a study in contrast. Through chiastic form, thematic structure, numerous textual examples, and a final concluding instance of readerly invitation, the scripture hammers home the insistent message that revelation is the province of everyman. As a consequence, in the world of the Book of Mormon, concepts like revelation, prayer, inspiration, mystery find powerful and substantive redefinition. That may well be the Book of Mormon’s most significant and revolutionary – as well as controversial – contribution to religious thinking. The particularity and specificity, the vividness, the concreteness, and the accessibility of revelatory experience – those realities both underlie and overshadow the narrated history and doctrine that constitute the record. The “knowability” of all truth, the openness of mystery, the reality of personal revelation find vivid illustration within the record and invite reenactment outside it. (Givens, pg. 221)

This presents for Mormons a very strong challenge. It is not enough to simply feel good about spiritual experiences and consider us enlightened. Receiving revelation must take a step beyond the metaphorical and become literal. As Joseph Smith explained, “A person may profit by noticing the first intimation of the spirit of revelation; for instance, when you feel pure intelligence flowing into you, it may give you sudden strokes of ideas, so that by noticing it, you may find it fulfilled the same day or soon.” (TJS, pg 151). Ultimately, the purpose of “dialogic revelation” is to bring Salvation by bringing us into the very presence of God with the knowledge gained. Again, as Joseph Smith has said, no one can be saved in ignorance. This is more than a prescription to book learning, but direct instruction to search out Heavenly communication for our own eternal welfare. Indeed, it is the key to that most forgotten subject of much speculation; the Second Comforter.

It is often stated by Latter-day Saints that the return of Revelation and Prophets is the central originality of Mormonism. What is perhaps less acknowledged is that personal revelation is as important a theological teaching as any corporate claim of authoritative pronouncements. Of course, it has been taught almost from the beginning that no revelation is accepted outside of a person’s authoritative jurisdiction. That still leaves room for the equally necessary individual communication with the Divine. Despite what Givens says about the Bible having almost no discussion of personal revelation, Mormons often quote Numbers 11: 24-29 as instructive:

24 And Moses went out, and told the people the words of the LORD, and gathered the seventy men of the elders of the people, and set them round about the tabernacle.

25 And the LORD came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders: and it came to pass, that, when the spirit rested upon them, they prophesied, and did not cease.

26 But there remained two of the men in the camp, the name of the one was Eldad, and the name of the other Medad: and the spirit rested upon them; and they were of them that were written, but went not out unto the tabernacle: and they prophesied in the camp.

27 And there ran a young man, and told Moses, and said, Eldad and Medad do prophesy in the camp.

28 And Joshua the son of Nun ,the servant of Moses, one of his young men, answered and said, My lord Moses, forbid them.

29 And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD’s people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!

With so much emphasis on Revelation, there is still less practical applications observable in the lives of Latter-day Saints. This is not to say that many don’t hold the concept in high esteem as theory. Yet, when asked what was the last revelation a person remembers having, many if not most Mormons would probably point to the time they gained a testimony or a missionary story. Two possibilities are that revelation is not recognized when received or it is not easy to obtain. Considering the importance placed on communicating with God, it might be time to practice recognizing the intimations of the Spirit in a more "enthusiastic" tradition. Not a simple task, but essential to Salvation.

Humor and the Gospel

No longer available due to publishing issues.

Theory of Mormon Theology

There was a discussion about the value of theology that questioned why Latter-day Saints have such a hard time accepting the study of theology. It got me thinking of my own interest in the subject. Surely Mormons dabble in the study of theology more than credit has been given. They just don't know it. Discussing the personal opinions about the Last Days and what the Afterlife will be like can generate a lot of theological debate. The confusing might be on how casual it all can sound. There is a disjointedness that is hard to say creates a formal approach to doctrinal exigesis.

Mormons probably don’t like (systematic) theology because of the attitudes of the early leaders, particularly Joseph Smith. Theology is often interpreted as dogma, and “dogma” is considered even worse than theology because of the inherent rejection of new revelation. The word “doctrine” is far more accepted a term because it isn’t seen as related to a closed set of rules and beliefs. Thus, why Bruce R. McConkie's book was named “Mormon Doctrine” rather than “Mormon Theology” when published.

Divine Motherhood

One of the unique doctrines of the LDS Church is the existence of a Mother in Heaven. It is more than a trivial speculative idea, but part of the foundational teachings associated with Exaltation. Although particulars are not available, the doctrine is enshrined in one of the most beloved hymns “Oh My Father” by Eliza R. Snow. It states, “in the heavens, are parents single?” and replies, “no . . . truth eternal tells me I’ve a mother there.” President Wilford Woodruff proclaimed the hymn a revelation. To add to that, it is impossible to fully comprehend the doctrines of eternal families without accepting the implications.

Yet, some are troubled by the lack of particulars. Usually those who would like women to have a greater role in the LDS Church, and especially would like Priesthood positions granted to them voice these concerns. The refrain to such requests is “the subject is too sacred,” or more forcefully, “God doesn’t want His wife mocked and ridiculed by the World as He lovers Her too much.” There is truth in this, but it doesn’t really answer the question of near silence. The Scriptures don’t even hint this. Prophets, if they have said anything at all, have not made that proclamation (although they have numerous times in relation to Temple ordinances) a central concern. There are some answers, but not ones that will either close off the discussion or be comforting to the critics of minimalism.

On Earth as In Heaven

What we know about our Heavenly Mother is perhaps more than realized. This is because most Mormons, both “progressive” and “traditional” are looking for things overly transcendent. The “Easy to understand” is seen as less worthy of respect then something that can be forever argued and dissected. Perhaps worse for some is that the conclusion of Her nature casts a shadow on certain aspirations.

The key to understanding Heavenly Mother is both in the name and a simple verse of the Doctrine and Covenants. It occurs in the famous “Civil War Prophecy” of D&C 130:

1 When the Savior shall appear we shall see him as he is. We shall see that he is a man like ourselves.

2 And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy.

Although it has more to do with the nature of God and our relation to Him than gender issues, the idea expressed of “that same sociality” has repercussions. There is not a lot of differences between what we observe here on Earth and human nature in the Eternities. It is true that we are perhaps more prone to sin, misunderstanding, lies, and mistakes in mortality. Yet, it is clear that mothers are a very important part of the social fabric of humanity. To understand motherhood is to understand Heavenly Mother, just as Fatherhood brings its own lessons. The recent Proclamation on the Family emphasizes the Earthly relationships of gender to Eternal truth:

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children . . .

. . . By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

Therefore, we know that Heavenly Mother is just that; a woman who takes care of children. There is no pretence as to how that can be achieved other than through the known doctrine of Faith, Hope, and Charity or more succinctly Love. Learn how to cultivate those characteristics and the more the nature of Heavenly Mother will become clear. For those who believe that raising children is a disgrace or beneath a fully spiritual identity, Jesus had some choice words:

10 Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

11 For the Son of man is come to Save that which was lost.

-- Matt. 18: 10-11

Of course, not every woman has the opportunity to marry or raise children here on Earth. However, if Heaven is the ideal and families reflect Heaven, then Time only is of concern and not ultimate circumstances. There is much that we must, as religious people, hope for in the next life that cannot be attained in mortal probation. Marriage and children might be part of that anticipation for a better Eternal life. Creating a false Goddess figure only separates us from real Salvation through Jesus Christ.

Worship and Salvation

This possibility is not without precedent. Some scholars have seen within the Bible a fight for repressing a more female oriented worship. In other words, additional theology of a fertility Goddess that either goes with or usurps the male God that is accepted as the I AM that should have no other Gods before Him. Some would say the “go with” is not theologically unacceptable. However, Jesus warned:

17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.

18 so be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub.

--Luke 11: 17-18

It would be near impossible not to develop two theological worship systems that didn't diverge. Like manna, a choice between one and the other would be inevitable when both insist upon our devotion. As is clearly taught in the Scriptures, Jesus Christ has already been established as the only Way to Salvation; and he does not give room for another deity beyond Father as the focus of our Prayers. It is true that he acts with God, but ultimately he gives the glory to God. There is an example of prayer to enhance this point:

9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.

10 Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

11 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

12 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

13 For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.

-- 3 Ne. 13: 9-13

The nature of Heavenly Mother is clearly defined, as is her role. Scriptures do not mention Her because she is not part of the plan of salvation beyond what we already know of motherhood. The deity we worship continues to be Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as One, and They have been consistent on who and what we must do to be saved. If honesty is important, those who want to “graduate” the female half of Heavenly Parents must acknowledge there isn’t much known about Father in Heaven either. We know as much as we do about Him because Jesus is His representative. Ultimately it is through Jesus Christ that we get near the Father, and it is through the Father that the Mother can be percieved.

Operations of the Spirit

Sometimes when watching a movie that has a very emotional scene, it might move us to tears. There is a glowing feeling, for instance, in a romantic movie when the guy finally tells the girl how much he loves her. For the most part men are less emotional in those instances. Yet, there are probably many times that the same kinds of feelings can be evoked even from them. There is something about human nature that brings out hope, goodwill, and what we might call spiritual stirrings.

This can beg the question of what is the difference between these partly artificial feelings and the workings of the Spirit. Many times both are described as similar. Perhaps it is simply the Spirit touching us with any instance of "virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy." Some find this troubling because individually not everyone agrees what those should be. What moves one person, even among Mormons who believe so strongly in spiritual manifestations, draws a blank for others.

Perhaps this is because of a one dimensional understanding of the way the Spirit operates. There is a lot more to the Witness of the Holy Ghost then the "burning in the bosom" that is often made light of by believers and unbelievers alike.

We must understand that the Holy Ghost, through the Light of Christ, can touch anyone. As states in Moroni 7: 16-17 when talking about recognizing good things:

16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

It is in this way that Missionaries can bring investigators to repentance. They recognize the first intimations of the Spirit and, if they act upon those feelings, can come to the truth of the Gospel.

We must be careful to not confuse the Witness of the Spirit with the Power of the Spirit. This is where many lose faith because they see signs of the Spirit everywhere and start questioning if the LDS Church is the only one with God's authority. Joseph Smith explained:

"There is a difference between the Holy Ghost and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Cornelius received the Holy Ghost before he was baptised, which was the convincing power of God unto him of the truth of the Gospel, but he could not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after he was baptised. Had he not taken this sign or ordinance upon him, the Holy Ghost which convinced him of the truth of God, would have left him." (History of Church 4:555)

With a proper understanding of the operations of the Spirit, we can grow in faith and increase the productivity of our lives. The key to this is in the Gifts of the Spirit available to those who have been properly baptized and confirmed as members of the Church. It is not in the "feelings born of testimony" that the Power of the Holy Ghost is a greatest blessing. That is only the beginning of wisdom. The real focus of our Spiritual enlightenment should be in obtaining the Gifts of the Spirit. As listed in D&C 46: 13-28, among other places, there are many gifts available.

The Gifts are given to those who seek them. Everyone has different gifts, but they cannot get them without at least seeking out the Spiritual blessings. Those who have been given the Holy Ghost are not simply handed them. As Verses 7-10 states:

7 But ye are commanded in all things to ask of God, who giveth liberally; and that which the Spirit testifies unto you even so I would that ye should do in all holiness of heart, walking uprightly before me, cconsidering the end of your salvation, doing all things with prayer and thanksgiving, that ye may not be seduced by evil spirits, or doctrines of devils, or the commandments of men; for some are of men, and others of devils.

8 Wherefore, beware lest ye are deceived; and that ye may not be deceived seek ye earnestly the best gifts, always remembering for what they are given;

9 For verily I say unto you, they are given for the benefit of those who love me and keep all my commandments, and him that seeketh so to do; that all may be benefited that seek or that ask of me, that ask and not for a sign that they may consume it upon their lusts.

10 And again, verily I say unto you, I would that ye should always remember, and always retain in your minds what those gifts are, that are given unto the church.

Living in the World can make it difficult to have the Holy Ghost in our lives. It will not always strive with us, especially when we give into the enticing of the flesh and sin. It is sadly far too common for a person to lose faith because they lose the Spirit. Often this is because the cares of the World and Sin enter into the heart and the Holy Ghost cannot dwell in unclean things.

The person loses the Holy Ghost, and recognizing something is missing they lose the faith. They seek to fill the void with something else, and find a replacement with negativity, more sin, or false spirituality. It is sad they more often think something becomes wrong with God or the Church then with themselves. Paul warned in Gal 5: 17-25 about the difference between living by the flesh and living by the Spirit:

17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

We must learn to recognize Spiritual operations vs. the Natural inclinations. The former is eternal and the latter is fleeting. That is the first and greatest key to coming to truth, gaining faith, and becoming more like Christ. King Benjamin in Mosiah 4: 9-10 summed it up when he said:

9 Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend.

10 And again, believe that ye must repent of your sins and forsake them, and humble yourselves before God; and ask in sincerity of heart that he would forgive you; and now, if you believe all these things see that ye do them.

Sitting around thinking, watching, reading, and generally observing does not get us anywhere. The Holy Ghost becomes a neutral in our lives and then "gets bored" and leaves. Faith is an action word and only living by the Word of God can the operations of the Spirit become fully capable of changing lives. Don't rest faith on emotionalism alone; but be an active participant in Church, Community, and family. Those who distance themselves from these things because they are not closer to the Holy Ghost then they should be are the most likely to lose faith altogether. Living the Gospel is how we find God and have the Holy Ghost with us.

The Bloggernacle Dilemma

There was a time when the blog group known as "Bloggernacle," that is a play on Tabernacle if anyone doesn't already know, was a very busy place. It didn't take long for comments to be piled up on each other. This was especially the case with big group blogs and those that started the trend. Even now they get a good sized participation, but not nearly as much as in the past. Many of the single blogs have dropped down to one or two comments when an article is posted. Still other blogs have simply dimmed away and have not been replaced. All this could be chalked up to the season, but it has been going on for several months.

Several questions could be asked about this, although no actual study has been done. It could very well be subjective observation. It’s not as if this blog ever generated much of a buzz. Yet, there are several "regular" reads that are not producing much work, if any at all.

Possibly those who participate have become bored by the community chat. Sometimes it does seem that topics are picked over time and again. What could be said by most has probably already been said. This is not to say new and interesting posts have not been written, but they have become rare. Then again, that is another subjective observation that can easily be rejected. The more controversial topics become a feeding frenzy that quickly dies down filled with the usual suspects.

Another probability is the "circle the wagon" syndrome, where readers latch on to particular blogs and don't explore others. This is reasonable considering the number of blogs out there to be read. Having to read every one of them in a list and commenting on them, especially with something to say, could be a full time job. It could also be a fun challenge for at least a week. Considering the seeming downshift of the Bloggernacle, perhaps it wouldn't be so hard at this time. There is the idea that "diversification" of single writer blogs have inundated the reader and siphoned off simple commentors. This doesn't seem to be the answer as, again, there aren’t a lot of new faces.

It isn't that any of this is of importance to the real world. There have been a few who, for various reasons, see the Bloggernacle as a kind of support group. What is at issue is all the predictions made early on about the promise of the whole venture. No longer would a person be stuck only with a set of real world people who probably don't have the same interests or needs. Particularly with Latter-day Saints, a more open and talkative "Ward" would develop that gets past simple Sunday School discussions. The blog is especially suited for the "create your own systematic theology" that Mormonism often exhibits. Of course the danger is sometimes not telling apart the orthodox from the speculative and worse. That is partly why the "Straight and Narrow Blog" was created; to offer a more controlled discussion and topic check. It evolved to have a less defensive posture, but still remains faithful to the LDS Church and its teachings. It seems "The Blogger of Jared morphed into the intentions of this blog.

Where does the Bloggernacle go from here? That depends on the reality of the observation. It could move to another place. Writers could spread out and try to make a niche for themselves. Only the strongest and most popular could survive - with a few determined stragglers. Like Web Pages before it, the blog could be replaced by a new Internet communication structure. Yet, it could be the slowing down is just a short trend that will pick back up with time. As the saying goes, only the future can tell.

Acumen of Mormon Business

When the LDS Church was first founded, there wasn't any hint of a financial powerhouse in the making. If anything, the complete opposite seemed to be the case. Joseph Smith came from a farming family living on the edge of social, political, and capital existence. Although there were a few rich people who were converted, the majority of early members came from not much better than poverty. A hint of democracy and self-reliance was taught as theological probabilities, but the driving financial model was a form of communistic philanthropy. It failed whenever practiced and left tithing as the main economic structure.

For decades the financial situation was at best questionable. Most of the resources came from people's hard work more than money. Things came to a head during the "Great Polygamy Raids" that almost brought the LDS Church to ruins. It wasn't until soon after the 20th Century started that the Church and members alike were recognized as a financial success. Now, the rich business owner who started with almost nothing more than wits and an idea has become almost a cliche as well known as the so-called Jewish Banker. The web site Famous Mormons does seem to make this case when the list of Top Executive and Business names is the only one split alphabetically. It is not clear how accurate this is, or even if the stereotype identification is desirable.

At least one writer has decided to look closer at the business practices of a few successful top CEOs of some Mormon-run companies. What the author, Jeff Benedict, came up with in his book The Mormon Way of Doing Business was how religion played such a large part of how things were run. There is a book review of The Mormon Way at Dave's Mormon Inquiry that discusses the book's content. Although the ideas are refreshing, the relationship of business and faith is more questionable. The implication is that these people are model business executives because they follow the tenets of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is sort of a Calvanist work ethic writ large.

Some attention has been paid to this book, and the LDS business style, by a few non-Mormon publications. Two of them include Hall of Fame Magazine's article written by the book author and Arizona Daily Star's look at the book, with both as a positive for Mormon/Business mixing. Such a simple relationship of following God and finding financial success is probably not as simple as it sounds. This is especially the case theologically, where prosperity doesn't always mean righteousness and poverty can sometimes be a spiritual blessing.

Capitalism is not evil. Money is not evil. At worst they are tools that can be used for good or evil. The question is how accurate is it to say that Mormons have a business ethic that can bring financial success? From just the descriptions about the book and the articles above, it seems much is missing from an accurate portrayal of the moneymaking abilities of Mormons who follow their religion. For the handful of reliable and well to do CEO's, both made and hired, there are uncounted numbers of faithful who don't succeed at business. Many of them struggle to make a living. From the perspective of the book that following religious precepts is the Mormon ethic of business, it is hard to say what to make of the many examples of those Mormons who are unethical in their practices. Still uncounted, the many Mormons who (to be honest don't follow the precepts of the leadership to live only according to what they have) get into heavy debt and end up bankrupt. Those written about in the book are probably good examples of people living their religion while in the world, but it is unclear if they are examples of good business models. Motivational material is always surface specific. A more comprehensive study would have to be done.

The Worth of a Convert

My favorite interactions have been with those who had recently entered the waters of baptism for membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The conversations have been pure and unsullied by the life-long membership discussion of questionable doctrinal speculation. Not only that, but the faith they exhibit is often superior to many members- including my own. It is true that strong faith can also be easily shattered by things they might not have the experience dealing with. But, when they have become solid in what they believe, it is a joy to watch and listen to them in their lives. They are, after all, the backbone of the Church regardless of what life-long members might bring to the table.

It is with great sadness that I hear so often the lack of success in retaining them. There have been many reasons and excuses for this. Probably the one reason I find to be the most disturbing is the lack of fellowship - nay, lack of attention - given to those fine seedlings ready to bloom. There is no excuse for that, but too many converts (later in life) I have spoken with each have expressed disappointment at how they have been treated. It often is summed up as "second class citizens" looked on with suspicion. When asked suspicion of what, they often say it has to do with trusting their spiritual and theological capabilities. About this time my blood starts boiling! Sure they are just starting out. There is no question about that. But, that is the perfect time to learn from them, teach them in areas they need strengthening, and generally expressing appreciation for what they bring to the fellowship of Saints.

To honor them, I have collected some quotes that I hope will increase their faith and change life-long members' attitudes:

"I plead with you; … I ask of you, each of you, to become a part of this great effort. Every convert is precious. Every convert is a son or daughter of God. Every convert is a great and serious responsibility.

[Converts] come into the Church with enthusiasm for what they have found. We must immediately build on that enthusiasm. … Listen to them, guide them, answer their questions, and be there to help in all circumstances and in all conditions. … I invite every member to reach out in friendship and love for those who come into the Church as converts."
-- Gordon B. Hinckley, “Words of the Prophet: Reach Out,” New Era, Feb. 2003, 4

"With the increase of missionary work throughout the world, there must be a comparable increase in the effort to make every convert feel at home in his or her ward or branch. Enough people will come into the Church this year to constitute more than 100 new average-size stakes. Unfortunately, with this acceleration in conversions, we are neglecting some of these new members. I am hopeful that a great effort will go forward throughout the Church, throughout the world, to retain every convert who comes into the Church.

This is serious business. There is no point in doing missionary work unless we hold on to the fruits of that effort. The two must be inseparable."
-- Gordon B. Hinckley, “Some Thoughts on Temples, Retention of Converts, and Missionary Service,” Ensign, Nov. 1997, 49

"We have not yet significantly increased our effectiveness in fellowshipping new converts so that they invariably continue to grow in the gospel, to serve in the Church, and to receive the blessings of the temple.

Among those converts who fall away, the attrition is steepest in the two months after baptism. When a convert is baptized, there is no time to lose. Fellowshipping efforts must begin well before baptism and must increase in intensity in the months following baptism.

Our experience has shown that members can have a powerful influence in this process in three critically important ways:

1. Modeling gospel living by providing practical, persuasive examples of the joy we receive from living the gospel.

2. Teaching the gospel informally by explaining Latter-day Saint doctrines and practices, answering questions, and helping investigators and new members resolve concerns.

3. Helping investigators and converts become fully integrated into the community of Saints.

When members see themselves as gospel nurturers, as the prophet has invited us all to be, we will be well along toward our goal."
-- Dallin H. Oaks, “The Role of Members in Conversion,” Ensign, Mar. 2003, 52

"We then began to observe that in some wards we visited in the United States as well as in Latin America, if we had been investigators or new members, we would not have felt very welcome. The Apostle Paul taught the Ephesians, 'Ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God' (Eph. 2:19). And yet, on occasion we felt like 'strangers and foreigners' in the very Church of Jesus Christ to which we belonged.

These experiences helped us become aware of the discomfort that newcomers might occasionally feel in coming to our chapels, and these made us conscious of the need we all have to improve what we call our fellowshipping skills. We have occasionally observed wards in Latin America, Spain, and in the United States where humble new converts to the Church have not been received with open arms or warm abrazos, and so we have all seen a need to improve our retention of new converts . . .

. . . Let us pay more attention to those who are new to our congregations. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus taught: 'For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? … And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others?' " (Matt. 5:46–47).
-- Carl B. Pratt, “Care for New Converts,” Ensign, Nov. 1997, 11

"The message is the same for us today. The Church will always be a church filled with converts. Whether the place be Salt Lake City, or Sao Paulo, Los Angeles or London, Tokyo or Turino, Italy, it is the Lord’s plan that there be converts among us, brothers and sisters newly brought into the fold of Christ through the efforts of their loving friends and neighbors. Let us fellowship and love each other in the true spirit of the gospel."
-- Spencer W. Kimball, “Always a Convert Church: Some Lessons to Learn and Apply This Year,” Ensign, Sept. 1975, 2

"If there were no converts, the Church would shrivel and die on the vine."
-- Spencer W. Kimball, “When the World Will Be Converted,” Ensign, Oct. 1974, 3

16 And now, my beloved brethren, I know by this that unless a man shall endure to the end, in following the example of the Son of the living God, he cannot be saved.

17 Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost.

18 And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; yea, ye have entered in by the gate; ye have done according to the commandments of the Father and the Son; and ye have received the Holy Ghost, which witnesses of the Father and the Son, unto the fulfilling of the promise which he hath made, that if ye entered in by the way ye should receive.

19 And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to esave.

20 Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life
-- 2 Nephi 31:16-20

There are some things we members can do to help retain the converts and help them grow. My own thoughts include:

Not just fellowship, but become friends. Get to know those who walk through the doors and not just a handshake. A friendly smile is the start and not the finish of a lasting relationship. Even if friendship might not be possible, sometimes people are simply not compatible, at least be open to them and have "little" conversations. There is nothing greater than having someone know your name even when you don't spend much time with them.

Share the gospel with them in both directions. When talking about LDS theology or history, don't make them become a sounding board. Make sure you include them in the discussion, in and outside of the class, by asking them what they think. You will come away surprised, as I have many times by converts, how much knowledge can be gained from fresh perspectives. There is a great surge of spiritual awakening when a convert points out something that life-long members have been blinded by rote and tradition. On the other hand, the convert often gains that much more of a testimony as they learn of doctrine from those who have studied it for a while.

Share with them sources available to all members. That includes books and magazines of LDS interest, an understanding of how the Church organization works, and a helping hand. Aside from getting to know people, having a grasp of Church culture can be challenging. This is no different from any other instance when a major change has just occurred in life. Remember, they came from somewhere that was probably not like what they now find themselves. Lots of them are still in those places, physically and metaphorically, and need help either integrating or crossing the bridge. Once you know them better, help them find ways to stay the course of faith. They will help you do the same as they grow from a seedling to a tree of strength.

Thank you converts for continuing to remind me of how precious the Gospel of Jesus Christ is, and how far I still have to go in my own journey of faith.

Jesus, The Miracle Worker

When contemplating the life and teachings of Jesus, there is no way to ignore the many miracles he performed – even if his death and resurrection are put aside. Each Sunday the Communion/Sacrament commemorates the glorious miracle of the Atonement in our faith. Perhaps because Jesus is already seen as the Savior not as much attention is paid to the miracles during his ministry. Yet, the gospel writers all included several illustrations of his power over Satan, Nature, and even Death long before his glorious act of salvation for the human race. They were included because the miracles demonstrated more than simple awe inspiring spiritual strength. Each of them pointed to his identity and mission.

His Reputation

Before the meaning of the miracles can be discussed, it is important to note that Jesus was perhaps best known as a miracle worker almost as much as a teacher. In fact, his first notable introduction as something special came during a family wedding party where he turned water into wine. His critics pointedly questioned when and to whom he did his miracles, without denying he did them. John, independent of the other Gospels, even implied that it was the miracle of raising Lazarus that angered the Jewish leadership enough to plot against his life. A contested reference to Jesus by Josephus includes the fact of his miracles even in a stripped down "non-Christianized" version:

The Strength of Jesus

This is a post written April 15, 06 that I feel would be good to reprint during the Christmas season. It has to do with how we view Jesus compared to what the scriptures say about his character.

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.


The following are quotes of interest from comments made the last time this was published:

"You are so right. One reason why I have a hard time in RS, is because of what happened when I turned 18. One of my first RS lessons I went to in my homeward was this very discussion. I mentioned that meekness is not to be equated with weakness, and that he was a very strong individual, he just knew what battles to fight, what was really important, he was no pushover. It is the same thing in today's society, thinking that the opposite of war is peace, when in reality we have to be able to fight for freedom and peace, to do anything more is to give way to those that would take our freedoms from us."
-- Tigersue

"It is a fact that Jesus is not weak physically...Although most medieval art depicts otherwise.Seriously though imagine all the beatings and the eventual suffering at Calvary...remembing that his body was mortal at that time . . .

. . . Many people are shocked when they think of Christ using perhaps a synonym for quite literally "Damn you Pharisees!" as "Wo! Ye scribes..." Just to not shock everyone too much, it is important to note that Christ is the ONLY person who actually has the authority to say this word in this sense (or true prophets speaking for him), since Judgment is given into his hands."
-- Anonymous

(t)Cross Talk

Over the years many have questioned the Christian nature of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, with the many different beliefs it holds from more traditional sects of the religion. Those who are most against the concept of Mormons as Christians do so with the narrowest of theological terms. As Latter-day Saints argue, we have the name of Christ in our official designation, we worship him as Son of God and Savior, and etc. Probably the most recent attack has to do with symbols, particularly the lack of the Cross. It can be confusing to those who are used to the cross symbol as a "universal" sign of Christian Faith. Why don't we use Crosses? That is an easy one to answer today, but not an easy answer for the past.

I believe, from my research, that the absents of a Cross is an "accident" of history. Not that I don't think there were deliberate reasons - as the LDS Church has been using other symbols since almost the start. The Angel Moroni seemed to have replaced the Cross as a symbol because it represented many of the key teachings of the Church. It carries the Book of Mormon in one hand and a trumpet in another. This represents Restoration of the Gospel, calling of the Elect, Resurrection and Judgment, and etc. The Cross did not get added to the plethora of other symbols available for iconography. One blogger speculated on its lack of use:

I think that it never became part of our own tradition for purely historical reasons (our roots in thoroughly aniconic and anti-papist evangelical Protestantism) and that the reasons now given are mostly etiology

This is something I have been thinking for a long time. The reasons for a lack of a Cross was never explained until much later in the history of the Church when the question was forced upon Mormons from outside influences. Mainly I would like to know where I can find a history of the Cross (specifically as it relates to "aniconic" and "anti-papist evangelical Protestantism"). What I have found, or not found in this case, is a nearly silent record of the subject.

There is no talk of the physical use of a cross symbol in the early Church, at least what I have read so far. It seems no one particularly thought of mentioning the lack of use as important. There was no refuting, explaining, or even discussion of the issue. From the Mormon records the exclusion seems to have just happened. The LDS tradition of symbols has carried over to today from the Puritan disdain of outward symbols as idol worship. Chapels might have one large picture, if any at all, and no other art. Very few Temples have iconographic images on the outside, and contain simple and traditional religious paintings on the inside that are mostly decoration.

It isn't that Joseph Smith didn't understand the power of the Cross, both religiously and as a sign of the Atonement. He might not have had it incorporated into the Church, but he did mention it at least once as part of the architecture of Heaven:

While we ask peace and protection for the Saints, wherever they may be, we also solicit the charity and benevolence of all the worthy of the earth, to purchase the righteous a holy home, a place of rest, and a land of peace; believing that no man who knows he has a soul will keep back his mite, but cast it in for the benefit of Zion; thus, when time is no longer, he, with all the ransomed of the Lord, may stand in the fullness of joy, and view the grand pillar of heaven, which was built by the faith and charity of the Saints, beginning at Adam, with his motto in the base, "Repent and live," surrounded with a beautiful circle sign, supported by a cross about midway up its lofty column, staring the world in letters of blood, "The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand;" and finished with a plain top towering up in the midst of the celestial world-around which is written by the finger of Jehovah, "Eternal Life is the greatest gift of God."

-History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Edited by B. H. Roberts. 2d ed., rev. Vol. 2, Ch. 8, pg. 133. Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1932-51.

Other instances of the mention of the Cross were more about observing traditions of others. There wasn't a condemnation as such as much as curiosity. In a visit to Greece as part of his trip to Palistine, Lorenzo Snow mentioned:

It is customary to make the sign of the cross in the following manner: Uniting the tips of the thumb and first two fingers of the right hand, and touching alternately the forehead, navel, right breast and left breast, three times in rapid succession, whenever passing a church, seeing the cross, or hearing the name of the Savior spoken. They have a singular form for burying the dead. I witnessed the ceremony of burying two persons, who apparently had occupied respectable positions in society. The processions were preceded by boys ii, white robes, carrying a crucifix and other ecclesiastic insignia of considerable splendor, followed by priests, chanting in a low, monotonous, melancholy tone, while all hats were off and every hand was making the sign of the cross, as the solemn train was passing along the crowded thoroughfare; the corpse, with ghastly features exposed to full view in an open coffin, covered with white cloth, variously decorated; the lid of the coffin, painted with a large cross, was carried along in the procession, in an upright position. The corpse was dressed in the clothing customarily worn while living; the head partially elevated, and the hands folded in front of a picture of the Virgin, placed an his breast.

-Athens Greece description. Smith, Eliza R. Snow. Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow. Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret News Company, 1884.pg. 570.

Probably the first time the question of a lack of Cross use was widely recognized was from Joseph Fielding Smith. Again, there isn't a blanket condemnation of the Cross iconography. There is a forceful rejection of its use for LDS members:

Answer: While we have never questioned the sincerity of Catholics and Protestants for wearing the cross, or felt that they were doing something which was wrong, it is a custom that has never appealed to members of the Church. The motive for such a custom by those who are of other churches, we must conclude, is a most sincere and sacred gesture. To them the cross does not represent an emblem of torture but evidently carried the impression of sacrifice and suffering endured by the Son of God. However, to bow down before a cross or to look upon it as an emblem to be revered because of the fact that our Savior died upon a cross is repugnant to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. . .

. . . To many, like the writer, such a custom is repugnant and contrary to the true worship of our Redeemer. Why should we bow down before a cross or use it as a symbol? Because our Savior died on the cross, the wearing of crosses is to most Latter-day Saints in very poor taste and inconsistent to our worship. Of all the ways ever invented for taking life and the execution of individuals, among the most cruel is likely the cross. This was a favorite method among the Romans who excelled in torture. We may be definitely sure that if our Lord had been killed with a dagger or with a sword, it would have been very strange indeed if religious people of this day would have graced such a weapon by wearing it and adoring it because it was by such a means that our Lord was put to death.

-Smith, Joseph Fielding. Answers to Gospel Questions. vol. 4. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957-1966.

The current LDS Pressident, Gordon B. Hinkley, has been the most vocal in his explanation of why the Cross iconography is not used. He gave a talk on the subject when he was an Elder and then repeated the message in the Ensign when he was Prophet of the Church. The message is clear; The Cross shouldn't be an outside symbol, but an inward one:

I responded: “I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian brethren who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the living Christ.”

He then asked: “If you do not use the cross, what is the symbol of your religion?”

I replied that the lives of our people must become the only meaningful expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our worship.

-Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Symbol of Christ,” Ensign, May 1975, 92 and “The Symbol of Our Faith,” Ensign, Apr. 2005, 3

Elder Marvin J. Ashton expressed exactly how Mormons are to use the symbol of the Cross as part of their lives. He stated:

Over the centuries, in the minds of millions of people, the cross has been recognized as a symbol of Christianity. But rather than displaying the cross, we prefer to try carrying our crosses.

The Lord’s message to us is “Take up your cross.” Take yourself the way you are, and lift yourself in the direction of the better. Regardless of where you have been, what you have done, or what you haven’t done, trust God. Believe in him. Worship him as you carry your cross with dignity and determination.

As we read in Matthew, we save our lives by losing them for the Lord’s sake. As we lose ourselves, we will find God. That is his promise, and I declare that it is true.

But what kind of cross do we each bear? What is its shape, weight, size, or dimension? The crosses we may carry are many: the cross of loneliness, the cross of physical limitations—loss of a leg, an arm, hearing, seeing, or mobility. These are obvious crosses. We see people with these crosses, and we admire their strength in carrying them with dignity. Poor health can be a cross, as can transgression, success, temptation, beauty, fame, or wealth. Financial burdens can be a cross. So can criticism or peer rejection.

-Marvin J. Ashton, “Carry Your Cross,” Ensign, Feb. 1988, 69.

Finally, if Mormons don't use the Cross as the physical symbol of Jesus and the Atonment, what do they use? Of course, baptism is the earliest symbol of the death and resurrection as it represents a new birth as members of the Church. Besides that, the most visible symbol is the Sacrement (or Communion) taken each week during Sunday services. In fact, it is the one outward symbol of Christ that there is no question Jesus initiated. Elder David B. Haight said:

Usually once a week, for a little more than an hour, we have the opportunity to attend sacrament meeting and reflect on the life of our Savior; to recall with deep gratitude and reverence His life of purity, kindness, and love; to reflect upon the great atoning sacrifice; and to partake of the broken bread, symbolic of His torn flesh, and drink of the cup, symbolic of His blood that was shed on the cross.

The Savior taught the Nephites that “I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.

“And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; … that I might draw all men unto me.” (3 Ne. 27:13–14.)

As we partake of the sacrament and reflect upon His sacrifice for each of us, we make a solemn commitment to keep the commandments which He has given us, that by so doing we might always have His spirit to be with us. . .

- David B. Haight, “The Sacrament,” Ensign, May 1983, 12.

It isn't that Mormons are fearful of the Cross or should be against anyone who uses it for religious devotion. Obviously, some LDS leaders have expressed serious reservations as to its iconographic meaning. What has happened is that the leadership of the Church have tried to internalize the Cross as a personal approach to the struggles of life. Historically there isn't a view of the physical Cross either positive or negative, so much as simply a lack of attention to that particular "logo" with so many other choices. That means that, not taking into account cultural norms, a Cross isn't against LDS belief or possible expression. Still, there are serious statements of concern over what it represents or how other symbols might be better reminders of faith. As with other things, even CTR rings, we must be careful drawing the line between symbol and idol.

The New Jesus for Mormons

Many years ago before my mission, as a teenager contemplating going, I read four "The Missionary Reference Library" books. Although they increased my understanding and spiritual maturity, only one of them had a concrete lasting impact as a text. That would be "Jesus The Christ" by James E. Talmage. I latched on to what he was doing as much as what he was saying. His work forever changed the way I studied Jesus Christ and his life and teachings.

One of the important things he did was research both the theological and historical narrative of Jesus' mission. The book is specifically a theological treatise exploring the traditional LDS Scriptures and religious implications. Beyond that he adds information about 1st Century history and culture. This helps bring Jesus into context instead of allowing for a completely de-centralized amorphous figure. Of course, there were two major problems with his integration. Much of the sources used were already outdated even during his time. Those that he did use were of a particular viewpoint that didn't engage in other studies (even ones that wouldn't be harmful to his own thesis). Still, no other major LDS work on Jesus before or after the book followed his example. Even the multi-volume Bruce R. McConkie tome was a wordy re-hash more than imitation.

What I did learn was to go beyond the mere text of the Bible (gospels in particular) and explore other avenues of research. This might sound counter-intuitive from the purpose of "Jesus The Christ," but I became interested in the Jesus of history. What I found was that, outside of the LDS Church, there were many people who were equally interested. The problem was that most of them didn't believe in the Jesus of Faith. It became frustrating for me to discover so many new ways of understanding the life of the Savior, only to have those same writers dismiss things I find most dear and important. A part of me wanted to glean what I could from them and then fill in my religious understandings where they departed. Strangly enough, I found that I could.

Another blog discusses Timothy Johnson's book The Real Jesus, and the line between faith and history. There is a quote that Dave presents as a question:

Christians direct their faith not to this historical figure of Jesus but to the living Lord Jesus. Yes, they assert continuity between that Jesus and this. But their faith is confirmed, not by the establishment of facts about the past, but by the reality of Christ's power in the present. Christian faith is not directed to a human construction about the past; that would be a form of idolatry. Authentic Christian faith is a response to the living God, whom Christians declare is powerfully at work among them through the resurrected Jesus. (p. 142-43)

Despite my agreement with Johnson's critique of "Historical Jesus" researchers, I have serious issues with his final opinion. To me this is equally problematic if taken to its logical conclusion. Even if it is true that our Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is ultimately beyond time and history, it still has much of its roots in history. As was paraphrased, "On this view, history becomes the written record we make (selective, based on available evidence rather than an omnipotent knowledge of all past events), not the underlying events themselves." Knowing this, all Scripture is related to history and you must understand that history in order to interpret the text as intended. Perhaps this is what Joseph Smith meant when he said he believed the Bible as written by the original authors. Not that the authentic autograph text was best, but that the intended meanings of the authors was closest to the truth. And that is tied to the cultural and historical backgrounds behind their words.

The first post I did, before getting completely involved writing on the blog, was a critique of a book criticism. It still represents my feelings on the issue:

Deep down I suppose that the biography of Jesus Christ I have been wanting to write -- or at least read about -- is a believer's version of the several anti-divinity histor-biographies. The only person of that kind I have been able to find is [N.T. Wright] who looks at the Divine Christ with an understanding of the historical periods. Instead I am stuck with having to read doubters who have studied Jewish/Christian connections, or believers who reject the whole idea of the connection between them.

With some surprise, I am finding small lists of people are taking this position seriously inside the LDS community. There are a select few authors now introducing years of worthwhile reading to Scripture study. Similar to myself, they aren't caught up in the so-called dichotomy of faith and history as inseperable. Rather, they find it more illuminating than scandalous. The work of Talmage is starting to come full circle once again; returning and even going beyond what his classic book started.

There is still, however, a concern that the history will take over the theology. At least one reviewer seemed happy that there was less quotes from General Authorities (can't remember where I found it). Going that direction would be a disaster and make what I consider a positive step rather pointless. Of all the Christian denominations, Mormonism is most able to accept the possibility that history and faith can work together. There are several reasons for this, but that would be separate discussions.

Famous Writer in "Ensign"

My wife called me in the room where she was reading and pointed to an article in the Ensign where a byline was showing a familiar name. Sure enough there was "Stephenie Meyer" plastered on the page. I checked the spelling and found there wasn't any discrepancy. I even read "Hero at the Grocery Store" about a woman who helps an elderly lady pay for some groceries. It really is a touching article. None of the scant details proved it wasn't who the name implies.

For those who don't know, Stephenie Meyer is an author of Young Adult books. Her first printed and successful book is "Twilight," about a girl who falls in love with a vampire. She is also a Latter-day Saint who graduated from Brigham Young University. From her official website bio page:

She lives with her husband and three young sons in Phoenix, Arizona. After the publication of her first novel, Twilight, booksellers chose Stephenie Meyer as one of the "most promising new authors of 2005" (Publishers Weekly) . . .

. . . Right now, I'm deeply involved in the editing for book two (more about that in "Other Novels"), getting ready for my first book tour, dealing with five separate drop-off and pick-up times for my kids' schools, and working with a nice personal trainer named Steve in a doomed attempt to erase the evidence that my body has carried three large children to term.

My favorite authors/biggest influences are (in no particular order) Orson Scott Card, Jane Austen, William Shakespeare, Maeve Binchy, Charlotte Bronte, Daphne DuMaurier, L.M. Montgomery, Louisa May Alcott, Eva Ibbotson, William Goldman, Douglas Adams, Janet Evanovich... the list goes on, but I think I hit the highlights.

Her newest book is "New Moon," a sequal to her first vampire love story. She is also working on a novel "The Host" for an adult audience. It is about an alien invasion where the aliens have taken over human bodies. One of the humans doesn't completely go away, and the alien has to deal with all the thoughts and emotions of its host. Keeping with the author's theme of romance, the human in question clings to thoughts of a lover hiding somewhere from the invasion.

I am not going to review "Twilight" at this time, although I have read it. My local library has "New Moon" and I am waiting on a list of those who want to check it out. what I do want to say is that, for a YA and romance writer, she is among the best I have read in some time.

There was nothing on the LDS Church's website or her own to indicate if she wrote the Ensign article. I cannot be certain as she doesn't take e-mail questions. The name might only be a coincidence. Hopefully, out of curiosity, someone can clear this up.

Thanksgiving and the Day of the Lord

Reading up on giving thanks in the Scriptures, I came across D&C 59 that sounded very fitting for the Holiday celebration. Originally it discusses proper Lord's Day observances. It could be talking just as much about Thanksgiving and what it can mean to us as a religious observance. Ponder the following exhortation:

13 And on this day thou shalt do none other thing, only let thy food be prepared with singleness of heart that thy fasting may be perfect, or, in other words, that thy joy may be full.
14 Verily, this is fasting and prayer, or in other words, rejoicing and prayer.
15 And inasmuch as ye do these things with thanksgiving, with cheerful hearts and countenances, not with much laughter, for this is sin, but with a glad heart and a cheerful countenance—
16 Verily I say, that inasmuch as ye do this, the fulness of the earth is yours, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and that which climbeth upon the trees and walketh upon the earth;
17 Yea, and the herb, and the good things which come of the earth, whether for food or for raiment, or for houses, or for barns, or for orchards, or for gardens, or for vineyards;
18 Yea, all things which come of the earth, in the season thereof, are made for the benefit and the use of man, both to please the eye and to gladden the heart;
19 Yea, for food and for raiment, for taste and for smell, to strengthen the body and to enliven the soul.
20 And it pleaseth God that he hath given all these things unto man; for unto this end were they made to be used, with judgment, not to excess, neither by extortion.
21 And in nothing doth man offend God, or against none is his wrath kindled, save those who confess not his hand in all things, and obey not his commandments.

The Real-istic Jospeh Smith Please Stand UP

This is a copy of a post I wrote for "Blogger of Jared."

Not too long ago Richard Dutcher planned on making a movie about Joseph Smith Jr. with rumors of Val Kilmer as the lead. It didn’t take long for those rumors to be unfounded. There was news that he rejected the part for other movie roles. It seems that Bro. Dutcher has also gone a different direction and made other films. His personal homepage doesn’t offer any new information that he still has a biopic in the works. Other films have, more or less, taken up the slack.

There is an abundance of Joseph Smith roles to look at if interested in how he has been portrayed, both in and outside of LDS Church circles. The first major inclusion of Joseph Smith Jr was the Brigham Young movie of 1940, with Vincent Price taking up the part. Of all the ones I have seen so far, he seemed to represent him the best. It was too bad he played such a small role in that one. On the other hand, the book it was partly based on, "Children of God" by Vardis Fisher, was not a flattering portrait. There was another movie called Brigham with Richard Moll (of Night Court fame) playing Joseph Smith when he was tarred and feathered. Not sure if there was a martyrdom scene. He was problematic because the acting was stiff and he wasn’t the "hunk" that the historical records indicate for the real person. At least one other semi-portrayal was in "Angels in America," originally a stage play, and negative. Films done by Latter-day Saints have not fared better.

The Roles We Play

This is a copy of a post I wrote for "Blogger of Jared."

There are many roles available for people to pick and choose to define themselves and others. Sometimes there is more than one role we are actively playing at a time. There are even circumstances when one role is in direct contradiction to others. It can often become confusing.

Despite all of the various ways to define a person, there is always the chance we could label with too broad a brush. The worst scenario is stereotyping; where expectations are imagined without considering all other possibilities. This can stifle any chance of getting to know a person beyond what has already been decided. Jesus was a master at looking at a person who already had a particular "reputation" and seeing if there was something more:

7 There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink.

8 (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.)

9 Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.