Of Reading and Home Teaching

O my sons, I would that ye should remember that these sayings are true, and also that these records are true. And behold, also the plates of Nephi, which contain the records and the sayings of our fathers from the time they left Jerusalem until now, and they are true; and we can know of their surety because we have them before our eyes (Mosiah 1:6).

Question: How is Benjamin using the word “true” in this context? Is he saying that the records are simply physically real? or is something else implied (theologically/doctrinally)? How does this compare to Mormons testifying that they know that the Book of Mormon or the Bible is true?

Maybe it’s just me. Then again, maybe it’s not.

People from different backgrounds and of different faiths can say the same words but sound very different form each other.

I think this is evident mostly in the usage of the name of Jesus. (I know, the title to the post could be a little misleading, thinking I would be addressing the use of yhwh.) This struck me last night as I heard a small part of a conversation between two other people.

I grew up in Utah attending the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Over the nineteen years I spent in the same ward I suppose I heard the name of Jesus spoken thousands of times. From the years in primary when we’d sing songs about trying to be like Him, to the days sitting in seminary and listening to the teacher testify that only through Him can we have hope for salvation. And in all those nineteen years, for all the times I heard his name spoken from hundreds of different mouths, I think it mostly sounded the same. It was the Mormon way of speaking His name.

Then I served a mission. Two years in Michigan brought me into contact with thousands of individuals who also believed in Jesus and trusted in Him for salvation. I had fruitful discussions with many of these individuals, and heard His name spoken many many times. And from the mouths of so many of these wonderful Christian people the name of Jesus sounded different. I couldn’t pinpoint exactly what it was, but there was something different in the way they said it. This was particularly the case with those of a Pentecostal background (as I met more who considered themselves Pentecostal than anything), but from my experience translates into that broad category of Evangelicalism.

Then last night, as I overheard a small part of this particular conversation, I heard the name of Jesus spoken again. This time it was spoken by someone who believes in a large range of philosophies and religions, and he’s not really holden to one or the other very much. When he spoke Jesus’ name, it sounded different from both the Mormons I know and the Evangelicals.

I’ve definitely got a sense of some cross-over cadences as well. One of my Mormon professors at BYU had a very Evangelical tone in his voice when he spoke Jesus’ name. A lot of academics who are approaching scriptural texts using a particular scholarly methodology kind of have a mix of all three cadences (depending on their own beliefs or lack thereof).

It’s really quite fascinating. I’m wondering though, am I the only one who hears this, or do others as well?

Elder D. Todd Christofferson chose some fundamental stuff for his first General Conference talk as a member of the Twelve. His message drew upon an experience he had with a man who wanted to teach Elder Christofferson how to be saved–how to be born again.

This is perhaps very interesting to me because of recent things I have read on other blogs about these very issues/ideas. About a week ago I was first introduced, via this blog, to something called The Four Spiritual Laws. Not that the laws themselves were new to me, but I’d never heard these principles called that before. These laws sum up why we need Jesus. We need Jesus to be born again. My purpose here will be to examine the four laws in light of Elder Christofferson’s talk and LDS scripture.

The Four Spiritual Laws are (briefly, if you want a more detailed description see here):

1. God loves you and offers a wonderful plan for your life.

• From Elder Christofferson’s talk: “I bear witness of the reality and love of God, our Heavenly Father.”
• “O how great the goodness of our God . . . O how great the plan of our God!” (2 Nephi 9:10, 13).
• What’s interesting about this first law is that it sounds so familiar to me–it is something that as a missionary I would tell people upon first meeting them. This was pretty well the first principle of the first discussion (the old discussions, now replaced by Preach My Gospel). I certainly have no problem with believing this. Alma called this plan of God’s “the plan of redemption,” “the plan of salvation,” and “the plan of happiness” (Alma 12:33; 42:5, 8).

2. Man is sinful and separated from God. Therefore, he cannot know and experience God’s plan for his life.

• From Elder Christofferson’s talk: “let us not justify ourselves in a casual effort. Let us not be content to retain some disposition to do evil. Let us worthily partake of the sacrament each week and continue to draw upon the Holy Spirit to root out the last vestiges of impurity within us.”
• “O how foolish, and how vain, and how evil, and devilish, and how quick to do iniquity, and how slow to do good, are the children of men; yea, how quick to hearken unto the words of the evil one, and to set their hearts upon the vain things of the world! Yea, how quick to be lifted up in pride; yea, how quick to boast, and do all manner of that which is iniquity; and how slow are they to remember the Lord their God, and to give ear unto his counsels, yea, how slow to walk in wisdom’s paths!” (Helaman 12:4, 5).
• I don’t need to look any further than my own heart to figure out if this is true. Temptation can be so powerful, and once given into, there is nothing I can do myself that will bring me out of the depths of sorrow and despair that comes from iniquity (see Moroni 10:22). Is there any part of God’s plan that can be comprehended or understood without the grace of Christ? No.

3. Jesus Christ is God’s only provision for man’s sin. Through him you can know and experience God’s love and plan for your life.

• From Elder Christofferson’s talk: “it is faith in Christ as the Atoning One, the Redeemer, who can cleanse from sin and make holy.”
• “And moreover, I say unto you, that there shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent” (Mosiah 3:17).
• Through some incomprehensible and wonderful thing, Jesus Christ provided the way to God and his love. That is absolutely my faith.

4. We must individually receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord; then we can know and experience God’s love and plan for our lives.

• From Elder Christofferson’s talk: “It is spiritual rebirth through Jesus Christ that is the context of my witness of Him.”
• Aaron, a Nephite missionary, taught a king that “since man had fallen he could not merit anything of himself; but the sufferings and death of Christ atone for their sins” (Alma 22:14). The king asked how he could receive forgiveness and Aaron told him, “If thou desirest this thing, if thou wilt bow down before God, yea, if thou wilt repent of all thy sins, and will bow down before God, and call on his name in faith, believing that ye shall receive, then shalt thou receive the hope which thou desirest” (Alma 22:16).
• Jesus has provided his grace for us, but unless we ask, unless we seek, unless we knock, we will not receive, find, nor have the gate of God’s love opened unto us.

Elder Christofferson included in his closing remarks these words from Doctrine and Covenants section 20:

And we know that justification through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is just and true; And we know also, that sanctification through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is just and true, to all those who love and serve God with all their mights, minds, and strength (vv 30, 31).

I look forward to learning more from this man who has been called by God to be a special witness of the name of Jesus Christ in all the world.

I caught the first half, roughly, and then was filled in a little on the other part of this session.

Elder Oaks: “What do we mean when we say that we know that the Gospel is true?” “Scientific methods will not yield spiritual knowledge.” And thus began a theme that continued with Elder Hales and Elder Lund, to some extent–that of opening our hearts to receive inspiration from the Spirit.

One brief note about Elder Hales. His testimony was inspiring. His voice is weakening some, but the fervor in his presentation was clear, and his subject matter (the Intercessory Prayer, among others) profound. He is one on whom the apostolic mantle is clear.

Elder Christofferson. That didn’t surprise me.

I noted a common theme this session, that of family and teaching/protecting children. Maybe that’s just what I’m bringing to Conference this time around, but there certainly seemed to be a lot of focus on teaching children and creating an atmosphere in the home in which children can learn to live the Gospel.

Just a few thoughts on some particulars from the talks.

1) Elder Wirthlin and his talk to those who feel lost or like they don’t fit within the Church, there was one line that rang out with major emphasis in my mind: “If only we had more compassion for those who are different from us!” I think he then went on to say that many of the problems in the world would be solved if we could do this very simple thing. Now it’s time for me to consider how I may treat some that I think are different from me.

2) Elder Nelson’s counsel, taken from D&C 121, about correcting our children. “Give correction quietly, privately, and lovingly.” Not publicly. Correction should never be used as a means of embarrassing or ridiculing others. This counsel is so simple and practical, and yet what an amazing difference it would make if it were followed. There’s nothing quite as uncomfortable as witnessing the correction of a child in public.

Now, just as an aside, one of my coworkers was opening a Mt. Dew before Conference started and while doing so she said, “I’ve got to drink this now in case this is the day they outlaw it.”

As far as New Testament experts go, I’m not one. But that being said, I have spent a little time looking into the issue of an antichrist in the book of Revelation, and when this paragraph came into my email box as a part of a rant against Barak Obama, I couldn’t not at least respond a little.

Here is the paragraph:

“According to The Book of Revelations the anti-christ is: The anti-christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal….the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything. Is it OBAMA??”

Maybe I developed this particular response from some of my college professors, but if anyone ever refers to the book as Revelations (plural) I immediately suspect erroneous interpretations. I was certainly justified in doing so in this case.

Revelation has no specific reference to an antichrist. That is the first major problem with this statement. The term antichrist is used only in the Johannine Epistles in the New Testament, not in Revelation. When the term is used (in 1 and 2 John), John is referring to a contemporary figure/group/presence, not a figure who would come in the distant future.

Revelation does refer to figures who would come in the last days and wreak havoc on the saints of God; it could be one of these figures that the author of the paragraph is referring to, but I think a brief examination of the characteristics of these figures from the actual text of Revelation will demonstrate that the paragraph is, to be kind, ridiculous.

I know some have equated the dragon of Revelation 12 with antichrist. However, v 9 makes it clear that the dragon is Satan (I grant that calling Satan antichrist makes sense), not a person.

Revelation 13 speaks of two beasts, one that comes from the sea and another that comes from the earth. The beast that comes from the sea appears to be an entity (whether person, organization, ideal, etc.) that’s whole purpose is to blaspheme God and cause those who will not worship God to worship it. The beast that comes from the earth is another entity bent on turning individuals from the worship of God to worship of the first beast.

Just a comment about Senator Obama. I don’t care whether you agree with his politics or not, personally I like some of his positions and disagree with him on others, but I don’t see how he personifies any of the above characteristics of either beast.

Now to address some of the claims of the quoted paragraph from the email.

“A man in his 40’s of Muslim decent” Are you kidding me? I cannot think of any Biblical prophecy that contains such specific information about an individual. The remark about his age would be a little plausible, if such a thing existed in the prophecies (it doesn’t). But the part about Muslim decent is an outrageous anachronism and deserves no consideration except to mention that Islam did not exist until centuries after the writing of the book of Revelation.

“who will deceive the nations with persuasive language”  One of the beasts in Revelation is said to deceive the inhabitants of the earth with mighty miracles like calling fire down from heaven (see Rev 13:13 –14). It is because of these miracles that he is able to persuade the people to worship the first beast.

“and have a MASSIVE Christlike appeal” Nope. No mention of that. In fact, it’s pretty clear that the beasts in Revelation are unequivocally opposed to Christ.

“people will flock to him, and he will promise false hope and world peace” The beasts in Revelation tend to like war, not peace, kind of like their leader the dragon.

“when he is in power, [he] will destroy everything” Actually, the beasts are said to control economic markets and cause a lot of problems, but total destruction? Not so much.

“Is it Obama?” Let me just say this. No.