Of Reading and Home Teaching

Though I’ve only written about it once or twice here, I really love the book of Jacob in the Book of Mormon. It seems to me that Elder Maxwell really did too, and would use one-liners from Jacob frequently.

Here’s one from Jacob 4:14:

But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, that they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble.

The indictment the Jews usually get from those of us who call ourselves Christians and are looking back on their history with our modern Christian lenses, is that they made too much of the Law of Moses. Pharisees, we say, were way too concerned about keeping the fringe-parts of the law that they missed the purpose of the Law: to teach them about Christ.

The Book of Mormon seems to support this view, but it also presents an alternative way of living the Law of Moses, or an attitude toward the Law. One of the places where this attitude is described is in Alma. Speaking of the converted Lamanites who called themselves the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi, Alma 25:15-16:

Yea, and they did keep the law of Moses; for it was expedient that they should keep the law of Moses as yet, for it was not all fulfilled. But notwithstanding the law of Moses, they did look forward to the coming of Christ, considering that the law of Moses was a type of his coming, and believing that they must keep those outward performances until the time that he should be revealed unto them.

Now they did not suppose that salvation came by the law of Moses; but the law of Moses did serve to strengthen their faith in Christ; and thus they did retain a hope through faith, unto eternal salvation, relying upon the spirit of prophecy, which spake of those things to come.

This is apparently the spiritual healthy attitude toward the Law of Moses: keep it diligently, but don’t let it get in the way of what is really important: Faith in Jesus Christ.

I read this today and asked myself how this might be applicable to Latter-day Saints. At first I couldn’t think of any way, since the Law of Moses has been fulfilled and we don’t keep it any more.

But then it struck me. We do keep some laws that are unique to this dispensation. The collection of these laws might be termed the Law of Joseph (and successors, which works since a whole lot of what is called the Law of Moses came from people who lived after Moses), and they include such things as (most obviously) the word of wisdom.

In my limited understanding, I would separate the laws Mormons obey into two broad categories: Eternal and Dispensational. Eternal laws are those that seem not to change regardless of the history of the world or the people involved (such things as obedience, sacrifice, chastity, and consecration), whereas dispensational laws are those are are unique to a particular time period or group of people.

How might Mormons benefit from understanding how the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi kept and approached the Law of Moses? What other laws might be termed dispensational?

Terryl Givens brings up an important issue in the third chapter of his book By the Hand of Mormon. He argues that in the early days of the church, the Book of Mormon was important in the lives of members of the church more as an evidence of things outside of the book itself than for the theology it contained.

To sum up Givens’ argument, he cites two main things that the Book of Mormon was evidence of in the minds of early Mormons. 1) That the gathering of Israel and the coming of the millennium were near, and 2) That Joseph Smith, translator of the Book of Mormon, was called of God to be a prophet.

From my experience in the contemporary church, I can see how this is still the case, at least in some very crucial areas of the Mormon experience.

We invite all men everywhere to read the Book of Mormon, to ponder in their hearts the message it contains, and then to ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ if the book is true. Those who pursue this course and ask in faith will gain a testimony of its truth and divinity by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Those who gain this divine witness from the Holy Spirit will also come to know by the same power that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, that Joseph Smith is his revelator and prophet in these last days, and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord’s kingdom once again established on the earth, preparatory to the second coming of the Messiah.

Thus reads the end of the modern introduction to the Book of Mormon, printed in all current editions of the book. Note the emphasis on the coming millennium and Joseph Smith’s calling as prophet. We still use the Book of Mormon as evidence of things outside of the book itself.

Consider the place the Book of Mormon in missionary work. When I served my mission (within the last decade), our goal with our investigators was to encourage them to read certain portions of the Book of Mormon (usually the introductory material, 3 Nephi 11, and Moroni 10:3-5), and then to pray to know whether the book was true. If they had an experience by which they felt that the book was true, we would teach them that by extension Joseph Smith was a prophet and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was the true church of God on the earth.

Often times we would find that those who had read those portions of the book and prayed had felt that the Book of Mormon did come from God, and we would continue to teach them about the church and invite them to read more from the Book of Mormon. 99% of the time they would eventually stop reading and lose interest entirely in what we had to share with them. I can’t help but wonder, now, as I think back on those two years I spent preaching, if I wouldn’t have done more good had I used the Book of Mormon differently

What I wonder is if I had taught the Book of Mormon as signified rather than signifier, if I wouldn’t have been able to influence more people to do what I really wanted them to do, that is, come to Jesus. The Book of Mormon has in it so much that convinces me of my need to completely rely on the merits of Christ.

Currently I teach Gospel Doctrine, and this year we are studying the Book of Mormon. My emphasis this year has been on discovering what the text of the Book of Mormon tells us about coming unto Christ. I’ve found that every week there is something in the assigned reading that convicts my heart and causes me to seek the grace of God. I hope those attending the class are feeling the same thing. I’ve made it an objective in my study and teaching of the Book of Mormon to focus entirely on how the text inspires me to ever more rely on the Savior.

It’s my opinion that Mormons still use the Book of Mormon too much as signifier and not enough as signified.

My last post inspired a slight thread that I want to continue, sort of, here. My very attractive wife and I were talking about the Priesthood ban. I was very impressed with some of her ideas and thought I’d share some of them here (I’ll have her edit the post so as to not misrepresent her).

Was the Priesthood ban God’s will? Was there a good reason that it was allowed to occur and was perpetuated for over a hundred years?

Her opinion is that yes, there was a very good reason for the ban, but it had nothing to do with any kind of unworthiness, premortal or genealogical, on the part of anyone with African heritage. On a side note, from what I’ve seen of members of the church in Africa, they put someone like me from Utah to shame when it comes to faithfulness and enthusiasm.

The reason she sees for the ban is that had it not occurred, and had African Americans (or African Europeans, etc.) been given all of the same blessings, privileges, callings, and responsibilities as other members of the church during the period of the Civil War and through the Civil Rights movement, there is a strong possibility that opposition to the church, not only from without but certainly from within, would have been too much for the survival of the church. America had to be ready, and church members had to be ready, to receive the blessings that attended the extension of these blessings to all people.

God sometimes allows our intolerance and/or our prejudice to assist in furthering His purposes. For example, the marking of the Lamanites with dark skin seems to have had everything to do with the prejudice of the Nephites that the Lord knew they would have. He did not want them to mingle their seed with the seed of the Lamanites if that would result in a loss of the blessings of the gospel. So He, knowing that darker skin would be abhorrent to the Nephites, caused the darker skin of the Lamanites. The curse of the Lamanites had everything to do with spiritual separation from God, and not the color of their skin. This is made clear when the Lamanite converts who were taught by the sons of Mosiah, and who Mormon called the most righteous group of people in the history of his people, did not experience a lightening of their skin color upon conversion, but they did break the centuries-old curse of living without the spirit of God. Apparently, the Nephites at the time were mature enough to see past skin color and respect and love the Lamanites for who they really were: their brothers and sisters. (Btw, the Nephites’ disgust at the color of the Lamanites’ skin is described using irony that only Jacob, of all the BoM authors, could muster in Jacob 3.)

If there was a worthiness issue that was a part of the ban, it was on the part of the non-black members of the church who, for so long, held the belief that they were in some way superior to others of God’s children because of their skin color. The Lord knows what He’s doing; I have absolute confidence in that. He knew when the world would be ready to receive the marvelous blessings of extending the covenants of the temple to all who would receive them, and He knew that no one would be denied the blessings in eternity.

Though the Lord allowed members of the church to have their prejudices, He was not the author of those prejudices, and certainly we can be confident that He does not condone such intolerance. There was a price that the church paid for the ban: imagine what blessings were forfeited by not perpetuating the standard that began with Joseph Smith. What black leaders might there have been in the church, and what kind of influence might they have had for good? We cannot know, but we can be very glad that we live in the post-1978 era.

I really don’t mind valid examination into the policies and personalities of Presidential candidates, but two more email I received today convinced me that, well, I’d better not say what it convinced me of. But let me address the claims of one of them.

The email was titled something like, “A man from the east.” I’m providing for you one of the first marvelously, um, articulate(?) first paragraphs (complete with the underlining and highlighting used in the email text):

I have felt for sometime now that Obama is the
o ne person that ‘Frightens Me’. I believe the Bible has
warned us that ‘A man will come from the East that will be
charismatic in nature and have proposed solutions for all our
problems and his rhetoric will attract many supporters!’

A quick search through the text of the Bible (AV/KJV) shows that the words “east” and “man” are paired only a few times, and the nearest text to this apparent biblical citation comes from Isaiah 41:2:

Who raised up the righteous man from the east, called him to his foot, gave the nations before him, and made him rule over kings? he gave them as the dust to his sword, and as driven stubble to his bow.

The other prophecy concerning a man coming from the east is in Matthew 24:27 and has to do with the Second Coming of Christ.

I can’t bring myself to give any more attention to this email; I started to respond to more of it, but it isn’t worth it. Suffice it to say, if Barack Obama’s policies make you nervous or the stand he takes on issues worry you, go ahead and talk about that.

But stop calling him the Anti-Christ! Stop invoking “the Bible” as a means of political trash talk.

This will be about reconciliation in a couple of ways.

First: I read and completely agreed with a scripture today that before I read with some amount of skepticism. This is the verse:

Yea, even he commanded them that they should preach nothing save it were repentance and faith on the Lord, who had redeemed his people (Mosiah 18:20).

This was something that I read as a missionary and a student and thought that there really must be something missing here. Or maybe not missing, but perhaps this verse only applied to Alma’s people. How can you possibly on preach about two things? Wouldn’t that make church a moot? Wouldn’t that make scripture reading a one-time deal, and you could stop once you read the first invitation to have faith in God and to repent of your sins? I mean, Seriously!

But something has happened to me since my graduation from BYU a year ago, and also I think in my not having a full-time teaching job with the church. I’ve essentially been divorced from any institutionalized religion. Sure, I’ve been attending my ward, but with kids and things, there’s really not as much mental exercising going on as in religion classes both as student and teacher. Not that I have anything against any of my religion classes at BYU or my experiences teaching Seminary. The change has been something very much on the individual level. I could have had this understanding all those years as a missionary and student and could have benefited very much from it; but I couldn’t, to use an oft used analogy, see the forest for the trees.

I spent my time as a missionary, student, and teacher looking for things that were, for lack of a better word, interesting in the scriptures. I thought that was what edification consisted of. And this in spite of instruction from some very wise individuals who knew better. For my Seminary students I wanted to create an intense interest in the scriptures and in their origins and forms and stuff. I figured that’s what my instructors were doing in school.

Now, though, as I read Alma’s instruction to his people I understood it maybe for the first time. My journey through the Book of Mormon this year has been centered on these two core fundamental principles. And the journey has been refreshing. I’ve begun to see myself in my own carnal state. I’ve begun to understand where my life and desires are completely out of line and to trust in the grace of God to help me out of these things.

I think I’m becoming converted.

The book sat on the toilet tank and looked rather foreboding. For one thing, it wasn’t necessarily approved reading. It was not by a general authority or published by the church, but I gave into temptation anyway, picked up the book, opened to a random page and read half a paragraph. I felt so smart having even made the attempt.

An uneducated, albeit high school graduate, missionary and his first experience with the illustrious Hugh W. Nibley. I’m pretty sure the book was one of the Book of Mormon compilations. At the time the only thing the name Nibley meant to me was Brilliant Apologetics, and I didn’t even know what that meant.

It took a few years for me to pick up another Nibley book and fortunately it wasn’t a book written by Nibley, but one written about Nibley. A Consecrated Life caught me completely off guard and demonstrated something about the man that I would have never expected.

Nibley wasn’t about spouting off academic hot air. He loved knowledge and spent his life in pursuit of understanding just about everything he could, but he didn’t write or lecture just to show how smart he was. His was a mission of the social critic, or as his son Tom called it as his funeral, as “academic prophet.” The real genius of Nibley’s writings is in the insight into humanity, such as this little nugget from “Zeal without Knowledge”:

“Sin is waste.”

He goes on (not having the paper in front of me, this will be paraphrasing) to say that sin is doing one thing when we should be doing something else, something better or more useful. That is why even the righteous need to repent daily.

Wastefulness is not making the most of the moments gifted to us by a loving Heavenly Father each and every day.

So, on the flip side, consecration is abundance. This is the thought that struck me while considering this axiom. And then this thought followed:

Consecration is lack of waste. It is continually making the best choice. It is what Jesus did. It is different than sacrifice in that sacrifice can be confined within temporal bounds in a single act. Consecration has no limit and is by its nature the consistent and persistent submission of our own desires to be in line with what is best.

There may be more to follow this, but this works as a good starting point.

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.

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.