Several years ago, a friend was on his way out of the church. Not the building, but The Church. He and I spoke a few times about his split with the religion of his childhood (and the religion of his wife and children). It was not an easy choice to leave, and, although I asked him more than once, he was careful not to share with me his specific concerns that had finally pushed him over the edge.
I gathered that they were historical issues. And he told me that he didn't want to discuss them because he didn't want to be responsible for someone else's falling away. But he assured me they were Big Things, Things he had discussed with his own father (a still-active Latter-day Saint even after talking with my friend), Things that he could no longer reconcile.
I admired his desire to protect me from what he knew (though I, perhaps with too much pride, didn't think his concern was warranted). But at the same time I saw in him a typical pattern which I'd seen among others who have left:
1. I have learned something no one else really knows or understands (or if they do, they're in denial).
2. If they knew what I know, they would make the same choice I am making: to leave.
I've seen this pattern in close friends, acquaintances, and family members. In reducing it to simple steps I don't also mean to minimize the difficulty such realizations cause those who have them. Leaving the church can be painful, and my observation is that many who leave only do so when the pain of leaving is less than the pain of staying.
But that's not my point today.
My point is that as members of the church, we often assume the same two steps when we explain our faith:
1. I have a testimony of something that is not commonly known.
2. If others knew what I know, they also would also have a testimony, just as I do.
I suppose it's normal for us to assume that everyone else, when faced with the same data we have, would make the same choices. In reality, I think life is more complicated. First, we don't share completely common experiences. So even if the same facts are in evidence, we will respond to them differently because of our unique life experience. Second (and perhaps related to the first), we will simply interpret the same "facts" differently. We have different gifts of the spirit, so one man's "knowing" may be another's "believing." And a third may not have that sense of knowing or believing.
That being said, I still believe the quickest path to conversion is through reading and hearing testimony borne, and feeling the confirming witness of the Holy Ghost. When that happens, someone who is able to hear (in the way the Savior said, "he who hath ears to hear, let him hear") will both hear and feel that testimony. But just as not everyone heard the Savior when he taught, not everyone will hear those who testify today.
I don't know why things are this way, and this issue is near the top of the questions I'll ask when we get to ask any question we want in the next life (and I hope we do!). But I do know because I have observed the content of this post in real life, it gives me reason to be less judgmental of others' choices – I really can't know what they know, even if I walk a mile in their shoes. The best I can do is choose the best I can for myself based on what I know, and try and teach my children my experience.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
A reading list
Recently I've done a lot more reading in church history, thanks in part to recommendations I've gotten from other blogs (Common Consent ran a post a while back on the top five best books on church history). Since my freshman year at BYU, I've been fascinated by church history, warts and all. Over time I've carried a few of those "in the box on the shelf in the closet of my mind" questions, mostly about historical matters. And, I'm happy to say, in the intervening years, enough of those have found resolution that I don't get too excited by them anymore.
There are a few books I've read in the last few years that have been particularly meaningful to me:
1. Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball by Edward L. Kimball – my brother gave me this book as a gift, and when I opened it, I sat on the dining room floor and read for several hours. I was particularly moved by the chapter on the revelation regarding priesthood blessings. That particular chapter was meaningful to me because I was on my mission at the time, and my parents were living in West Africa (Dad was there for his work) when the first missionary couples came to preach the gospel. But I was also impressed by the insights into the personal characteristics of this man who was the prophet during many of the most formative years of my youth.
2. Rough Stone Rolling by Richard L. Bushman Ok, I've had this book for some time and have read it more than once. I used it as a supplemental text when teaching about Joseph Smith in a stake institute class a number of years ago. It was refreshing to read Bushman's frank discussion of that very human prophet, Joseph Smith. I still go back to it for specific topics, and will put it back in the queue for re-reading soon. Bushman is easy for me to read: he's engaging and matter of fact in his portrayal, and he takes a specific point of view that we must assume that Joseph believed what he said he believed. He does not shy away from difficult questions (such as Joseph's experience with polygamy), nor does he sensationalize them. While others have found this book to be a stumbling block to testimony, my reaction was just the opposite.
3. David O. McKay and Rise of Modern Mormonism by Gregory A. Prince and Wm Robert Wright -- David. O. McKay was the prophet when I joined the church with my family in 1967. I remember asking the interviewing missionary (smart nearly-nine-year-old that I was) what the "O" stood for (he didn't know). This work, the product of a treasure trove of documentation preserved by President McKay's personal secretary (who was also Wright's aunt) provides a remarkable view into the workings of the senior counsels of the church during President McKay's tenure as an apostle and prophet. I'm not always thrilled with their characterization or attribution of motive to other players in the story (the authors make judgments about Wilkinson, Benson and McConkie that are popular in today's blogs, but could just as well have allowed the facts to speaks for themselves), but the light they shine on President McKay is delightful in its clarity and paints a wonderful picture of the development of a world-wide church. As in all the works, I had as much interest in the footnotes as in the main text, and I had a hard time following the footnote trail of attribution in the chapter on the priesthood, but that confusion did not damage the reading of the work for me. The book is as much a history of the church in the McKay years as it is a biography of the remarkable man who so looked the part in which he was cast.
4. Massacre at Mountain Meadows by Ronald W. Walker, Richard E. Turley, and Glen M. Leonard – This book appeared in 2008, and I read it as soon as I could get it. I had read Juanita Brooks' treatment of the subject as a BYU freshman in 1976 – my first exposure to "problems" in Mormon history. I found the authors' attention to detail and their sensitivity to multiple sides of the story to be impressive. I enjoyed the footnotes as much as the actual text, and appreciated the candor of the authors (and the access they were given to the available records). I look forward to more of this kind of careful, open history.
5. The Mormon Experience by Leonard Arrington and Davis Bitton. I'm just reading this one now. The first edition was published near the end of my mission and I missed it completely. The second edition, which I'm reading, has been a great survey. It's a little odd reading as the "current state" of the church a 30+ year-old view, but there is an epilog in the second edition which catches up on some key matters. Even so, the general treatment of history is fairly open. I had thought about reading this one and had passed on it for some time, but then through comments on another blog Ardis Parschall (Ardis' Keepapitchinin blog is on my blog list in the side bar) turned me on to Bitton's essay which had been presented at FAIR entitled "I Don't Have A Testimony of the History of the Church", and decided I wanted to read more of Bitton. I'm glad I have.
There is remarkable value in knowing who we are. I'm grateful to these authors for their contribution to that effort. And I'd be happy for your recommendations for further reading
There are a few books I've read in the last few years that have been particularly meaningful to me:
1. Lengthen Your Stride: The Presidency of Spencer W. Kimball by Edward L. Kimball – my brother gave me this book as a gift, and when I opened it, I sat on the dining room floor and read for several hours. I was particularly moved by the chapter on the revelation regarding priesthood blessings. That particular chapter was meaningful to me because I was on my mission at the time, and my parents were living in West Africa (Dad was there for his work) when the first missionary couples came to preach the gospel. But I was also impressed by the insights into the personal characteristics of this man who was the prophet during many of the most formative years of my youth.
2. Rough Stone Rolling by Richard L. Bushman Ok, I've had this book for some time and have read it more than once. I used it as a supplemental text when teaching about Joseph Smith in a stake institute class a number of years ago. It was refreshing to read Bushman's frank discussion of that very human prophet, Joseph Smith. I still go back to it for specific topics, and will put it back in the queue for re-reading soon. Bushman is easy for me to read: he's engaging and matter of fact in his portrayal, and he takes a specific point of view that we must assume that Joseph believed what he said he believed. He does not shy away from difficult questions (such as Joseph's experience with polygamy), nor does he sensationalize them. While others have found this book to be a stumbling block to testimony, my reaction was just the opposite.
3. David O. McKay and Rise of Modern Mormonism by Gregory A. Prince and Wm Robert Wright -- David. O. McKay was the prophet when I joined the church with my family in 1967. I remember asking the interviewing missionary (smart nearly-nine-year-old that I was) what the "O" stood for (he didn't know). This work, the product of a treasure trove of documentation preserved by President McKay's personal secretary (who was also Wright's aunt) provides a remarkable view into the workings of the senior counsels of the church during President McKay's tenure as an apostle and prophet. I'm not always thrilled with their characterization or attribution of motive to other players in the story (the authors make judgments about Wilkinson, Benson and McConkie that are popular in today's blogs, but could just as well have allowed the facts to speaks for themselves), but the light they shine on President McKay is delightful in its clarity and paints a wonderful picture of the development of a world-wide church. As in all the works, I had as much interest in the footnotes as in the main text, and I had a hard time following the footnote trail of attribution in the chapter on the priesthood, but that confusion did not damage the reading of the work for me. The book is as much a history of the church in the McKay years as it is a biography of the remarkable man who so looked the part in which he was cast.
4. Massacre at Mountain Meadows by Ronald W. Walker, Richard E. Turley, and Glen M. Leonard – This book appeared in 2008, and I read it as soon as I could get it. I had read Juanita Brooks' treatment of the subject as a BYU freshman in 1976 – my first exposure to "problems" in Mormon history. I found the authors' attention to detail and their sensitivity to multiple sides of the story to be impressive. I enjoyed the footnotes as much as the actual text, and appreciated the candor of the authors (and the access they were given to the available records). I look forward to more of this kind of careful, open history.
5. The Mormon Experience by Leonard Arrington and Davis Bitton. I'm just reading this one now. The first edition was published near the end of my mission and I missed it completely. The second edition, which I'm reading, has been a great survey. It's a little odd reading as the "current state" of the church a 30+ year-old view, but there is an epilog in the second edition which catches up on some key matters. Even so, the general treatment of history is fairly open. I had thought about reading this one and had passed on it for some time, but then through comments on another blog Ardis Parschall (Ardis' Keepapitchinin blog is on my blog list in the side bar) turned me on to Bitton's essay which had been presented at FAIR entitled "I Don't Have A Testimony of the History of the Church", and decided I wanted to read more of Bitton. I'm glad I have.
There is remarkable value in knowing who we are. I'm grateful to these authors for their contribution to that effort. And I'd be happy for your recommendations for further reading
Monday, September 6, 2010
On spiritual self-sufficiency
We had a lesson in our High Priest Group this past Sunday about the welfare program of the church, and part of that discussion centered on the concept of spiritual self-sufficiency. I was intrigued by the discussion and made some notes during it to include here.
The idea in the welfare program is that we strive for self-sufficiency spiritually and temporally. And the reasons are clear: each member ought to have a strong testimony and be temporally strong enough to withstand the blows of life as they come. In so doing, they can be contributors in the Lord’s kingdom.
As it related to spiritual self-sufficiency, there were a few key points of interest in the discussion:
1. One brother suggested the start of spiritual self-sufficiency is a testimony of the gospel. Fair enough – if we have a testimony, we are more likely to participate and contribute spiritually and temporally. Further, we’re more likely to be in a position to teach our families and help them to do the same.
2. Another suggested that spiritual self-sufficiency grows out of (and is evidenced by) living consistently, meaning living according to our covenants and keeping the commandments because we choose to each day, rather than because our children or spouses or bishops are watching.
3. Another suggested that our spiritual self-sufficiency, ironically perhaps, is dependent upon our humility. If we are not humble, we are less likely to feel the promptings of the spirit, and if we do not feel those promptings, we will not follow them.
4. Our instructor then reminded us of Mosiah 4:16-20, in which King Benjamin reminds us that we are all beggars. Our instructor then suggested that the phrase spiritual self-sufficiency is a bit of a problem in and of itself, because we can never be completely self-sufficient: we are constantly begging for the Savior’s mercy, and without His grace we would never have access to the atonement.
This was a great discussion for me. Often I find myself thinking I know what there is to know on a subject, or that I’m squared away testimony-wise on a particular point of doctrine or history. Sometimes that feeling allows me to check out a little bit, rather than recognizing regularly my need for spiritual nourishment, my need for the Master’s mercy, and my constant dependence on His atonement for my spiritual survival.
Better to check back in and to realize that while I strive for spiritual self-sufficiency, I cannot do it alone.
The idea in the welfare program is that we strive for self-sufficiency spiritually and temporally. And the reasons are clear: each member ought to have a strong testimony and be temporally strong enough to withstand the blows of life as they come. In so doing, they can be contributors in the Lord’s kingdom.
As it related to spiritual self-sufficiency, there were a few key points of interest in the discussion:
1. One brother suggested the start of spiritual self-sufficiency is a testimony of the gospel. Fair enough – if we have a testimony, we are more likely to participate and contribute spiritually and temporally. Further, we’re more likely to be in a position to teach our families and help them to do the same.
2. Another suggested that spiritual self-sufficiency grows out of (and is evidenced by) living consistently, meaning living according to our covenants and keeping the commandments because we choose to each day, rather than because our children or spouses or bishops are watching.
3. Another suggested that our spiritual self-sufficiency, ironically perhaps, is dependent upon our humility. If we are not humble, we are less likely to feel the promptings of the spirit, and if we do not feel those promptings, we will not follow them.
4. Our instructor then reminded us of Mosiah 4:16-20, in which King Benjamin reminds us that we are all beggars. Our instructor then suggested that the phrase spiritual self-sufficiency is a bit of a problem in and of itself, because we can never be completely self-sufficient: we are constantly begging for the Savior’s mercy, and without His grace we would never have access to the atonement.
This was a great discussion for me. Often I find myself thinking I know what there is to know on a subject, or that I’m squared away testimony-wise on a particular point of doctrine or history. Sometimes that feeling allows me to check out a little bit, rather than recognizing regularly my need for spiritual nourishment, my need for the Master’s mercy, and my constant dependence on His atonement for my spiritual survival.
Better to check back in and to realize that while I strive for spiritual self-sufficiency, I cannot do it alone.
Monday, August 30, 2010
What if God (or the church) changes?
This is my final entry in a short series on our relationship to God and His truths. The other two are here and here.
This is really a trick question, as I'm sure you can tell. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. Nephi taught this truth to his brothers (see 1 Nephi 10:18), and the Lord Himself taught it repeatedly elsewhere in the scriptures as well.
We know that application of the gospel has changed through the ages, but God has not changed. For instance:
• The Old Testament offered the Law of Moses; the New Testament offers a higher law, and yet the Savior taught that the two great commandments – to love God and to love our neighbor, we consistent with "the law and the prophets" (see Matt 22:40).
• From the time of Moses, only the tribe of Levi administered ordinances around sacrifices. Today all worthly male members of the church may hold the priesthood, either Aaronic or Melchizedek.
• In the Savior's time, the gospel was preached only to the Jews, not to the Gentiles. And to Peter, after the death of the Savior, came the instruction to go to the Gentiles.
Did God change? Did the gospel change? I think not. But the application of the gospel changed.
The Book of Mormon makes clear that the plan of salvation or the plan of happiness – that plan that sent the Savior to atone for our sins – was in place before the foundation of the world, that it was always Father in Heaven's intent to send a Savior. The Good News of the Gospel, namely the Lord's atoning sacrifice and our ability to repent, has been around since the beginning. Again, the Book of Mormon makes clear to us that even in the days of the Law of Moses, people looked forward to the coming of Christ.
Some of my friends make a big deal about changes in the church in our day. Polygamy. The extension of the priesthood to all worthy male members. The organization of the leading bodies of the church. Yes, even a cursory study of church history reveals that ours has been a dynamic church. The Lord did not deliver to the prophet Joseph the administration of today's church fully formed. (It would have seemed a little top-heavy to have a First Presidency, a Quorum of the Twelve and all those quorums of Seventy with only six members in 1830).
It is little surprise to me that the church has changed over time as the needs of the saints have changed. When the Lord revealed the principle of baptism for the dead, members rushed out and performed baptisms for their dead relatives without recording names, without the order we now associate with those ordinances. Only later did the Lord clarify that the saints needed to perform those baptisms in a temple (when one was available) and with a recorder to witness the ordinances. Does that mean the saints were wrong to baptize as they did at first? No. But it does mean that over time the Lord introduced more order to the process.
I trust in the prophets, seers and revelators that I sustain. I trust that they take inspired action in leading the Lord's church. I do not understand everything they have done through the years. But I trust that they seek and receive the Lord's will.
In recent years we've received interesting insight into the workings of the senior councils of the church through biographies of some of the brethren. We've learned (and subsequent reviews of history have confirmed) that the brethren do not always agree, that there is sometimes vigorous discussion among those councils. I am grateful that such discussion exists. The Lord counsels us to study questions out in our minds before presenting our proposal to him. I'm glad the brethren follow that pattern, too.
Whether the brethren's impetus for such discussion is driven by inspiration, their own agenda or by outside forces is of little consequence to me. The Word of Wisdom came from a question that Emma asked Joseph. The first manifesto in 1880 was at least prompted by political realities facing the church. But in the end, the instructions, directions and counsel that followed those questions came from the Lord on His timetable and according to His will.
This is really a trick question, as I'm sure you can tell. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. Nephi taught this truth to his brothers (see 1 Nephi 10:18), and the Lord Himself taught it repeatedly elsewhere in the scriptures as well.
We know that application of the gospel has changed through the ages, but God has not changed. For instance:
• The Old Testament offered the Law of Moses; the New Testament offers a higher law, and yet the Savior taught that the two great commandments – to love God and to love our neighbor, we consistent with "the law and the prophets" (see Matt 22:40).
• From the time of Moses, only the tribe of Levi administered ordinances around sacrifices. Today all worthly male members of the church may hold the priesthood, either Aaronic or Melchizedek.
• In the Savior's time, the gospel was preached only to the Jews, not to the Gentiles. And to Peter, after the death of the Savior, came the instruction to go to the Gentiles.
Did God change? Did the gospel change? I think not. But the application of the gospel changed.
The Book of Mormon makes clear that the plan of salvation or the plan of happiness – that plan that sent the Savior to atone for our sins – was in place before the foundation of the world, that it was always Father in Heaven's intent to send a Savior. The Good News of the Gospel, namely the Lord's atoning sacrifice and our ability to repent, has been around since the beginning. Again, the Book of Mormon makes clear to us that even in the days of the Law of Moses, people looked forward to the coming of Christ.
Some of my friends make a big deal about changes in the church in our day. Polygamy. The extension of the priesthood to all worthy male members. The organization of the leading bodies of the church. Yes, even a cursory study of church history reveals that ours has been a dynamic church. The Lord did not deliver to the prophet Joseph the administration of today's church fully formed. (It would have seemed a little top-heavy to have a First Presidency, a Quorum of the Twelve and all those quorums of Seventy with only six members in 1830).
It is little surprise to me that the church has changed over time as the needs of the saints have changed. When the Lord revealed the principle of baptism for the dead, members rushed out and performed baptisms for their dead relatives without recording names, without the order we now associate with those ordinances. Only later did the Lord clarify that the saints needed to perform those baptisms in a temple (when one was available) and with a recorder to witness the ordinances. Does that mean the saints were wrong to baptize as they did at first? No. But it does mean that over time the Lord introduced more order to the process.
I trust in the prophets, seers and revelators that I sustain. I trust that they take inspired action in leading the Lord's church. I do not understand everything they have done through the years. But I trust that they seek and receive the Lord's will.
In recent years we've received interesting insight into the workings of the senior councils of the church through biographies of some of the brethren. We've learned (and subsequent reviews of history have confirmed) that the brethren do not always agree, that there is sometimes vigorous discussion among those councils. I am grateful that such discussion exists. The Lord counsels us to study questions out in our minds before presenting our proposal to him. I'm glad the brethren follow that pattern, too.
Whether the brethren's impetus for such discussion is driven by inspiration, their own agenda or by outside forces is of little consequence to me. The Word of Wisdom came from a question that Emma asked Joseph. The first manifesto in 1880 was at least prompted by political realities facing the church. But in the end, the instructions, directions and counsel that followed those questions came from the Lord on His timetable and according to His will.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
How do we discover God?
In my last entry, I suggested it was up to us to find God, not to make Him into what we want Him to be. Here I discuss how to find Him. In a future entry, I'll talk about how I deal with changes in the church.
I like that joke about an economist stranded on a desert island with a case full of canned food, but no way to get into the cans. Says the economist: "Assume a can opener..."
In my life, I started assuming that God exists. Though they were not Mormons then, my parents were believers. We said prayers at night; my folks read us Bible stories; we went to church. I don't think I ever wondered IF God exists – for me He was always there.
I've tried to give that same gift to my children, too. Not all of them have accepted my faith, but many of them have at least acknowledged the existence of some kind of God. I recognize that not everyone comes from my perspective. There are many for whom science has replaced God (even while there are scientists whose faith in God has grown because of their science; a recent poll reported on NPR showed that over half of scientists at elite US universities believe in God). And there are those who have never considered the possibility of (or need for) God in their lives.
I don't have a clear answer for those folks. I don't know how to start someone on a believing path, except to say, "Here's my experience…." If my experience resonates, then perhaps someone else will inquire further and come to his own understanding.
But if we assume God exists, our next step is to sort out what that means for us. In my tradition, God is a fixed point, and I must align myself to Him. God is the same yesterday, today and forever, one eternal round.
Clearly the scriptures are a starting point for our understanding. Scriptures are written by prophets and other inspired people, and they record God's interactions with His children at different times and places. Some religious traditions derive their authority from the written word. Of course the Bible is a common source book. But the Bible I read is in translation (I don't read Hebrew or Greek). For me, there are other books of scripture which complement the Bible, namely the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. The first is another ancient record of God's dealing with His people, but set on the American continent. The main story of the Book of Mormon spans 600 BC to about 400 AD. The Doctrine and Covenants includes revelations to prophets in our day, since the first half of the 1800's.
For me, the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants offer clarification of and reinforcement for truths taught in the Bible, and all of these books work to point me to an understanding of God.
The emergence of the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants also depend on another source of truth, namely modern revelation. Mormons believe that our church is a restoration of Christ's church in the latter-days through the prophet Joseph Smith. Among other things, Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon and received most of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants. And he has been followed since his death by other men who we also accept as prophets.
The teachings of those prophets also help me to understand God and His will for me.
Finally (for this entry), I have my own personal experience. Through scripture, God makes clear that He will hear and answer my own prayers. James 1:5 from the New Testament says, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him." Moroni 10:5 from the Book of Mormon teaches "by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." In addition to what I read and what I hear, I can seek a confirming witness from God. In Doctrine and Covenants 6:23 we read, "What greater witness can ye have than from God?"
Indeed.
I like that joke about an economist stranded on a desert island with a case full of canned food, but no way to get into the cans. Says the economist: "Assume a can opener..."
In my life, I started assuming that God exists. Though they were not Mormons then, my parents were believers. We said prayers at night; my folks read us Bible stories; we went to church. I don't think I ever wondered IF God exists – for me He was always there.
I've tried to give that same gift to my children, too. Not all of them have accepted my faith, but many of them have at least acknowledged the existence of some kind of God. I recognize that not everyone comes from my perspective. There are many for whom science has replaced God (even while there are scientists whose faith in God has grown because of their science; a recent poll reported on NPR showed that over half of scientists at elite US universities believe in God). And there are those who have never considered the possibility of (or need for) God in their lives.
I don't have a clear answer for those folks. I don't know how to start someone on a believing path, except to say, "Here's my experience…." If my experience resonates, then perhaps someone else will inquire further and come to his own understanding.
But if we assume God exists, our next step is to sort out what that means for us. In my tradition, God is a fixed point, and I must align myself to Him. God is the same yesterday, today and forever, one eternal round.
Clearly the scriptures are a starting point for our understanding. Scriptures are written by prophets and other inspired people, and they record God's interactions with His children at different times and places. Some religious traditions derive their authority from the written word. Of course the Bible is a common source book. But the Bible I read is in translation (I don't read Hebrew or Greek). For me, there are other books of scripture which complement the Bible, namely the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. The first is another ancient record of God's dealing with His people, but set on the American continent. The main story of the Book of Mormon spans 600 BC to about 400 AD. The Doctrine and Covenants includes revelations to prophets in our day, since the first half of the 1800's.
For me, the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants offer clarification of and reinforcement for truths taught in the Bible, and all of these books work to point me to an understanding of God.
The emergence of the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants also depend on another source of truth, namely modern revelation. Mormons believe that our church is a restoration of Christ's church in the latter-days through the prophet Joseph Smith. Among other things, Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon and received most of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants. And he has been followed since his death by other men who we also accept as prophets.
The teachings of those prophets also help me to understand God and His will for me.
Finally (for this entry), I have my own personal experience. Through scripture, God makes clear that He will hear and answer my own prayers. James 1:5 from the New Testament says, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him." Moroni 10:5 from the Book of Mormon teaches "by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." In addition to what I read and what I hear, I can seek a confirming witness from God. In Doctrine and Covenants 6:23 we read, "What greater witness can ye have than from God?"
Indeed.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Do we get to pick and choose?
This is the first of a few essays that will be broadly linked. In this one, I explore the idea that we need to align ourselves with God instead of trying to make Him into what we want Him to be.
Have you ever met anyone who said, "I could never believe in a God who _____________," and then filled in the blank with the thing they could not tolerate.
This attitude strikes me as odd.
Perhaps it's my father's voice in my head that causes my discomfort. My family joined the church in the late 1960's; I was the youngest of my parents' four children and we were all baptized together. My parents had been very active in their protestant church prior to our joining the Mormons, but my father had expressed his concern about our church's changing because of social changes at the time.
My father's view was that if God is God, and if He does not change, then the church should not vote about what was true this year or not. For my father, God was a fixed point, a given. And it was up to us to discover who He was, not to create Him in or change Him to the image we liked.
So when someone tells me he prefers the God of the New Testament to the God of the Old Testament, I'm confused. (Now I've written before about the fact that the Old Testament also teaches the need for love of God and love of fellowman, just as the New Testament does.) Or if he wants to select a la carte the characteristics of a God he can believe in.
It seems to me what our job is in this regard is to discover God, not to create Him. We can discover Him through study of the scriptures, through revelation through the prophets (including modern prophets), and have those truths ratified through our own personal spiritual experience.
Personally I'm guided by some counsel I received from Elder Theodore Burton of the Seventy while I was on my mission. He taught in a zone conference that those things the Lord felt most strongly about He tended to say more than once in the scriptures. He suggested that teachings that appear only in one obscure verse might not be as significant as those broad themes that get repeated play.
Perhaps you've had a similar experience to mine that in General Conferences I sometimes hear themes emerge from a particular session. It may be I hear those themes because I come to the conference with questions, but I don't think that's always the case.
In any event, I am reluctant to couch my faith and testimony in terms of what I want God to be like; instead I try to understand how He has revealed Himself to be. My understanding continues to grow and develop, even 43 years since my baptism. But it's not God that's changing. It's me. And hopefully, I'm changing for the better.
Have you ever met anyone who said, "I could never believe in a God who _____________," and then filled in the blank with the thing they could not tolerate.
This attitude strikes me as odd.
Perhaps it's my father's voice in my head that causes my discomfort. My family joined the church in the late 1960's; I was the youngest of my parents' four children and we were all baptized together. My parents had been very active in their protestant church prior to our joining the Mormons, but my father had expressed his concern about our church's changing because of social changes at the time.
My father's view was that if God is God, and if He does not change, then the church should not vote about what was true this year or not. For my father, God was a fixed point, a given. And it was up to us to discover who He was, not to create Him in or change Him to the image we liked.
So when someone tells me he prefers the God of the New Testament to the God of the Old Testament, I'm confused. (Now I've written before about the fact that the Old Testament also teaches the need for love of God and love of fellowman, just as the New Testament does.) Or if he wants to select a la carte the characteristics of a God he can believe in.
It seems to me what our job is in this regard is to discover God, not to create Him. We can discover Him through study of the scriptures, through revelation through the prophets (including modern prophets), and have those truths ratified through our own personal spiritual experience.
Personally I'm guided by some counsel I received from Elder Theodore Burton of the Seventy while I was on my mission. He taught in a zone conference that those things the Lord felt most strongly about He tended to say more than once in the scriptures. He suggested that teachings that appear only in one obscure verse might not be as significant as those broad themes that get repeated play.
Perhaps you've had a similar experience to mine that in General Conferences I sometimes hear themes emerge from a particular session. It may be I hear those themes because I come to the conference with questions, but I don't think that's always the case.
In any event, I am reluctant to couch my faith and testimony in terms of what I want God to be like; instead I try to understand how He has revealed Himself to be. My understanding continues to grow and develop, even 43 years since my baptism. But it's not God that's changing. It's me. And hopefully, I'm changing for the better.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Hearts of the Children Turned to Their Fathers
My mother-in-law has just completed a mission at the Genealogy Library in Salt Lake City. Her service was a great blessing to the patrons of the library, I'm sure, and it was a great blessing to us, as well. For instance, she helped me advance one of my Norwegian lines a few more generations by pointing out to me available online Norwegian church records. She also supplied lots of names for baptisms that my son and daughters could do when they visited the temple, and that my wife and I have been able to do work on, as well.
One of the greatest gifts, however, is more than the tabulation and processing of names for ordinance work (though that, too, has been important and rewarding). She took advantage of the vast resources of the new Church History Library to research and compile individual histories for some of her ancestors. She the developed a number of blogs on which she has included the results of her findings.
In the process, she sought to find "true" stories, not family folklore. She learned, for instance, that Ann Ratcliffe's (her great-great grandmother) story was different from the family fables she'd heard. The family fable said that Ann had married Thomas Karren against her father's will, and had jumped out of a second story window to do it, injuring her leg and walking with a limp for the rest of her life. Very colorful, but not true. Instead (and the story is recorded at Thomas's site, not Ann's), Ann's father died and twelve-year-old Ann (somehow encouraged by her grandmother) hired Thomas Karren (who was six years her senior) to help in the family bakery (he had been working for a competitor in Liverpool at the time). Several years later they determined to marry (against her mother's wishes, but with her grandmother's approval). He joined the church in Liverpool and immigrated to Nauvoo, and she went with him, though she did not join the church until February 1846, just before leaving Nauvoo for the west; she was baptized and endowed on the same day.
My mother-in-law was able to read journals and contemporary accounts of many of these early members, and use their own words in many cases, or accounts of those who knew them personally. She also in the process became aware of similar work being done on her relatives by others and has linked to some of those, as well. And rather than producing books that would have been a prohibitive expense, she compiled the information in a series of blogs that will allow for updates as further information is learned.
What a great gift!
One of the greatest gifts, however, is more than the tabulation and processing of names for ordinance work (though that, too, has been important and rewarding). She took advantage of the vast resources of the new Church History Library to research and compile individual histories for some of her ancestors. She the developed a number of blogs on which she has included the results of her findings.
In the process, she sought to find "true" stories, not family folklore. She learned, for instance, that Ann Ratcliffe's (her great-great grandmother) story was different from the family fables she'd heard. The family fable said that Ann had married Thomas Karren against her father's will, and had jumped out of a second story window to do it, injuring her leg and walking with a limp for the rest of her life. Very colorful, but not true. Instead (and the story is recorded at Thomas's site, not Ann's), Ann's father died and twelve-year-old Ann (somehow encouraged by her grandmother) hired Thomas Karren (who was six years her senior) to help in the family bakery (he had been working for a competitor in Liverpool at the time). Several years later they determined to marry (against her mother's wishes, but with her grandmother's approval). He joined the church in Liverpool and immigrated to Nauvoo, and she went with him, though she did not join the church until February 1846, just before leaving Nauvoo for the west; she was baptized and endowed on the same day.
My mother-in-law was able to read journals and contemporary accounts of many of these early members, and use their own words in many cases, or accounts of those who knew them personally. She also in the process became aware of similar work being done on her relatives by others and has linked to some of those, as well. And rather than producing books that would have been a prohibitive expense, she compiled the information in a series of blogs that will allow for updates as further information is learned.
What a great gift!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)