Defending the Faith

WE ARE EXPERIENCING A 116-PAGE MOMENT!, PART I

4/21/2015

Currently the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is experiencing a 116-page moment! Mormons who know a little of their history, know what I am talking about when I refer to the 116 pages. To save time and avoid error, let me summarize the story.

Martin Harris was an early leader of the Church, and a friend and associate of Joseph Smith. He was also one of the three witnesses who testified that a heavenly messenger showed them the gold plates from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/three?lang=eng).

While the Book of Mormon was still in translation, Harris asked Joseph to allow him to take some of the writings home, 116 pages, and show them to members of his family, who were skeptical of Smith and the plates. The History of the Church records:

Sometime after Mr. Harris had begun to write for me, he began to importune me to give him liberty to carry the writings home and show them; and desired of me that I would inquire of the Lord, through the Urim and Thummim, if he might not do so. I did inquire, and the answer was that he must not. However, he was not satisfied with this answer, and desired that I should inquire again. I did so, and the answer was as before. Still he could not be contented, but insisted that I should inquire once more. After much solicitation I again inquired of the Lord, and permission was granted him to have the writings on certain conditions; which were, that he show them only to his brother, Preserved Harris, his own wife, his father and his mother, and a Mrs. Cobb, a sister to his wife. In accordance with this last answer, I required of him that he should bind himself in a covenant to me in a most solemn manner that he would not do otherwise than had been directed. He did so. He bound himself as I required of him, took the writings, and went his way. Notwithstanding, however, the great restrictions which he had been laid under, and the solemnity of the covenant which he had made with me, he did show them to others, and by stratagem they got them away from him, and they never have been recovered unto this day. (History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Volume 1, pages 20-21)

After, Martin Harris lost these pages, Joseph Smith, as a punishment for his disobedience, lost the ability to translate and to receive revelations from God for a time. After a while, the Lord spoke to him again, explained what had happened to the 116 pages, and gave him instructions as to how he should proceed (Doctrine and Covenants Section 10):

10. And, behold, Satan hath put it into their hearts to alter the words which you have caused to be written, or which you have translated, which have gone out of your hands.
11. And behold, I say unto you, that because they have altered the words, they read contrary from that which you translated and caused to be written;
12. And, on this wise, the devil has sought to lay a cunning plan, that he may destroy this work;
13. For he hath put it into their hearts to do this, that by lying they may say they have caught you in the words which you have pretended to translate.
14. Verily, I say unto you, that I will not suffer that Satan shall accomplish his evil design in this thing.
15. For behold, he has put it into their hearts to get thee to tempt the Lord thy God in asking to translate it over again.
16. And then, behold, they say and think in their hearts—We will see if God has given him power to translate; if so, he will also give him power again;
17. And if God giveth him power again, or if he translates again, or, in other words, if he bringeth forth the same words, behold, we have the same with us, and we have altered them;
18. Therefore they will not agree, and we will say that he has lied in his words, and that he has no gift, and that he has no power:
19. Therefore we will destroy him, and also the work; and we will do this that we may not be ashamed in the end, and that we may get glory of the world.

29. Now, behold, they have altered these words, because Satan saith unto them; He hath deceived you—and thus he flattereth them away to do iniquity, to get thee to tempt the Lord thy God.
30. Behold, I say unto you, that you shall not translate again those words which have gone forth out of your hands;
31. For, behold, they shall not accomplish their evil designs in lying against those words. For, behold, if you should bring forth the same words they will say that you have lied and that you have pretended to translate, but that you have contradicted yourself.
32. And, behold, they will publish this, and Satan will harden the hearts of the people to stir them up to anger against you, that they will not believe my words.

In summary, Martin Harris wanted to show the translated pages to family and friends. Joseph Smith asked the Lord, and the Lord said, “No.” Martin Harris kept pestering Joseph, and Joseph asked the Lord again, and he said, “No” again. After the third request (I think that I would not have kept pushing the point, but some people won´t take no for an answer, even from God), the Lord decided to teach Joseph and Martin a lesson, one which Joseph shared with the rest of us and to which we would be wise to pay attention. He let them have what they wanted.

As a result, Joseph lost his ability to translate for awhile, But as the Lord explained, He was in charge, and would not allow His work to be destroyed. He told Joseph that the men who stole the pages had altered them, and that if he re-translated them, they would show the altered pages, and claim that they proved that Joseph Smith was not really a prophet. On the other hand, by not re-translating, there would be some upset people, some even claiming that if he really was a prophet, he could re-translate them exactly as before. An important decision had to be made, one that appeared to be lose-lose. But, the Lord was in control, nothing was re-translated, and yet none of the important teachings were lost.

So, what exactly does this incident have to do with the situation the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints finds itself in today? How does it apply to homosexuality and homosexual marriage, and women receiving the priesthood?

Stay tuned for my upcoming post, as we see how the Church is having it´s modern-day 116-page moment.

0 Comments

THROWING BROTHER BRIGHAM UNDER THE BUS, PART IV

4/17/2015

1 Comment

This will likely be my final post on this topic, unless additional items are posted by bloggers or commenters that have not been sufficiently addressed here. If anyone would like to discuss it further, he or she is welcome to email me, or post comments.

At the end of my last post, I spoke about LDS writers/bloggers who have written uncomplimentary, misguided, and in some cases, downright offensive things about the Church they claim to participate in, as well as about its members. Lest anyhone think that I want to shut anybody up, let me be perfectly clear: everybody has the right to an opinion. People who are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (approximately 99.8% of the world’s population) have the right to whatever opinion they may have regarding the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and may share that opinion how ever they may see fit. Obviously, LDS people have the same right. We all have doubts about lots of things.

I am firm in my beliefs, and rock solid in the very few things that I know to be true. However, if someone has an opinion different from mine, I am respectful, and will always try to see and understand the other person´s point of view. If they say things that are ridiculously false and/or offensive, then I generally will just smile, say something polite, and withdraw from the conversation gracefully. I am not a fan of conflict, and I try to avoid contentious arguments.

One of my few exceptions to this rule is when a member of my church, while pretending to be an active participating member, says something that is patently false about our religion, or offensive to its membership. That person needs to be corrected, and because what they say is false, the record demands correction as well. So, that´s when I pull out all the stops. I will defend the Lord´s Church to my last breath.

In that spirit, I would like to respond to a few comments by blogger Jana Reiss, and attorney and her guest blogger Bryndis Roberts.

JANA REISS

                                                              http://janariess.religionnews.com/

In a recent introduction to a guest poster on her blog, “Flunking Sainthood”, Jana Reiss writes about the Church´s article, “Race and the Priesthood” (http://janariess.religionnews.com/2015/03/19/african-american-mormon-convert-lds-church-needs-make-amends-past-racism/):

         “That statement put the blame for the ban on “widespread ideas about racial inferiority” that
            characterized 19th-century America. . . “

The statement does no such thing. Although it described the atmosphere and attitudes amongst members and non-members of the 19th-century as a background for the article, it places the source of the policy squarely on President Brigham Young, which he initiated when he made an official pronouncement in 1852. Reiss also referred to the policy as being racist. If she feels that it was not a revelation from God, that it was President Young´s invention, then why did the Lord allow it to go on for over 100 years, before removing it. Spencer W. Kimball was not the first prophet to go before the Lord and ask when the policy ought to be reversed. Does that make God a racist, a hater of His own creations? Or maybe all of the prophets from Brigham Young until Spencer W. Kimball were racists who felt that blacks should remain without the blessings of the priesthood. In other words, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, Heber J. Grant, George Albert Smith, David O. McKay, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Harold B. Lee were all racists, hating an entire class of God´s children. How can anyone believe in a church whose most important belief, other than the atonement of Jesus Christ, is that God speaks to living prophets today, if 10 of the 16 modern prophets have been racists?

Or, perhaps the answer is that it had nothing to do with racist feelings or hatred. Perhaps, as is always the case, God had a purpose, and like in so many instances, chose not to share that purpose with us.

In a post about a week later (http://janariess.religionnews.com/2015/03/23/mormon-priesthood-racism-following-prophet/), Ms. Reiss made the following comments:

           It’s not just that it is the very definition of circular logic to claim that LDS prophets were right about
           something . . . and then offer as the only evidence the statements of other LDS prophets.

          It’s that such arguments constitute idolatry, pure and simple. They reveal the sad truth that some
          Mormons are more willing to throw the Lord God under the bus than they are to allow prophets to be
          human beings.

          Their need for an idol runs so deep that they can recast the creator of the universe as a racist more readily
          than they can see Brigham Young as a man who was often inspired to do great and marvelous things but
          who was also, for better and for worse, a creature of inherent finitude. Like us.

Ms. Reiss, we do not use ancient prophets to substantiate a modern day prophet´s official proclamations. Contrary to what you stated elsewhere, we do not use scripture to substantiate what a modern day prophet teaches. We listen to the prophet to help us to interpret and substantiate ancient scripture. Although ancient scripture is of great value, modern revelation through the mouthpiece of the Lord is of infinitely greater value than ancient scripture, and will always take precedence. Thankfully, when studied in context and by the Spirit, no one will ever find a valid contradiction between modern day prophetic pronouncements and ancient scripture.

I have often said that being offended is a choice; however, it would not surprise me to learn that many members of the Church are offended by Ms. Reiss` grossly erroneous and ignorant comparison of their respect and dedication to their leaders to idolatry. Members have had to put up with that kind of characterization for years with regards to our reverence for the prophet Joseph Smith. It appears that Ms. Reiss` advanced higher education did not include a study of her own religion, so let me attempt to educate her: WE DO NOT WORSHIP ANYONE EXCEPT GOD THE FATHER, JESUS CHRIST, AND THE HOLY GHOST, although we greatly revere and respect all prophets, and we hold their official pronouncements to be the word of God (see Doctrine & Covenants 1:38). If she does not understand this basic concept, perhaps she needs to return to the Gospel Principles Sunday School class for a refresher course. Her characterization of our reverence and respect for prophets as idolatry, besides being ignorant and offensive, demonstrates her misunderstanding of the concept of idolatry, something I would not expect from someone with a doctorate in religious history. Her characterization is so off point that I must wonder whether she wrote it specifically to see if she could outrage enough members of the Church to bump up her readership.

Her comment about Mormons being willing to throw God under the bus in order to protect our prophets, which borders on blasphemy, only mirrors her own willingness to throw prophets under the bus, in order to protect her own painfully limited understanding of God and how He executes His will among His children. Because she only has her human experience to help her understand why God would take the priesthood away from a group of people for a limited time, she feels the need to ascribe human motives to His actions. She needs to learn that as we worship God, we accept His will regardless of how painful it may be or how little we understand it, and we reverence His servants, his mouthpieces. We don't shoot the messenger, no matter how difficult the message is.

                                                                           BRYNDIS ROBERTS

Ms. Reiss´ guest poster, Bryndis Roberts, an attorney, board member of Ordain Women, and a Relief Society president from Atlanta, Georgia, made the following statement: “. . . racism was the only reason for the ban”.

I think I responded to this idea in my last post on 6-9-2015. With all due respect to sisters Reiss and Roberts, neither one of you has any idea what the reason was for the ban; nor do I. I only know that it was not racism, because it did indeed come from God and He sanctioned it for over 100 years. The one thing I think the three of us can agree on is that God is not a racist. The thing I think that we do not agree on is that neither have any of the Lord´s modern day prophets been racists, and that the Church does not practice institutional racism.

I have been blessed during my life to have met and known a number of these individuals who are called to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, The Seventy, and other positions in the general leadership of the Church. Not a one is perfect. Each one has his/her strongly held opinions, and some have some interesting larger-than-life personalties. They are all very different. But I have yet to meet one who was not filled with charity for his/her brothers and sisters. The power of the Holy Ghost, and the pure love of Christ literally emanates from these people. How can you love so purely other human beings, give up all other worldly pursuits to serve them, and still have racist feelings for them. You can´t.

What Reiss and Roberts have done is to forget that they belong to a church run by revelation; it is not led by its members, although they all help to administer it. It is led by Christ, powered by the Holy Ghost and revelation from God. It does not depend on the opinions of its members to determine doctrine. It does not check to see if its policies and practices are acceptable according to other beliefs or philosophies, or popular opinion. It does not mingle scriptures with the philosophies of men. Sister Reiss and Sister Roberts would be much better served not by using their own education and personal experience and bias as a measuring stick with which to measure the church´s doctrines and teaching, but rather by using the pronouncements of God through His prophets to measure their public actions and opinions.

My next post will be: We Are Having a 116-Page Moment!

1 Comment

THROWING BROTHER BRIGHAM UNDER THE BUS, PART III

4/9/2015

0 Comments

In my last post, I talked about a Gentile woman who tried to, and succeeded in obtaining a blessing at the hand of Jesus (Matthew 15:22-28).

I am very impressed with the response of this woman in the story from Jesus´ ministry. After Jesus compared Gentiles to dogs (He did not call them dogs. That would be a very different thing, something some readers have a difficult time discerning. He simply made a comparison) she replied, “Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” Was she agreeing that the Jews were better than Gentiles, or somehow more favored by God. Were Jews her masters? Hardly! At that time, the Jews were masters of absolutely nothing, not even of their own nation. However, she realized that for some reason, they were the anointed recipients of blessings that she was unable, at least at that time, to receive. Yet she was willing to humble herself in order to obtain some limited blessing for her daughter, and she succeeded. The Lord, who was not a racist, gave her the blessing she desired.

I have great respect for blacks who during the period of 1852 to 1978 accepted the gospel and were baptized even though they were accepted as sort of second-class citizens in the Church. Some members, including leaders, thought and said some pretty dumb and insensitive things. It is amazing to me that these good people stayed around. Some did not. Some could not take what they viewed as institutional racism of the church, as well as actual racist treatment by some members. There were also well meaning members who had no hate in their hearts, but because of their upbringing, and/or no understanding of racial differences, also said and did some dumb and thoughtless things. Brigham Young was likely one of these. He said some unfortunate things, in personal or governmental capacities when not acting as a prophet. I will leave the topic of infallibility of prophets for another post.

I would imagine a great many of these people will have some apologizing to do when encountering their black brothers and sisters in the next life. I don´t believe I´ll be among them because I have never had anything but love for my brothers and sisters of color, and as far as I am aware, I have never done anything to demonstrate otherwise. Although I am white, many family members, whether by adoption or by marriage, as well as my own children, are people of color, and they are all dear to me.

I am not aware of my ancestors doing or saying anything detrimental to people of color but that doesn´t mean it didn´t happen. I also have living family members who have said some insensitive things because of ignorance of other cultures or ethnicity. I´m not going to apologize for them either. That is their responsibility, not mine. However, the Church owes no one an apology for executing the will of God in the best way that the leaders knew how. The Church leaders may apologize in the future out of love for the members, and to try to put an end to this nonsense. However, in my opinion, they have no obligation to do so.

The fact is, this life is a test, and the Lord tests all of us in interesting ways. Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son Isaac (although in the last moment, after proving his willingness to obey in all things, he was relieved of that obligation).

Nephi was commanded to slay Laban (although, unlike Abraham, Nephi was required to follow through and take a life).

Many Lamanites committed themselves to obey the commandment not to kill, even though it mean the loss of their own lives.

The scriptures are filled with similar examples.

The Lord has also tested entire peoples, like the Jews, the Gentiles, Samaritans, native peoples in North and South America and in Australia, and also Africans. Some peoples´ tests ended long ago, and some continue today, and will for some time yet to come. Some tests are directly set in motion by The Almighty Himself. Other tests consist of God allowing the influence of wicked people to go unanswered. Some tests we bring upon ourselves through sin and/or poor judgement. Others occur simply because as one general authority recently put it, “. . .this is a fallen world.” (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/approaching-the-throne-of-god-with-confidence).

I don´t pretend to know all of the reasons for individual or specific tests. Everyone´s experience in this mortal life is unique. I only know that the outcome of the test depends entirely on our individual response to it. I can ask, “Why me?”, or worry about who to blame. We can argue about whose test was more difficult (ie, personal trials v. black slavery and continued discrimination v. the Jewish Holocaust v. religious discrimination v. instances of ethnic cleansing, etc.). We can demand apologies from institutions or groups of people for evils committed by their ancestors upon our ancestors (as pointless as that may be). And we can even continue to beat up the LDS Church over a policy that was reversed 37 years ago, before nearly half the current population of this planet was even born!

Or, each of us, regarding his/her personal trials and feelings can ask himself/herself, “What do I need to learn from this that will further my pursuit of happiness and eternal life? What is God trying to teach me? Am I learning it? How can I pass this test?

Recently, certain writers have been capitalizing on the Church´s publication of the educational article on race and the priesthood to criticize the Church all over again, and make ridiculous claims regarding the Church and its leadership. I would discount and ignore the claims if they had been made by the usual suspects, those numerous critics and detractors who have chosen to pick a bone with the Church. However, the writers to whom I refer, Jana Reiss, Bryndis Roberts, and Dr. Darren T. Smith, to name a few, are active practicing Mormons. Their ridiculous comments demand response, and I am going to give them several - in my next post.

0 Comments

THROWING BROTHER BRIGHAM UNDER THE BUS, PART II

4/6/2015

0 Comments

After my last post, I fully expected some people to call me deluded, racist, or worse. I have been pleasantly surprised. I have received very few derogatory comments. I guess I need to learn to be more optimistic.
I promised to focus on two questions in this post:
1-If the policy to restrict men and women of African descent from receiving the full blessings of the gospel for 126 years was actually God´s will, then why did He do it?

2-If it was truly His will, is God a racist?

Let´s go back in time about 2,000 years, to when Jesus himself walked the earth. In the New Testament, Matthew 15, we are told the story of a Gentile (non-Jewish) woman that approached Jesus asking for help for her daughter that was “grievously vexed with a devil.” The story continues,

But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.
And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.

Jesus stated that he was not sent to anyone except Jews (in this context meaning any of the descendants of Israel). He compared everyone else to “dogs”! Did that make Jesus a racist? He said that he was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel, meaning sent by His Father. Does that make God the Father a racist? Did Jesus hate Gentiles? If so, why is the vast majority of the Christian religion today made up of Gentiles, with relatively few Jews participating?

The answer is that it was not about racism. It simply was not the Gentiles’ turn. For whatever reason, that we may not comprehend, the Gentiles could not have the blessings of the gospel at that time; they had to wait for their turn, which came a few years after Jesus death. It came via revelation to the apostle Peter, the leader of the Church in his day.

A teaching that is quite common in the scriptures is that “. . . many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.” (New Testament: Matthew 19:30, 20:16, Mark 10:31, Luke 13:30; Book of Mormon: 1 Nephi 14:32, Ether 13:12; Doctrine and Covenants: 29:30). Israel was the first to receive the blessings of the gospel, and then the Gentiles (everybody else) would get their chance later on; they were last. The Old and New Testaments are all about Israel´s opportunity to receive the blessings of the gospel, which it rejected repeatedly, and then the beginning of the Gentiles time. Israel´s opportunity ended when they killed their final prophet, the Son of God (see Matthew 21:23-46). Then, with the revelation given to Peter, the apostles’ efforts turned to the Gentiles. Israel was first; the Gentiles were last.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints believe that after the death of Christ and the Apostles, there was a gradual falling away from truth and authority, what we call “The Great Apostasy”. That is why Latter Day Saints do not associate themselves with either Catholic (Roman or Orthodox) or Protestant religions. We believe that Christ´s original organization and teachings are being restored in our day, first through Joseph Smith, and continuing through every modern day prophet up to the current prophet, Thomas S. Monson. The restoration was first made available to the Gentiles. After first coming to the Gentiles, the Church sent missionaries to indigenous peoples throughout North and South America, some of whom we believe to be descendants of Israel. Modern day Jews have yet to participate in the gospel in any significant way, although the Lord has not specifically prohibited them from taking part. Some in the US and in other countries have accepted the gospel, but Israeli law currently proscribes proselyting in Israel itself. We hope for that to change in the future, and in fact scripture tells us that it will.

Hence, the first shall be last and the last shall be first.

Why did God do this? I really don´t know. Is it because God is a racist? That doesn´t make a whole lot of sense, does it. Why would an omnipotent and omniscient being, whom the scriptures state is the personification of love, and whom we call “Father”, create races that he did not love? How could he possibly love one race over another, when he created us all, loves us all? We, as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints believe in a God who loves all of His children,

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has no official position on why God works in this fashion. We simply know from scripture that he does, so, it would not be a stretch to understand that He may work in the same way in relation to other peoples. Take, for example, the proscription, through Brigham Young, against black Africans receiving the priesthood and participating in temple ordinances. Scripture shows that this would not be the first time that God made blessings available to one group of people and not to another.

I remember working as a missionary in Northern Brazil in an area where we were having a great deal of success. There was a city just a few miles to the west of where we were working that we felt would also yield fruits. After spending a good deal of time there without baptizing anyone, we became frustrated. When the mission president found out that we were working in that city, he ordered us to leave it at once, and prohibited our working there again. He said that the Lord had not yet opened that city for the preaching of the restored gospel, and he told us not to return. You see, the people in that city were not yet ready to receive the gospel, therefore it was not offered to them. Today, 33 years later, the gospel thrives there, with many active congregations. At a certain point, the people became prepared; then the gospel, and all its blessings, was presented to them.

As far as black Africans and the priesthood, the church has disowned all of the explanations that church members and some leaders have offered in the past regarding why God placed that restriction. Therefore, the only explanation left to us is this: God does things in His own way and in His own time, for the best possible benefit to His children. In the Doctrine and Covenants Section 29:30, He said to Joseph Smith, "But remember that all my judgments are not given unto men…” And to the prophet Isaiah he said, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:8-9).

He doesn´t always tell us why He does everything that He does, sometimes because we just wouldn´t understand, and sometimes to test our faith (Moses 5:6, Genesis 22:1-14). When we doubt Him, when we doubt His prophets simply because what they say is hard to bear, we fail the test.

I do not hold a grudge against the Lord or His prophets because my ancestors were denied the blessings of the gospel. I do not demand an apology from either the Lord or His Church. Black Africans are now recipients of all the blessings of the gospel, and have been for 37 years. It’s time to stop dwelling on the past and making demands of the Lord or His Prophets. The Church does not apologize for executing the Lord´s will.

0 Comments

THROWING BROTHER BRIGHAM UNDER THE BUS, PART 1

4/2/2015

0 Comments

It´s been nearly four weeks since my initial two posts on this blog. I apologize for taking so long to post again. I could make excuses for the many difficulties and responsibilities getting in the way of my writing, but then most if not all bloggers face similar challenges, and yet do not let their readers down. I will try not to let it happen again.

In December 2013, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints released an article on its website, on the Gospel Topics page, entitled “Race and the Priesthood.” (https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng). It deals with the Church`s history with regards to black men and women of African descent and the priesthood and temple ordinances. From 1852 until 1978, black men could not receive the priesthood, and black families could not participate in temple ordinances, other than baptism and confirmation for the dead.

The Church published the article with no fanfare, so it took some members, detractors, and the media a while to figure out it was there. Of course, as one would expect, along with the praise for a new attitude (which it most assuredly was not) came the criticism and distortions from the media. One story actually claims that the church published the article “surreptitiously” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/darron-t-smith-phd/the-mormon-church-disavow_b_4440244.html), which is really kind of silly. Why would the church secretly post an article on its website that would eventually be discovered by those combing the web looking for stones to throw, given our present climate of attacks against the church coming from both outside and inside?

There have been a few misrepresentations by the media and others about what the article actually says. I intend to address each of these. However, my first word of counsel to my readers is this: READ THE ARTICLE. Don´t depend on anyone else to tell you what the article says. Read it for yourself. You may be surprised at the difference between what it actually says, and what the media claims that it says.

One of the media claims is that the article states the policy regarding blacks was just something that Brigham Young invented, and was not revelation from God. In other words, the Church is implying that Brigham Young was not inspired, not acting as a prophet, and that the policy was never actually the will of God, just of a racist Brigham Young.

Nowhere does the article state that God did not inspire the policy regarding blacks and the priesthood. The article states, “In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood. . .” It does not say that President Young just decided to institute a policy that he dreamed up. The article states it in this way because there is no official record of a revelation. That does not mean that the Lord did not direct him to institute the policy. There is a false impression that a prophet must say the words “Thus saith the Lord” in order for his words to be accepted as the word of God. The fact is, if the prophet, or First Presidency make an official pronouncement, you can take that to the bank.

The Lord instructed the Church, through Joseph Smith, “What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same. (Doctrine & Covenants 1:38, boldface added)

The fact that succeeding prophets did not discontinue the policy, also gives credence to it being the will of God. The article states, “Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple.” Further, “. . . given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban.”

Given that succeeding prophets allowed the restriction to continue, and in at least one case, actively sought its reversal, one must conclude that it was the will of God that it remain in place. Otherwise why would God allow what many felt to be an unjust policy to remain in place, seriously restricting His blessings for people of black African descent. There are only two choices. Either the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is led by Prophets who speak the mind and will of God, or it is not. Most people believe that it is not, and so they are free to believe as they see fit regarding the pronouncements of its prophets. But for those who claim to believe that the Church`s prophets are the representatives of God on the earth, shame on you if you now state that this policy was anything other than God`s will. If you believe the Lord has placed His Church on this earth, that it is guided by Him through His Personal representatives, then by default you must accept and follow their official pronouncements. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and the gospel that it purports to preach, is not a smorgasborg; we don´t decide to follow a prophetic pronouncement because it is nice and acceptable, and reject those that are hard, or are contrary to popular opinion and philosophy, even when those opinions and philosophies appear to be right. If the prophetic pronouncements come via the accepted line of priesthood authority, then we who are a covenant people are bound to accept and follow them.

The question on which we must now focus, is not whether the doctrine was of God, but why He chose to place this restriction on black African men and women, and why it was not based on racism. We´ll discuss that in my next post.

0 Comments

CONFESSIONS OF A TBM

3/6/2015

0 Comments

Although I spend a lot of time on the computer, until recently I have not spent much of it reading blogs. I don’t use social sites much and my other internet activities are very focused; I don´t do a lot of surfing. So, you must forgive me when I say that I really didn’t know much about the so-called “bloggernacle” until recently.

When I read about the bloggernacle for the first time, I thought, “This is great. People writing intelligent blogs on important gospel topics. I figured there would be a little fluff; you know, cultural items of interest only to cultural Mormons, also known as Utahns (Sorry. That might be just a little unfair. Many Utah Mormons are quite devoted to their religion. It’s just that many also tend to confuse religion with tradition). I do not really have much interest in that stuff. I have not lived in Utah since the age of five, and I am not overly concerned with the cultural niceties of being a Mormon. My interest is in the meat and potatoes of the religion: the power of the priesthood, the essence of the Holy Ghost and personal revelation, the possibility of knowing God the Father and Jesus Christ. I want to read about the power of the gospel to change people’s lives, and the ways the Church can carry that gospel those who need it.

As I started reading more blogs and articles, imagine my surprise as I discovered that the bloggernacle was not just good natured and well-intentioned Mormons bearing testimony and sharing knowledge and ideas! It also includes mean spirited rants by ex-Mormons with bones to pick, PAMs (dontcha just love that term, Professional Anti-Mormons), people who got hurt by a Mormon and blame the whole church, Mormon intellectuals who think they could run the church much better than the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles, and the most insidious group of all, “active” Mormons who want the church to change to keep up with the times.

In the course of my new discovery, I came across a term that confused me: TBM. The writers who use this term just assume that everybody knows what it means and therefore do not always explain it. I had to do a little research to understand the term. It was important because it seems that many writers use it so derogatorily. I found three different explanations, which at first glance all seem to mean the same thing, but are really quite different. They are:

            1-Totally Brainwashed Mormon
            2-True Believing Mormon, and
            3-True Blue Mormon

Totally Brainwashed Mormon

It probably comes as no surprise that I absolutely reject the term “totally brainwashed Mormon”. Although the term “brainwashed” has its place, when referring to someone’s strongly held belief or opinion it usually means that the person using the label cannot convince the labelee of the rectitude of the labeler´s position or belief. In other words, he uses the term in frustration, because his arguments have failed to convince. It is his version of “Oh yeah?” It is silly, offensive, and disrespectful of others´ beliefs. It does nothing to further the user’s cause or argument, and serves only to further alienate him from the allegedly brainwashed person. It is nothing more than childish name-calling.

True Believing Mormon
This a label that, although often used in a derogatory manner, is not inherently offensive in any way. In fact, it’s a title I could get behind! It’s a badge I can wear proudly.

True Blue Mormon
This is another great title, with an interesting history, although many who use the term may not know it. In the book, “Gospel Doctrine: Selections from the Sermons and Writings of Joseph F. Smith”, Smith tells a wonderful story from his early life.

Smith served as a missionary in the Hawaiian Islands from the time he was 15 years old until he turned 19. He writes of an experience he had on his way home to Utah in 1857, which demonstrated his integrity:

It must be said that the feeling against the "Mormons," first, on account of the exaggerated reports of the Mountain Meadows massacre, and secondly, because of the coming of Johnston's army to Utah, was exceedingly bitter on the coast. As an illustration: While they were in Los Angeles, a man, William Wall by name, came near being hung because he had confessed he was a "Mormon." A mob of men had passed sentence on him, and had prepared every detail to hang him. It was only through the wise counsel of a man among them, whose better judgment prevailed, that he was not hung. This man pointed out to the mob that here was a man who had not been near Utah when the massacre took place, a man who had no sympathy with it, who could in no way be counted as a criminal. Why should he suffer? And so Wall was finally discharged and given time to get out of the country. It was under such conditions, and such prevailing sentiment, that President Smith, then a lad of nineteen, found himself on his journey home, and on his trip to San Bernardino.

With another man, and a mail carrier, he took passage in a mail wagon. They traveled all night, and at daylight stopped near a ranch for breakfast. The passenger and the mail carrier began to prepare breakfast, while Joseph went a short distance from camp to look after the horses. just while the carrier was frying eggs, a wagon load of drunken men from Monte came in view, on their road to San Bernardino to kill the "Mormons," as they boasted.

The oaths and foul language which they uttered, between their shooting, and the swinging of their pistols, were almost indescribable and unendurable. Only the West in its palmiest frontier days could produce anything like its equal. They were all cursing the "Mormons," and uttering boasts of what they would do when they met them. They got out at the ranch, and one of them, tumbling around, caught sight of the mail wagon, and made his way towards it. The passenger and the mail carrier, fearing for their safety, had retired behind the chaparral, leaving all the baggage and supplies, including the frying eggs, exposed and unprotected.

Just as the drunken man approached, President Smith came in view on his way to the camp, too late to hide, for he had been seen. The ruffian was swinging his weapon, and uttering the most blood-curdling oaths and threats ever heard against the "Mormons." "I dared not run," says President Smith, "though I trembled for fear which I dared not show. I therefore walked right up to the camp fire and arrived there just a minute or two before the drunken desperado, who came directly toward me, and, swinging his revolver in my face, with an oath cried out: 'Are you a - - - - - - - - 'Mormon?"'

President Smith looked him straight in the eyes, and answered with emphasis: "Yes, siree; dyed in the wool; true blue, through and through." (Bold italics added)

The desperado's arms both dropped by his sides, as if paralyzed, his pistol in one hand, and he said in a subdued and maudlin voice, offering his hand: "Well, you are the - - - - - - pleasantest man I ever met! Shake. I am glad to see a fellow stand for his convictions." Then he turned and made his way to the ranch house. Later in the day, on seeing President Smith, he only pulled his slouch hat over his eyes, and said not a word. (Gospel Doctrine, page 518)

This young 19-year old, who would one day become an apostle and prophet of the Lord, and the 6th President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints showed some pretty incredible integrity, even at the peril of his life. I hope that I can, in my own small way stand with him, and say as I am sure he would if he were alive today, “Yes, I confess, I am a TBM!

0 Comments

INTRODUCTION

3/5/2015

2 Comments

As a Mormon, watching the political controversies swirling around the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I am saddened. It´s becoming a bit more uncomfortable to be a member of the church than it has in the past; not that it has ever been comfortable or easy. The church has been a target ever since its restoration, since Joseph Smith received his first vision in 1820. To be honest, persecution wasn´t even new when it happened to Joseph Smith. It has happened to all sincere followers, regardless of their religion, starting with Abel, who suffered death at the hands of his brother. If one is going to follow a belief that demands that he act at times in opposition to popular beliefs, then one must be prepared to suffer the consequences, which are ridicule, persecution, and in some cases death. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has always been the subject of ridicule, and at times severe persecution, in some cases backed by the governments in countries where the church functions. Recently, it seems that attacks are coming from all sides now, and even from within the church membership.

What exactly are the controversies surrounding the Church today, and who or what is behind them?

WOMEN AND THE PRIESTHOOD

There are a small number of LDS women demanding to receive the priesthood. When pressed on the issue, they say that they are not demanding to receive the priesthood, just insisting that the President of the Church, whom Mormons consider to be a prophet, seek a revelation from God to see if He wants women to hold the priesthood. They claim to accept the President as a prophet. Yet, as the answer comes back to them, “No, not at this time”, they reject that answer, because it’s not the one they want.

One of the interesting things about this group of women is that they are supported by women who are not LDS, most of whom practice no religion, and don´t believe in the power of the priesthood anyway. For them it is just a political issue, a women´s issue, or simply a way to poke at the church. Faithful LDS women involved in this cause ought to take a look at who their supporters are, and what that says about their cause and organization.

I am not a women hater, nor do I insist on dominating women (just ask my wife). If the Lord ever revealed that the time had come to give women the priesthood, I would be on board 100%. I know a lot of women. I like women; I love a good number of them. I want them to be happy

HOMOSEXUALISM AND THE CHURCH

There are homosexual members who are demanding to have all of the benefits of belonging to the Church. Some even want to be married to other homosexuals in the temple (a place considered especially holy by other Mormons and where only Mormons in good standing are allowed to enter). The Church has gone as far as it can go in this respect. The church does not excommunicate homosexuals for having homosexual feelings. The Church backs anti-discrimination laws. Homosexuals can be members of the church, hold callings, hold the priesthood, go to the temple, etc. What they cannot do is practice homosexual behavior, and remain in good standing as a member. We are not waiting on some new doctrine in this regard. This has already been revealed. It´s scriptural. Homosexual activity, just like all forms of sexual relations outside the bounds of marriage between a man and a woman, is considered sinful. As apostles have stated recently, that just is not going to change, and those who think that it will are sadly mistaken. Church doctrine does not change. Period.

Recently, there has been a related controversy, when the Church announced that along with its backing of homosexual anti-discrimination legislation, it would like to see protected the rights of religious people who oppose homosexuality and its practice. This created quite a backlash in the homosexual community, because of course, their civil rights take precedence over everybody else’s, especially in terms of those constitutionally protected rights of free speech and practice of religion. Some governments are also getting on the bandwagon, such as the Salt Lake City Police Department (surprised anybody?), and the State of California (no surprise). Blog posts to follow on both of these stories.

Again, I know some homosexuals. I like some of them. I can´t say that any of my closest friends are homosexuals, but there are some family members with whom I have very limited contact, and a few at church with whom I have friendly relationships. I also want them to be happy.

INTERNET MISCREANTS

Then, of course, there is that group of undeterminable size who just hate Mormons and post hateful garbage as commentaries to articles, create nasty blogs, and otherwise hide behind the internet wall of anonymity while hurling verbal dirt clods at Mormons who may be passing by. I don´t know any of these people because they hide in the dark. I don´t like any of them, because they are trolls. I´d like for them to be happy so that they would quit being trolls, but I don´t see that happening any time soon.

To clarify a statement I made in my first paragraph. When I say I am saddened, please understand that I am not concerned about the church, not really. Anyone who knows the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints understands that the church and its members have been through some bad stuff and come out all right. Our ancestors went through horrible hardships including the murder of the church leaders (tacitly approved by local and state government), an extermination order executed by a state government, and constant persecution by governments and other groups almost since its inception. Yet, here we are, strong and growing.

I am however especially saddened by those members of the LDS Church who write blogs or newspaper articles in which they claim to be active members of the church in good standing, and then proceed to attack the church doctrine and the teachings of its leaders, sometimes personally attacking the leaders themselves. Their statements make it obvious to all members in good standing who make the mistake of reading their tripe, that they really do not understand their own religion, and are what is becoming known as "cultural Mormons". I call them "MINCOs": Mormons in Name and Culture Only. They don´t see the Church as a religion. They see it more as their heritage and/or social club. Let me explain something to the MINCOs. Things are going to get a whole lot rougher for you. The church is not going to come after you; there will not be wholesale excommunications, as some silly writers would have you believe. However, as our society becomes more and more permissive and accepting of those behaviors that the Lord has specifically labeled as “sin”, it is going to get progressively harder for you to identify as Mormon. It won´t be popular, it won´t be fun, not even in predominantly Mormon communities. The time will come when only those who are truly dedicated to the doctrine, who know for themselves of its veracity, will be able to withstand the persecution. I suggest you climb off the fence now, one side or the other, before it becomes really uncomfortable.

In conclusion, I don´t believe that writing this blog is going to change much of anything. I don´t have that big an ego. However, as all writers know, writing about something you consider important can be extremely cathartic. I get very angry about the lies and distortions in the media and in the “bloggernacle”, and venting that anger would be unchristian. It would also, of course, would make me a target of those who enjoy attacking the church through the faults (which are legion) of its members. And so, instead of getting angry and returning insults, I will write, and try to set the distorted record straight.

I will try to be coherent, kind, and not let my anger shine through. My purpose is not to be contentious, but rather to correct and to allow one more testimony to shine forth. If I think or believe something to be true or false, I will say I think, or believe. And when I know something to be true or false, I will say that I know. I hope there will be no confusion about my feelings, or my knowledge. To borrow from President Boyd K. Packer, I know what I know. Sometimes ones feelings simply do not convey the depth of knowledge.

If there are errors, let me know, and I will correct them. Although I am an active member, (I hold a calling, a temple recommend, etc.) I in no way officially represent The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. My opinions, statements, knowledge and testimony are my own, and no one else´s. So blaming the church for any inaccuracy or shortcoming in this blog would be wrong, dishonest, and even a little cowardly.

2 Comments

WE ARE EXPERIENCING A 116-PAGE MOMENT!, PART I

THROWING BROTHER BRIGHAM UNDER THE BUS, PART IV

THROWING BROTHER BRIGHAM UNDER THE BUS, PART III

THROWING BROTHER BRIGHAM UNDER THE BUS, PART II

THROWING BROTHER BRIGHAM UNDER THE BUS, PART 1

CONFESSIONS OF A TBM

INTRODUCTION

Author

Archives

Categories