Labels

addiction (1) affliction (2) angels (2) answers to gospel questions (1) antichrist (1) apostasy (4) authority (1) Babylon (3) baptism (1) baptism by fire (2) blessings (2) Book of Mormon (3) book of revelation (2) Book: Seek Ye This Jesus (1) celestial law (2) charity (2) child-like (1) Christ (1) church history (2) commandment (4) commandments of men (2) condescension (1) consecration (1) cut off (1) denver snuffer (3) desire (2) destruction at second coming (1) destruction of USA (9) disasters (3) doctrine of Christ (1) dreams (2) earthquakes (1) Eiljah (1) end times (4) ensign (1) errors in scripture (1) excommunication (2) faith (1) false traditions (8) fasting (1) follow the prophet (1) freedom (1) fullness (1) fullness of the Gentiles (3) gathering (1) Gentiles (2) Gideon (1) giving (1) godly suffering (5) gossip (1) great and marvelous work (1) happiness (2) Holy Ghost (4) humility (1) idolatry (3) iniquity (2) Isaiah (2) Jesus (6) Joseph Smith (4) keys (1) king of assyria (1) kings (1) knowledge (1) Lamanites (1) law of Moses (1) Lehites (1) lies (1) light and truth (8) love (1) miracles (1) Nauvoo (1) New Jerusalem (1) offense (1) one mighty and strong (4) opposition (1) parables (15) patience (1) perfection (1) plan of salvation (1) plural marriage (5) polygamy (1) power (1) power in priesthood (2) prayer (4) priesthood (1) prophecy (2) prophet (1) psalms (1) questions (1) redeemed from the fall (1) remnant of Jacob (3) repentance (5) restoration (4) revelation (9) revelator (1) sacrifice (1) Samson (1) Satan (2) scripture study (9) scriptures (1) sealing power (2) Second Comforter (1) Second Coming (1) see God (5) seer (1) setting up stakes (1) shrewdness (1) signs (2) sin (1) skepticism (1) suffering (2) teaching the gospel (1) telestial (2) telestial law (1) temple recommend (1) temple work (1) temples (4) temptation (5) the poor (1) tithing (1) trials (2) tribulation (1) true messengers (6) trust in God (2) truth (8) unbelief (2) visions (4) visitations (1) waiting on the Lord (1) Warrior (1) wealth (1) word of God (2) wresting scripture (1) Zion (2)

Thursday, January 15, 2015

"Clusters": How the Church is Getting Away from Chapel Building

This post raises some interesting information:
http://www.nearingkolob.com/lds-church-introduces-new-units-africa-clusters

A quote:
"The cluster concept is fairly new and is being implemented in a small number of communities in South Africa. A cluster is simply a group of ward members that holds Sunday meetings in a location within walking distance of their homes. In this case, the meeting place is a small building that is used primarily for a pre-school. The meetinghouse for their ward is far enough from their homes that frequent travel to it is cost-prohibitive. The cluster members will still participate in ward activities. The bishopric of the parent ward will alternately attend and preside at the cluster meetings and is responsible for the cluster membership as it is for the rest of the ward. We think the concept is excellent – it takes the Church to the people when such a need exists."

Apparently, Elders Holland, Oaks, and Bednar are behind the idea.

The blogger asks the question, with reports of 40 or 50 members attending these "cluster" meetings, why aren't they a branch? As he notes, there are many branches with less members than that. 

A little late history provides answers to his questions.

Have you ever heard of the centers of strength policy? It's nothing new or secret, but hardly anyone knows about it. Do a Google search, but start here:

http://www.cumorah.com/index.php?target=view_other_articles&story_id=569&cat_id=30

In a nutshell, the church avoids proselyting in rural and poor areas (read: sub-saharan Africa), even when self-organized groups of thousands of people petition for baptism. Why? The current church doctrine necessitates a living, breathing, judging link between a member and the brethren. They hold the keys of eternal life, and they push down policies that control how close or far a member is from that objective. It requires a bishop or branch president, dictated by them, who knows by personal interaction the degree to which an individual submits to those policies. It requires temples and chapels. 

People in poor areas will never pay enough tithing to justify a chapel (even at 3rd world chapel standards far behind the 2.5 million price tag of a US chapel), and poor folks in rural areas will never have enough money to make it to the chapel. It's that simple. As a former Area President in South Africa said, "Africa is the black hole that would sink the church." If current church models are followed, that is true. That is the reason there aren't more members in Africa than Mexico or even the United States: poor people can't pay tithing, and need far more fast offerings than they would ever contribute.

For some time, online reports of Elder Bednar's stake/regional conference appearances in the US have hinted at the cessation of building more chapels:

http://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/2kkwja/elder_bednar_the_church_is_growing_so_fast/

http://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/2ki1bj/are_these_two_recent_stories_related_bednar_bain/

http://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/2ki2dv/bednar_warns_the_church_is_collapsing_in_north/

In short, the church is facing a fiscal problem:
1) The stock market is not what it was when N. Eldon Tanner used it to bring the church out of debt in the 70s. It is highly volatile, and very likely the church took a bath along with every other corporation in 2008. 

2) Secondary investments like real estate can shore up reductions in tithing, but they can't sustain the old model of temples + chapels.

3) Tithing only works as the way to finance the many church buildings, many church employees, and other financial obligations when there are many tithe-paying north Americans. The vast majority of tithing comes from North America. Yet, North American members are leaving faster than they are joining, and have been ever since Google was invented.

So how can net tithing profit (income - cost to build and maintain chapels, church universities, and church employee salaries) be increased? There are two ways:

1) Stop building chapels. This is the cluster policy.

2) Increase tithing. Elder Bednar touched on the idea, but came short of suggesting it was an eventuality. We shall see!

Of course, there is also a third way, and that is to return to the original use for tithing, caring for the poor, and get out of the building and selective education business altogether...

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

A Critique Directed to Those Who Claim to Believe What Denver Snuffer Teaches

This post is not directed to those who have not heard of Denver Snuffer. That's what google is for. This is toward those who have read his writings and/or heard his discourses.

I received an email today from an anonymous source. I am responding to it and reposting because I feel that a) there are more people who feel the way this writer did, and b) his/her views correctly draw attention to some idiosyncrasies in the actions and beliefs of those who have read and at least partially agree with Denver Snuffer's teachings. I don't know exactly how to write this well, and I'm pressed for time, so I will put the email here in its entirety, than comment on it.

A friend of mine sent this to me and I thought it was worthy of further discussion, so I’m forwarding to you.  I guess they tried to post it to some blogs, but it was being deleted.  Enjoy and please responds with comments.

I was reading the other day on a blog that doesn’t allow for comment.  Since so many people that read that blog also read this blog, I’ve decided to comment here.  The blog has to do with people forming small groups in an effort to bring people to Christ.  If you don’t mind, I’d like to make a few observations. 

One of the early comments was how those in the groups are collecting tithing to help the poor within the respective groups.  Why hasn’t tithing been replaced with the  law of consecration?  Isn’t that the higher law?  Someone offering more, should be restoring that which was taken away.  Why aren’t you selling all that you have and then dividing the proceeds equally based on the respective needs?   

Wouldn’t someone offering more, bring back the laws and ordinances of Melchizedek Priesthood, instead of changing slightly the laws and ordinances of the Aaronic Priesthood, something that we already have.  Someone offering more, should be restoring that which was taken away.  Why aren’t you functioning in the laws and  ordinances of the Melchizedek Priesthood?  It is because those laws and ordinances haven’t been revealed to you?

Wouldn’t someone offering more ask you to leave the apostate church instead indicating that it’s ok to keep your feet in both camps.  We shouldn’t be putting new wine in old bottles, should we?  Why remain a Jew, if the true faith has been restored?  Joseph Smith didn’t continuing going to the Methodist church, did he?  It seems hypocritical to stay in a faith that your constantly condemning.  Is it because you don’t believe enough in this new fellowship?  If so, how does that make you any different than active members who also lack faith?        

My point is, how is what you are doing any different from that which is already being  done.  Joseph and Hyrum tried to restore that which was lost in an effort to establish Zion.  I don’t see in this fellowship anything that could be construed as a restoration.  Where are the new laws, the new ordinances, the new doctrine, the gathering?  I’m not hearing of spiritual experiencing happening that aren’t being experienced by truth seeking members of the church.  

One thing that would help is to realize is that everyone, whether in or out of the church, comes to this earth with a different capacity to understand truth.  Why it is that there are those who understand the gospel well and there are those who don’t care to understand the gospel?  Even in your own fellowship, I am sure that there are those who have greater and lessor capacity to understand truth.  Are you condemning those with less capacity or helping them understand more.  If them, why not everyone? 
Every spirit comes to this earth with a different level of light.  The amount of light you came with largely determines your desire, ability and capacity to obtain more light as activated by the Holy Ghost.  New light is given based on your capacity and desire to receive more light.  As long as one is building on what they came to earth with, then, are they not headed in the right direction.  This is the very reason, we are commanded not to judge.  Only the Father of our spirit and Christ know the amount of light an individual has.  Every one, including leadership, understands truth at a different level. 

I often read in your blogs that we shouldn’t rely on leaders to direct us, only Christ.  Why then do we have Nephi, Mosiah, Alma, Mormon, Moroni, Peter, James, John, Joseph or the scriptures.  If you lived during Alma’s time, when the church was in apostasy, would you have been condemning him?  Sure there are those that are spiritually mature and have found Christ on their own.  However, there are many, no most, that are spiritually immature and need leadership to help them get on/down the path that leads to Christ.  Could this be who are current leadership is talking too?  People who know Christ don’t need help.  However, people who don’t but want to know Christ may need some help.  When you abandon those that need help; how can you be an instrument in helping people come to Christ.

When you remove yourself from the population because of their lack of understanding you are judging them.  When instead, you should be helping those with lessor light gain greater capacity.  Teaching those with less capacity means that you need to teach them on their level, not yours.  The reason why teaching  experiences, that pertain to an increased level of depth, should be one-on-one and not one-on-many.  Unless one has the ability to phrase their words so that they can be understood on different levels.

Some day some one will come with power and authority to bring back the laws and ordinances that Joseph and Hyrum tried but failed to restore.  One day the Time of the Gentiles will be Fulfilled and a gathering will take place.  Then there will be new laws, new ordinances, new doctrine and a gathering of a few from among the many.  Until then, there will be many claiming authority but showing no power.  Some of who, after claiming to have seen the Christ, will continue to use the corrupt legal system to sue people in order to maintain a certain standard of living.


And these are my comments:
 One of the early comments was how those in the groups are collecting tithing to help the poor within the respective groups.  Why hasn’t tithing been replaced with the  law of consecration?  Isn’t that the higher law?  Someone offering more, should be restoring that which was taken away.  Why aren’t you selling all that you have and then dividing the proceeds equally based on the respective needs?   

Actually, even in these small groups something other than the law of tithing, in my observation, is being lived. 1. The law of tithing (see D&C 119) requires a consecration of ALL surplus initially, something someone coming from an LDS background has probably never done and therefore must do once in order to comply with the law. Only then can 10% of surplus annually be donated to fulfill the law of tithing. 2. It is also dubious to donate your money among people who enjoy an affluent standard of living with respect to the world even when considered poor with respect to, say, a group of middle-class US citizens. The scriptures are sufficient in teaching that God is not pleased when we give with respect to persons, and this is precisely what these groups are doing. All that said, however, I think that it is obvious that anyone actually giving money to those in need is doing more than someone who is not giving anything to those in need. Inasmuch as someone moves from doing less to please God to doing more to please God, well that's a good thing in my book. 

As far as restoring that which was taken away: Is not correct understanding something that can be lost? Of course it is. In fact, you'll find that Joseph was taught commandments that were already in the Bible, but were impossible to comprehend in the context of drowning false understandings that pervaded the religions of the day. Is our day any different? To conclude that a restoration cannot include the correction of current false understandings requires complete ignorance of what Joseph did, when he did it, and what order he did it in.

Wouldn’t someone offering more, bring back the laws and ordinances of Melchizedek Priesthood, instead of changing slightly the laws and ordinances of the Aaronic Priesthood, something that we already have.  Someone offering more, should be restoring that which was taken away.  Why aren’t you functioning in the laws and  ordinances of the Melchizedek Priesthood?  It is because those laws and ordinances haven’t been revealed to you?

Again, it seems logical that a correct understanding of the basics has to be achieved before advanced lessons can be comprehended. In this case, the false understanding of tithing in the LDS culture (that it is ok that 0% of it is spent on the poor and that one need not care for the needs of the poor around you as long as you cut your 10% check every month) have to be corrected before more advanced lessons can be comprehended. Note that, again, this is the precise pattern followed by Joseph Smith. He first restored Aaronic-level law before moving on. How could a restoration rightly jump over a false understanding of Aaronic-level law before moving to Melchizedek-level law? Even though there were many churches with some form of tithing in Joseph's day, God still had to give D&C 119. Were there half steps between the receipt of the Book of Mormon and receipt of D&C 119? Absolutely. Fast offerings was one of them. Initially, it was Joseph's best idea (and a good one) for coming up with money for the poor before the law of tithing was given. Then it went away. Brigham Young brought it back temporarily because they were short on funds for the exodus from Nauvoo, then it became a doctrine in Utah.

Wouldn’t someone offering more ask you to leave the apostate church instead indicating that it’s ok to keep your feet in both camps.  We shouldn’t be putting new wine in old bottles, should we?  Why remain a Jew, if the true faith has been restored?  Joseph Smith didn’t continuing going to the Methodist church, did he?
Actually, I believe Joseph attended a Methodist Sunday school post-first vision. I also recall that his mother kept going to Methodist services for at least a while. Forgive me, I don't have my copy of "Joseph Smith's History by His Mother" on hand. However, Jesus did, in fact say not to put new wine in old bottles. However, Jesus himself continued to attend synagogue despite the Jews being apostate. In fact, he even volunteered to speak in the service. His missionaries similarly attended synagogue and sought to teach the truth in those settings. I think if you examine the series of talks Denver gave over a year, you will see a clear progression from "stay at church, everything is fine" to "everything is not fine, and you have a duty to stay at church until they boot you so you can help others see everything is fine." Or maybe that is just what my observation is. I can tell you that, having associated with many before, during, and after his 1 year talk, and knowing where they were at each point, I was amazed at the wisdom of this approach. If I had the burden from the Lord that Denver claimed to have in delivering that message, I'm sure I would have done what you are suggesting. My talk would have been 1 hour long, not 1 year long. And I'm sure less than 10 people would believe me, because it would have been too abrupt a change to accept.

It seems hypocritical to stay in a faith that your constantly condemning.  Is it because you don’t believe enough in this new fellowship?  If so, how does that make you any different than active members who also lack faith?        

It does seem hypocritical if you remain the same member on the outside that you were before hearing the message. However, if you are using your association to teach the truth, it seems very wise.

My point is, how is what you are doing any different from that which is already being  done.  Joseph and Hyrum tried to restore that which was lost in an effort to establish Zion.  I don’t see in this fellowship anything that could be construed as a restoration.  Where are the new laws, the new ordinances, the new doctrine, the gathering?  I’m not hearing of spiritual experiencing happening that aren’t being experienced by truth seeking members of the church.  

I agree. There really is nothing new in anything Denver has preached. Instead, as he said himself, he is merely reminding people of what Joseph taught. So your comment, which I agree with, is actually a criticism of the subset of people who believe what Denver is saying and believe there is something new here. Those who say this simply did not read or did not understand the scriptures / church history / etc.

One thing that would help is to realize is that everyone, whether in or out of the church, comes to this earth with a different capacity to understand truth.  Why it is that there are those who understand the gospel well and there are those who don’t care to understand the gospel?  Even in your own fellowship, I am sure that there are those who have greater and lessor capacity to understand truth.  Are you condemning those with less capacity or helping them understand more.  If them, why not everyone? 
Every spirit comes to this earth with a different level of light.  The amount of light you came with largely determines your desire, ability and capacity to obtain more light as activated by the Holy Ghost.  New light is given based on your capacity and desire to receive more light.  As long as one is building on what they came to earth with, then, are they not headed in the right direction.  This is the very reason, we are commanded not to judge.  Only the Father of our spirit and Christ know the amount of light an individual has.  Every one, including leadership, understands truth at a different level. 

It seems to me that the perfect way of sharing this with those with less capacity to understand truth is through the attributes in D&C 121. I can't think of a better way of doing this than by patiently awaiting small opportunities to teach while remaining an active member of the LDS church. Can you?

I often read in your blogs that we shouldn’t rely on leaders to direct us, only Christ.  Why then do we have Nephi, Mosiah, Alma, Mormon, Moroni, Peter, James, John, Joseph or the scriptures.  If you lived during Alma’s time, when the church was in apostasy, would you have been condemning him?  Sure there are those that are spiritually mature and have found Christ on their own.  However, there are many, no most, that are spiritually immature and need leadership to help them get on/down the path that leads to Christ.  Could this be who are current leadership is talking too?  People who know Christ don’t need help.  However, people who don’t but want to know Christ may need some help.  When you abandon those that need help; how can you be an instrument in helping people come to Christ.

I agree. It seems to me that Denver Snuffer has a way of over exaggerating some things in order to keep people safely away from tricky situations. He summarily condemns plural marriage, yet it is clearly a doctrine of the restoration (details aside). He condemns the strong man model, yet that is the only model we ever see in the scriptures, including in prophecies of a latter-day strongman who will build Zion.

When you remove yourself from the population because of their lack of understanding you are judging them.  When instead, you should be helping those with lessor light gain greater capacity.  Teaching those with less capacity means that you need to teach them on their level, not yours.  The reason why teaching  experiences, that pertain to an increased level of depth, should be one-on-one and not one-on-many.  Unless one has the ability to phrase their words so that they can be understood on different levels.

Already been addressed. Again, I think this comment actually stands in opposition to your other comment about removing oneself from the LDS fold. I don't think you can both leave the church and teach those with less capacity.

Some day some one will come with power and authority to bring back the laws and ordinances that Joseph and Hyrum tried but failed to restore.  One day the Time of the Gentiles will be Fulfilled and a gathering will take place.  Then there will be new laws, new ordinances, new doctrine and a gathering of a few from among the many.  

Yes, I think you are right. And before they do all of that, they will have to help people actually understand what Joseph restored.

Until then, there will be many claiming authority but showing no power.  Some of who, after claiming to have seen the Christ, will continue to use the corrupt legal system to sue people in order to maintain a certain standard of living.

I think this comment is obviously meant as a ding against Denver. While I agree that the individual who does the things you referred to before will show great power, and that Denver has not displayed any signs, I do not dismiss the power displayed by convincing hundreds if not thousands of people to abandon false tradition at great (well, in their perspective) cost. That's quite a power, in my opinion. As far as his occupation: suppose he is telling the truth when he says Jesus frequently visits him and speaks with him face to face, has taken him up to heaven, and made him promises, despite him being an imp of a corrupt legal system who sues people in order to gain riches. Does that say more about him, or about me, who despite having an honorable profession have not yet attained to those things? With the judgement you mete, you will be judged, my friend.


Tuesday, January 6, 2015

Book of Mormon Study: Jesus Christ Will Manifest Himself Unto You

 An oft-quoted passage of 2 Nephi reads,

5 For behold, again I say unto you that if ye will enter in by the way, and receive the Holy Ghost, it will show unto you all things what ye should do.
 6 Behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and there will be no more doctrine given until after he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh. And when he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh, the things which he shall say unto you shall ye observe to do. (2 Nephi 32:5-6)

This is a wonderful example of where questions assist you in understanding something that is not readily apparent from a leisurely reading. Here are some questions:

1. "this is the doctrine of Christ": What is "this"?
2. Who is in the flesh when Christ manifests himself? The subject to whom he manifests himself, or Christ?
3. Nephi says the subject he manifests himself to is "you." Whom is he addressing here?
4. What happens to the doctrine after he "manifests himself to you in the flesh"?
5. Is Nephi talking about Christ's visit to the Nephites in 3rd Nephi?
6. How does Christ "manifest himself unto you in the flesh"?

I think the typical answer to questions 2-6 is that Nephi is telling his posterity that they are to obey the doctrine of Christ until Christ visits them and gives them a new law. Christ did, in fact, visit the Nephites in 3rd Nephi and did just that. However, there are some problems with this interpretation. "The doctrine of Christ," as Nephi defines here and as other prophets and even Christ himself repeat throughout is: to repent, be baptized, and receive the Holy Ghost. The law Christ fulfilled and replaced when he visited was the law of Moses---not the doctrine of Christ. Instead of repealing the latter, he actually repeated it to the Nephites. He doesn't actually give any additional doctrine in his visit to the Nephites.

 38 And again I say unto you, ye must repent, and be baptized in my name, and become as a little child, or ye can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.
 39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.
 40 And whoso shall declare more or less than this, and establish it for my doctrine, the same cometh of evil, and is not built upon my rock; but he buildeth upon a sandy foundation, and the gates of hell stand open to receive such when the floods come and the winds beat upon them. (3 Nephi 11)

This brings us to the question of who "you" is. If Jesus did visit the Nephites and presented something other that the doctrine of Christ to them, we do not have a record of it. This suggests that the "you" is not the Nephites at all, but refers to any individual (or perhaps some other group) who reads Nephi's words. To these individuals, God will give instructions beyond baptism and receipt of the Holy Ghost. In fact, God will give these individuals something beyond the "all things" the Holy Ghost can reveals to them before Christ manifests himself to them in the flesh, according to Nephi.

So what does "manifest unto them in the flesh" actually mean? Does it mean Jesus somehow increases an individual's awareness of himself while the individual is in the flesh? At face value, this interpretation is supported by the use of the same word in a similar context by the same author. Just a few chapters before, Nephi writes,

12 And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God;
 13 And that he manifesteth himself unto all those who believe in him, by the power of the Holy Ghost; yea, unto every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, working mighty miracles, signs, and wonders, among the children of men according to their faith. (2 Nephi 26:12-13)

Here Nephi says that Jesus manifests himself to all those who believe in him by the power of the Holy Ghost by virtue of mighty miracles, signs, and wonders (very different from warm and fuzzes, no?). So could it be that in 2 Nephi 32, Nephi is saying that Jesus will increase awareness of himself by virtue of the Holy Ghost through signs and wonders?

I don't think so. There are two problems with that interpretation. First, the definition of manifest. From the 1828 Webster's dictionary:

MAN'IFEST, a. [L. manifestus.]
1. Plain, open, clearly visible to the eye or obvious to the understanding; apparent; not obscure or difficult to be seen or understood. From the testimony, the truth we conceive to be manifest.

So to manifest you need something to be clearly visible to the eye or obvious. In 2 Nephi 26, Nephi explicitly states that the mighty miracles are, in this case, what is clearly visible. However, in 2 Nephi 32, he makes explicit something else that is clearly visible: Jesus himself.

I propose that this passage means precisely what a naive reading of it by a convert would yield: that Nephi is promising us that Jesus can appear to us while we are still alive. In fact, Nephi is not only promising us it can happen, but that it will happen to those who are living righteously, and has to happen if we are to obtain eternal life.

"In the flesh" would make no sense if it referred to the individual: when the entire Book of Mormon is full of examples of mighty miracles being worked by and observed by people "in the flesh," why would Nephi mention it twice in the same brief passage as if it were a special qualification? Also, what difference would it make whether the individual was in the flesh or in the spirit world if we were talking about a manifestation through observation of mighty miracles?

The number of examples we have in the Book of Mormon of righteous individuals obtaining a face to face audience with Christ strengthens this conclusion:
Nephi
Jacob
Alma
King Lamoni
Brother of Jared
Mormon
Moroni
...just off the top of my head

I have full confidence that the doctrine of Christ as written by Nephi is still valid today. Not only has God not said anything that I am aware of to reverse it, but I know of several individuals who have met Christ face to face. 

Additionally, he has visited me in vision. Some may write this off as a delusion, and I don't blame them. However, if they had experienced what I have, they would not be able to do so without saying the sun doesn't shine while staring at it. Still, I seek him with full heart fully expecting and asking for him to come to me in the flesh. That experience will not expand my testimony of Jesus beyond what it already is---that isn't possible. I saw him and he spoke to me. To call that a mere dream would be like calling a phone conversation with your mother mere static. However, I believe that touching the prints in his hands, feet, and side will enable me to bear a more convincing testimony to others that it is possible to regain his presence in this life, and thus empower them to exercise faith to obtain the experience for themselves.

Sunday, January 4, 2015

But Who is My Prophet?

The LDS.org (or Ensign, if you still subscribe to the paper version) 1st Presidency Message this month retells the familiar story of then-Elder Harold B. Lee (with whom brother Monson had a relationship due to the former having previously been his Stake President) counseling then-bisophric counselor Monson to reject an offered naval commission and also request discharge from the military.

The ending paragraph says,

"If you want to see the light of heaven, if you want to feel the inspiration of Almighty God, if you want to have that feeling within your bosom that your Heavenly Father is guiding you, then follow the prophets of God. When you follow the prophets, you will be in safe territory." (President Thomas Monson, 1st Presidency Message Jan 2015)

I wholeheartedly agree with this message: the words of God are always what we should heed if we choose to be led by God.

If we understand a prophet to be someone to whom God speaks who, in turn, shares his word with others, then I have to conclude that disagreeing with President Monson's last paragraph would be like disagreeing with Jesus when he said to love your neighbor. Seems pretty simple to me. Of course, the details (and difficulty) of following Jesus' command was made explicit in the audience's follow-up: but who is my neighbor? Is not the same true here? Exactly who is a prophet?

I am very glad to see that President Monson used this particular story. Elder Lee was not his stake president, or his bishop for that matter. He was a friend who happened to be an apostle. It would seem that President Monson didn't first go to his bishop or to his current stake president. [Maybe he did. Surely, today anyone calling on an apostle's office will be immediately asked to leave by the guard at the front door. If they sent a letter, that letter would be sent to their stake president or perhaps their bishop.] Regardless, I think it is demonstrative that instead he went to a friend who he regarded as having a close relationship with God (much like Jared did when he repeatedly leaned on his brother for counsel from God).

I think it is worth pointing out that President Monson used prophets, with an "s." You see, we have no a priori way of knowing who is in possession of God's word, and who is not. Revelation does not come as an automatic function of church office. There is no way to automatically know someone's current advice or counsel is from God---except through the discernment of the Holy Ghost. You see, it was through the Holy Ghost---not a man---that God said that ALL truth could be known. A man can be a messenger of that word. But so can an angel, or a little child, or a homeless man, or a recovering heroin addict. It is our job to ask of ALL messages (including both those purported to be from God and those which are not): is this wisdom from God, or is it the teaching of a man (or a woman, or a child, or or or)?

I wrote a book about the importance of obtaining GOD'S word, and distinguishing it from MAN'S word. You should read it if you have not already. You can download it for free from the right side of this blog, or purchase it at print cost from Amazon. It is called "Commanded in All Things."

God bless.

Saturday, January 3, 2015

Signs in the Heavens


I present this (for now) without comment.

I also give permission for this image to be reused in any medium without attribution.