I have good news and bad news about this week's Gospel Doctrine Underground post(s) on Lesson 27. First, the good news: There is a really interesting post and discussion on the lesson going on at By Common Consent. You will want to check it out.
The bad news: Most of my ideas for a post this week have been addressed by the BCC post. I am not sure what I can add . . .
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Gospel Doctrine Lesson 27: Getting Started
The next couple of lessons deal with the Missouri period, the conflict between the Saints and their neighbors, and the resulting adversity and suffering. Here are a couple of resources on the Missouri period that I found interesting:
http://www.mormonhistoricsitesfoundation.org/publications/studies_spring_01/MHS2.1Hartley.pdf
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Missouri.shtml
I also highly recommend the chapters in Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling that deal with this turbulent time in Church history.
http://www.mormonhistoricsitesfoundation.org/publications/studies_spring_01/MHS2.1Hartley.pdf
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Missouri.shtml
I also highly recommend the chapters in Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling that deal with this turbulent time in Church history.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Gospel Doctrine Lesson 26: Thomas Marsh
The lesson this week focuses entirely on Section 112 of the Doctrine & Covenants, and the theme is missionary work. In my opinion, the lesson does not really track with the text that well. Section 112 is directed to Thomas Marsh as President of the Quorum of the Twelve. It contains personal counsel and admonition for him, as well as direction on how to lead the Apostles in their missionary labors. The manual, on the other hand, focuses on the sacrifices the rank and file members of the Church in Kirtland made to share the gospel (huh?), the Twelve preaching in England (ok), and the Kirtland saints remaining faithful despite adversity, which is kind of ironic, given the Thomas Marsh back-story.
The Thomas Marsh back-story makes Section 112 pretty interesting. Here was a guy who converted to the Church in the earliest days and rose to preside over the Quorum of the Twelve. He has an interesting relationship with Joseph Smith, taking him on when he thought Joseph was too hard on the Twelve (see Rough Stone Rolling at 298). He flees Missouri during the conflict between the Mormons and the Missourians, and eventually testifies against the Prophet, accusing him, essentially, of trying to set up his own theocratic kingdom on the American frontier. Somewhere in the midst of this is the famous cream strippings story (his wife holds back the cream form some milk she shared with a neighbor, which leads to conflict, Church courts, appeals to the First Presidency, etc). Thomas leaves the Church for almost 20 years, but later rejoins the Saints in Utah and reconciles with the brethren.
To me, this story makes some of the passages in Section 112 especially interesting, even poignant. For example, the Lord tells Thomas that “there have been some few things in thine heart and with thee with which I, the Lord, was not well pleased.” D&C 112:2. The Lord counsels Thomas, “Be thou humble; and the Lord thy God shall lead thee by the hand and give the answers to thy prayers.” D&C 112:10. “Exalt not yourselves; rebel not against my servant Joseph; for verily I say unto you, I am with him, and my hand shall be over him; and the keys which I have given unto him, and also unto youward, shall not be taken from him till I come.” D&C 112:15.
The one verse that really strikes me is 13. After telling Thomas to teach and admonish the Twelve, he says, “And after their temptations, and much tribulation, behold, I, the Lord, will feel after them, and if they harden not their hearts, and stiffen not their necks against me, they shall be converted and I shall heal them.” I wonder if Thomas had any sense in 1837 how this verse might play out for him, how the Lord might feel after him. Twenty years later, after leaving the Church and the Saints, then making his way west, he met with Brigham Young and asked if he could rejoin the Church. A few days later, Brigham Young asked him to address the Saints in a meeting on Temple Square. Thomas said,
The Thomas Marsh back-story makes Section 112 pretty interesting. Here was a guy who converted to the Church in the earliest days and rose to preside over the Quorum of the Twelve. He has an interesting relationship with Joseph Smith, taking him on when he thought Joseph was too hard on the Twelve (see Rough Stone Rolling at 298). He flees Missouri during the conflict between the Mormons and the Missourians, and eventually testifies against the Prophet, accusing him, essentially, of trying to set up his own theocratic kingdom on the American frontier. Somewhere in the midst of this is the famous cream strippings story (his wife holds back the cream form some milk she shared with a neighbor, which leads to conflict, Church courts, appeals to the First Presidency, etc). Thomas leaves the Church for almost 20 years, but later rejoins the Saints in Utah and reconciles with the brethren.
To me, this story makes some of the passages in Section 112 especially interesting, even poignant. For example, the Lord tells Thomas that “there have been some few things in thine heart and with thee with which I, the Lord, was not well pleased.” D&C 112:2. The Lord counsels Thomas, “Be thou humble; and the Lord thy God shall lead thee by the hand and give the answers to thy prayers.” D&C 112:10. “Exalt not yourselves; rebel not against my servant Joseph; for verily I say unto you, I am with him, and my hand shall be over him; and the keys which I have given unto him, and also unto youward, shall not be taken from him till I come.” D&C 112:15.
The one verse that really strikes me is 13. After telling Thomas to teach and admonish the Twelve, he says, “And after their temptations, and much tribulation, behold, I, the Lord, will feel after them, and if they harden not their hearts, and stiffen not their necks against me, they shall be converted and I shall heal them.” I wonder if Thomas had any sense in 1837 how this verse might play out for him, how the Lord might feel after him. Twenty years later, after leaving the Church and the Saints, then making his way west, he met with Brigham Young and asked if he could rejoin the Church. A few days later, Brigham Young asked him to address the Saints in a meeting on Temple Square. Thomas said,
My voice was never very strong, but it has been very much weakened of late years
by the afflicting rod of Jehovah. He loved me too much to let me go
without whipping. . . . For if he had not cared anything about me he would
not have taken me by the arm and given me such a shaking. . . . I know
that I was a very stiff-necked man. . . . I want your fellowship; I want
your God to be my God. . . . I have learned to understand what David said
when he exclaimed, “I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of God than to
dwell in the tents of wickedness."Susan Easton Black, Who’s Who in the Doctrine and Covenants, Deseret Book 1997.
Thomas Marsh lived through an amazing, difficult, complicated time. The events around him challenged his faith and led him on a tortuous journey. In the end, it appears that the Lord felt after him and brought him home. Can we hope for anything more?
Does the story of Thomas Marsh make the lesson material more meaningful for you? Or does it just not fit this week? Does Section 112 fit in the lesson this week?
Saturday, May 23, 2009
When is a Plan not a Plan?
Class, the Teacher has been very busy at work lately. I realize that this post is coming too late to help anyone teaching the lesson tomorrow, and I apologize. I will try to do better in the future.
Lesson 19 is a little unusual in the Doctrine & Covenants curriculum in that, well, it does not really come from the Doctrine & Covenants. The lesson is on the Plan of Salvation, and while it quotes from the D&C, it contains a lot of material from other sources, including the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price and Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.
I got wondering about why this was and realized something about the Plan of Salvation that I had never really focused on before: The Plan of Salvation is the great framework of our belief system. But, it was never really presented to Joseph Smith as a framework. He did not receive a revelation on “The Plan of Salvation.” It was never presented to him (that we know of from his writings and statements) as a coherent system of doctrine. It was never presented as a plan.
Sure, the Book of Mormon talks about the plan of salvation (or happiness, or redemption, or mercy). But the “plan” in the BoM is about the fall and the atonement. There is a suggestion of some kind of premortality, because this “plan” was laid from the foundation of the world. The BoM also talks about foreordination (Alma 13), and certainly covers death, judgment and resurrection fully.
There are other sources of material for the the Plan of Salvation, too. When Joseph received the Book of Moses over a series of months in 1830, he learned a lot about the creation, the fall and the atonement. There was even a passing discussion of the War in Heaven and premortality. “The Vision” (Section 76, received in 1832) spells out the three degrees of glory, one of the defining characteristics of the LDS view of Salvation. Section 93 of the D&C (received in 1833) expressly states that “[m]an was also in the beginning with God,” making clear that we lived before we were born into mortality. The Book of Abraham, translated in 1835, provides details about the War in Heaven, the pre-existence and foreordination. Salvation of dead surfaces in 1836 with Section 136, and in the 1840s, when Joseph starts discussing baptism for the dead and temple work.
From all these disparate parts emerges a plan. At some point, Joseph perceived these mosaic pieces as the Plan of Salvation, “one of Heaven’s greatest gifts to mankind,” and taught that it “should occupy our strict attention.” (See Sunday School Manual at 106). This makes it all the more interesting to me that the Plan of Salvation came to us the way it did. A piece at time. Maybe line upon line?
I love the Plan of Salvation. It is one of those bedrock beliefs that is foundational to my world view. I would wager that most members of the Church feel that way. So, what do you make of this funny way of presenting The Plan? What does it say about revelation? About the restoration? About the Plan?
Lesson 19 is a little unusual in the Doctrine & Covenants curriculum in that, well, it does not really come from the Doctrine & Covenants. The lesson is on the Plan of Salvation, and while it quotes from the D&C, it contains a lot of material from other sources, including the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price and Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.
I got wondering about why this was and realized something about the Plan of Salvation that I had never really focused on before: The Plan of Salvation is the great framework of our belief system. But, it was never really presented to Joseph Smith as a framework. He did not receive a revelation on “The Plan of Salvation.” It was never presented to him (that we know of from his writings and statements) as a coherent system of doctrine. It was never presented as a plan.
Sure, the Book of Mormon talks about the plan of salvation (or happiness, or redemption, or mercy). But the “plan” in the BoM is about the fall and the atonement. There is a suggestion of some kind of premortality, because this “plan” was laid from the foundation of the world. The BoM also talks about foreordination (Alma 13), and certainly covers death, judgment and resurrection fully.
There are other sources of material for the the Plan of Salvation, too. When Joseph received the Book of Moses over a series of months in 1830, he learned a lot about the creation, the fall and the atonement. There was even a passing discussion of the War in Heaven and premortality. “The Vision” (Section 76, received in 1832) spells out the three degrees of glory, one of the defining characteristics of the LDS view of Salvation. Section 93 of the D&C (received in 1833) expressly states that “[m]an was also in the beginning with God,” making clear that we lived before we were born into mortality. The Book of Abraham, translated in 1835, provides details about the War in Heaven, the pre-existence and foreordination. Salvation of dead surfaces in 1836 with Section 136, and in the 1840s, when Joseph starts discussing baptism for the dead and temple work.
From all these disparate parts emerges a plan. At some point, Joseph perceived these mosaic pieces as the Plan of Salvation, “one of Heaven’s greatest gifts to mankind,” and taught that it “should occupy our strict attention.” (See Sunday School Manual at 106). This makes it all the more interesting to me that the Plan of Salvation came to us the way it did. A piece at time. Maybe line upon line?
I love the Plan of Salvation. It is one of those bedrock beliefs that is foundational to my world view. I would wager that most members of the Church feel that way. So, what do you make of this funny way of presenting The Plan? What does it say about revelation? About the restoration? About the Plan?
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Gospel Doctrine Lesson 18: Walking in Darkness at Noon-day
Lesson 18 focuses on the temple, and in terms of chronology, the dedication of the Kirtland Temple. Much has been written of the great sacrifice required of the Kirtland saints in building the Temple, and of the amazing spiritual manifestations that accompanied its completion and dedication. Sections 109 and 110 of the Doctrine & Covenants are inspired and inspiring, representing some of the true pinnacles of the restoration.
But for me, at least this time through the D&C, section 95 has really caught my interest. The section begins with the Lord chastening the saints for their failure to construct the Temple as he had directed in Section 88. In fact, the Lord tells the Saints that their procrastination is a grievous sin. To put in perspective, Section 88 preceded Section 95 by little more than months. Not a long time, in the eternal scheme of things.
But the Lord grew impatient with and chastened the Saints. They lacked diligence and urgency building the His house. Contentions occurred among Church leaders. Members of the Church were disobedient and failed to keep the commandments. In a beautiful and poetic verse, the Lord tells Joseph that some of those ordained to build the Kingdom of God had “sinned a very grievous sin, in that they are walking in darkness at noon-day.” D&C 95:6.
What an image. Here they were, members of God’s restored church. They had new scripture and a prophet receiving revelation from Heaven. The members of the Church could have been enjoying a noon-day sun unknown to the world for hundreds of years. And yet they, surrounded by light, were walking in darkness because of their lack of focus, their disobedience, their selfishness and laziness.
It is easy to see how it happened. They were poor. It was winter and spring in Ohio - - not the ideal time to start a major construction project. They were trying to build Zion almost three states away in Missouri. The resources available to the Church and the Saints during this period were stretched to the breaking point. Building a Temple - - especially the Temple Joseph envisioned - - must have seemed overwhelming. Who can blame them for losing focus? Who would not have been tempted to wait for more favorable circumstances to start such a task?
But God chastened them because he loved them. Their grievous sin was choosing to stay in the darkness when he wanted them in His light. How often do we commit that same sin? In what ways to we choose to walk in our own darkness instead into the noon-day sun? Section 95 has given me a new insight into disobedience, sin and forgiveness. Whom the Lord loves he chastens because his joy is seeing us walk not in darkness, but in light.
But for me, at least this time through the D&C, section 95 has really caught my interest. The section begins with the Lord chastening the saints for their failure to construct the Temple as he had directed in Section 88. In fact, the Lord tells the Saints that their procrastination is a grievous sin. To put in perspective, Section 88 preceded Section 95 by little more than months. Not a long time, in the eternal scheme of things.
But the Lord grew impatient with and chastened the Saints. They lacked diligence and urgency building the His house. Contentions occurred among Church leaders. Members of the Church were disobedient and failed to keep the commandments. In a beautiful and poetic verse, the Lord tells Joseph that some of those ordained to build the Kingdom of God had “sinned a very grievous sin, in that they are walking in darkness at noon-day.” D&C 95:6.
What an image. Here they were, members of God’s restored church. They had new scripture and a prophet receiving revelation from Heaven. The members of the Church could have been enjoying a noon-day sun unknown to the world for hundreds of years. And yet they, surrounded by light, were walking in darkness because of their lack of focus, their disobedience, their selfishness and laziness.
It is easy to see how it happened. They were poor. It was winter and spring in Ohio - - not the ideal time to start a major construction project. They were trying to build Zion almost three states away in Missouri. The resources available to the Church and the Saints during this period were stretched to the breaking point. Building a Temple - - especially the Temple Joseph envisioned - - must have seemed overwhelming. Who can blame them for losing focus? Who would not have been tempted to wait for more favorable circumstances to start such a task?
But God chastened them because he loved them. Their grievous sin was choosing to stay in the darkness when he wanted them in His light. How often do we commit that same sin? In what ways to we choose to walk in our own darkness instead into the noon-day sun? Section 95 has given me a new insight into disobedience, sin and forgiveness. Whom the Lord loves he chastens because his joy is seeing us walk not in darkness, but in light.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Gospel Doctrine Lesson 17: What Worked?
OK, after a minor controversy at GDU about whether new insights could be offered on tithing, tell us how it went. What did you talk about? Did you get into the definition of tithing in the 1830s vs. today? Did you resolve the gross vs. net problem?
Share you success stories here!
Share you success stories here!
Friday, May 1, 2009
Section 59: Death, Babylon and the Abundant Life
One of the fascinating things about studying the Doctrine & Covenants is having relatively ready access to the historical context of the revelations received by the Prophet Joseph Smith. For me, it is interesting to think about what was happening in the lives of the Prophet and the early Church members, and how that influenced the way they sought God and they way they understood what he spoke to them. In learning a bit about Section 59, it seems that there were at least three major dynamics influencing Joseph Smith’s thoughts. If I had to put name tags on these three influences, I guess I would say they were death, Babylon and the abundant life.
First, I think death was very much on Joseph’s mind when he received section 59. He had attended that day the funeral of a faithful sister, Polly Peck Knight. Polly Knight was one of the Colesville saints, and along with her husband Joseph, an early and constant supporter of the Prophet and the Restoration. She was quite ill when she left Ohio for Jackson County, and her strong desire was to see Zion and, if she were to die, be buried there. In fact, she died within days of arriving in Missouri, and her passing must have poignant for Joseph Smith. It certainly makes verse 2 poignant to me:
For those that live shall inherit the earth and those that die shall rest from
their labors, and their works shall follow them; and they shall receive a crown
in the mansions of my Father, which I have prepared from them.
Joseph was also struck by societal conditions in Jackson County in August 1831. Most Church members at this point were relatively civilized New Englanders. Suddenly, they were living on the frontier, neighbors to a pretty rough crowd. Law, order and genteel society were not the hallmarks of Jackson County. Joseph and many of the members of the Church were somewhat taken aback by conditions and the people there. My guess is, Joseph was wondering how he was going to build God’s Kingdom - - Zion - - in the middle of Babylon. How would he keep the Saints unspotted from the world around them? One answer came in Section 59 and the instruction to set aside a day for holiness and recommitment to God’s service. See verses 9-10.
Finally, Joseph was pretty enchanted with the land itself in Jackson County. He described the area almost as a literal paradise, where crops and herds raised themselves, surrounded by natural beauty. The last third of section 59 reflects Joseph’s feeling that Zion would be a place where the saints would live an abundant life, enjoying the earthly blessings that God had designed for them. “The fullness of the earth is yours,” the revelation states, “Yea, all things which come of the earth, in the season thereof, are made for the benefit and the use of man, both to please the eye and gladden the heart; Yea, for food and for raiment, for taste and for smell, to strengthen the body and to enliven the soul.” See verses 16, 18-19.
What else do you see? What connections are there in Section 59 to these influences and themes? Are there other influences you find in this section?
(Much of the background for this post comes from Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, chap. 8, and Harper, Making Sense of the Doctrine and Covenants, pp. 207-09).
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Seek Ye Earnestly the Best Gifts? Really?
I am going to say something that might be a little controversial. I think we in the LDS Church have a complicated relationship with gifts of the spirit.
Spiritual gifts get a lot of lip service in the church. On paper, we really like them, and section 46 is prime evidence of that. What’s more, certain gifts of the spirit are very accepted among Mormons. The gifts of healing and being healed are very big. People have great faith in them, and most families have multiple stories of these gifts blessing their lives. The gift of prophesy is also very highly regarded, especially to the extent it refers to gaining a testimony of Christ and his church. Even beyond that, most people are very comfortable with the gift of prophesy as it relates to promptings and premonitions that keep us and our families safe from physical or spiritual harm, or that help us serve those around us who are in need. The gifts of wisdom, teaching, discernment, etc. - - all very well accepted.
But other spiritual gifts are viewed with some, well, hesitation. Although no one would rule them out, the gifts of ministering angles and working miracles would be exercised and talked about very rarely. Maybe I lack faith, but if my neighbor told me (s)he had seen angels, I would wonder what was really going on. And the gift of tongues? Well, unless you are talking about missionaries or general authorities being able to learn and speak a language more easily than expected, I think you should proceed with caution. Can you imagine if someone started speaking in an allegedly angelic language in sacrament meeting? Even if someone there was allegedly able to interpret? How would your Bishop respond?
This ambivalence about spiritual gifts started early in our history. As the saints started gathering to Kirtland, many experienced and exhibited some fairly extreme spiritual manifestations. Speaking in strange languages, seeing visions, acting in unusual ways supposedly under the influence of the spirit - - it was all going on in Kirtland. Joseph was not always comfortable with these demonstrations, and often tried to rein them in. In fact, a theme of the Doctrine & Covenants is how to avoid deception by false spiritual experiences and manifestations.
It seems to me, the more subtle or understated the spiritual gift, the more readily accepted it is in the Church. Remarkable and emotional displays of spiritual fervor, or claims of special spiritual endowment, while commonly accepted by some Christians as gifts of the Spirit, would cause discomfort if not downright suspicion among most members of the Church.
So, are some gifts better than others? What are the “best gifts” referred to in Section 46, and how do we earnestly seek them? And if we earnestly seek them, what should we really expect to find?
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Joseph Smith and Wealth Redistribution
I have concluded that I am about a week ahead of most other readers of GDU. And, I am a week ahead of my own class. As a result, I have decided to continue this week with Lesson 14, The Law of Consecration. All those in favor may manifest it; all those opposed by the same sign. (Seriously, if a significant number of you are a week ahead of that, let me know and I will move ahead. It just seems that most are about a week behind where GDU has been).
The Law of Consecration offers a lot of interesting discussion topics and ideas. As a political junkie, one of the most interesting concepts tied up in consecration is the idea of equality. The Book of Mormon has some interesting passages regarding equality; I cannot help thinking that they got Joseph thinking about economics and righteousness. Or, the impact of temporal things upon righteousness, anyway.
So, when the Lord gives the newly organized Church his Law, equality is a big issue. Nowhere is this more powerfully stated than in Section 78, where the Lord tells his people that the time has come , “[t]hat you may be equal in the bonds of heavenly things, yea, and earthly things also, for the obtaining of heavenly things. For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things; For if you will that I give unto a place in the celestial world you must prepare yourselves by doing the things which I have commanded you and required of you.” (D&C 78:5-7).
The idea just has the ring of revelation. If we were all equal, think of the problems we could avoid. There would be no poor, at least in the relative sense within the Church. There would be less pride and envy and greed. It would be much easier to avoid materialism if everyone was on an even plane, economically. Equality is a great idea, right?
On the other hand, as Joseph soon learned, voluntary consecration is hard to achieve. As an initial practical matter, there must be a “critical mass” of wealth to sustain the group. But once that is achieved, not everyone will easily overcome their temporal desires. For those who can, it is hard to be equal with someone who is not particularly interested in being equal with you. If you don’t have everyone on board, the whole system is destined for failure. As Richard Bushman points out in Rough Stone Rolling (p. 183),
So what about consecration for you and me, today? I have to say, many members of my ward are kind and generous and charitable - - much more so than I. I truly believe that they take their commitment to consecration seriously. But, I do not see any big push to be “equal in earthly things.” In fact, most of my ward members seem downright resistant to the wealth equalization, Obama-style. (I know, I know, it’s not the same, but still . . .)
So what do you think? Is earthly equality a something to shoot for? Or is it a heavenly aspiration we cannot achieve in the real world? Could Joseph ever have made it work by free will alone, without an economic or political system to reinforce (enforce?) it? Why has the Church implemented it in only the loosest sense? And, would Joseph have voted for the Obama tax and budget plans?
The Law of Consecration offers a lot of interesting discussion topics and ideas. As a political junkie, one of the most interesting concepts tied up in consecration is the idea of equality. The Book of Mormon has some interesting passages regarding equality; I cannot help thinking that they got Joseph thinking about economics and righteousness. Or, the impact of temporal things upon righteousness, anyway.
So, when the Lord gives the newly organized Church his Law, equality is a big issue. Nowhere is this more powerfully stated than in Section 78, where the Lord tells his people that the time has come , “[t]hat you may be equal in the bonds of heavenly things, yea, and earthly things also, for the obtaining of heavenly things. For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things; For if you will that I give unto a place in the celestial world you must prepare yourselves by doing the things which I have commanded you and required of you.” (D&C 78:5-7).
The idea just has the ring of revelation. If we were all equal, think of the problems we could avoid. There would be no poor, at least in the relative sense within the Church. There would be less pride and envy and greed. It would be much easier to avoid materialism if everyone was on an even plane, economically. Equality is a great idea, right?
On the other hand, as Joseph soon learned, voluntary consecration is hard to achieve. As an initial practical matter, there must be a “critical mass” of wealth to sustain the group. But once that is achieved, not everyone will easily overcome their temporal desires. For those who can, it is hard to be equal with someone who is not particularly interested in being equal with you. If you don’t have everyone on board, the whole system is destined for failure. As Richard Bushman points out in Rough Stone Rolling (p. 183),
The system never worked properly. The lack of property to distribute among the poverty-stricken early saints hampered the system’s effectiveness from the start. Joseph struggled on, aided by [Edward] Partridge and loyal Colesville Saints, who made up a large part of the Mormon population in Zion. In 1833, the Mormon’s expulsion from Jackson County would close down everything. The system’s two year existence was about average for the various communal experiments being undertaken in the period.
So what about consecration for you and me, today? I have to say, many members of my ward are kind and generous and charitable - - much more so than I. I truly believe that they take their commitment to consecration seriously. But, I do not see any big push to be “equal in earthly things.” In fact, most of my ward members seem downright resistant to the wealth equalization, Obama-style. (I know, I know, it’s not the same, but still . . .)
So what do you think? Is earthly equality a something to shoot for? Or is it a heavenly aspiration we cannot achieve in the real world? Could Joseph ever have made it work by free will alone, without an economic or political system to reinforce (enforce?) it? Why has the Church implemented it in only the loosest sense? And, would Joseph have voted for the Obama tax and budget plans?
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Gospel Doctrine Lesson 14: Revelation by Committee
Section 42 of the Doctrine & Covenants is a fulfillment of the Lord’s promise to give the newly restored church his “Law.” It was revealed to Joseph Smith in the presence of twelve elders of the Church. According to Steven C. Harper, author of “Making Sense of the Doctrine & Covenants,” (Deseret Book, 2008) ("Making Sense"), section 42 is actually a series of revelations (most of which end with “Amen”), which were then compiled into a cohesive document. What’s more, the earliest manuscripts of the revelation(s) contain questions that were posed to the Lord, whose answers constitute the reveled text. The questions were subsequently removed prior to printing.
It is interesting to know the questions that led to Section 42. Verses 1-10 answer the question, “Shall the Church come together into one place or remain as they are in separate bodies?” Verses 11-69 answer the question, “What is the Law regulating the Church in her present situation till the time of her gathering?” Verses 70-73 describe the obligations of priesthood leaders to their families while serving in the Church. The rest of section 42 was actually received two weeks after the preceding verses and directs Church leaders how to act according to some parts of the revealed law. See “Making Sense” at 140.
Does knowing the specific questions posed by the early Church leaders change your understanding of section 42? How? It sounds like this revelation was received by Joseph Smith responding on behalf of the Lord to the questions of a committee of Church members. What do you think of this mode of revelation?
It is interesting to know the questions that led to Section 42. Verses 1-10 answer the question, “Shall the Church come together into one place or remain as they are in separate bodies?” Verses 11-69 answer the question, “What is the Law regulating the Church in her present situation till the time of her gathering?” Verses 70-73 describe the obligations of priesthood leaders to their families while serving in the Church. The rest of section 42 was actually received two weeks after the preceding verses and directs Church leaders how to act according to some parts of the revealed law. See “Making Sense” at 140.
Does knowing the specific questions posed by the early Church leaders change your understanding of section 42? How? It sounds like this revelation was received by Joseph Smith responding on behalf of the Lord to the questions of a committee of Church members. What do you think of this mode of revelation?
Monday, March 30, 2009
Gospel Doctrine Lesson 13: What Worked?
Here is your chance to share your successes with Lesson 13. What approach seemed to work? What topics generated intersting discussion? Did you try something new?
If you taught an earlier lesson, you can share your experiences here.
Give us your input!
If you taught an earlier lesson, you can share your experiences here.
Give us your input!
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Getting Started: Gospel Doctrine Lesson 13
Lesson 13 focuses on Joseph Smith and his role in bringing forth scripture and “plain and precious” doctrines as part of the restoration. If you are not familiar with it, the Church’s website has a collection of presentations on Joseph Smith given at a 2005 International Academic Conference sponsored by the US Library of Congress. I especially liked Terryl Givens' and Elder Oaks' presentations. I have tried to find it in print form online, but so far, no luck.
Jim F. at Times & Seasons did his usual and masterful, verse-by-verse analysis of some of the scriptural material here. It contains some good discussion questions. Brad Constantine includes a great story (from Our Heritage) about two young women’s efforts to save unbound pages of Book of Commandments from the mobs in Missouri, here.
Hope that gets you all thinking. Feel free to share any resources you have, and don't forget to comment on what worked well in your past lessons, here.
Jim F. at Times & Seasons did his usual and masterful, verse-by-verse analysis of some of the scriptural material here. It contains some good discussion questions. Brad Constantine includes a great story (from Our Heritage) about two young women’s efforts to save unbound pages of Book of Commandments from the mobs in Missouri, here.
Hope that gets you all thinking. Feel free to share any resources you have, and don't forget to comment on what worked well in your past lessons, here.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
So, Does "Gathering" Work?
Gathering is a big Mormon theme. Almost from its modern foundation, the Church has gathered. As insiders, we tend to think of gathering in pretty positive terms. We gather together for affirmation, strength and safety. We gather together in stakes to strengthen each other and to build the Kingdom. We gather to the temple to learn and save our ancestors. Examining it from the inside, gathering is all good, right?
To the outside observer, I am not sure are gathering has always been successful. The first commandment to gather to a specific location directed the Saints to Kirtland, Ohio. (See D&C 37). But then, almost immediately, Jackson County, Missouri was identified as Zion and gathering began there, too. Unfortunately, both gatherings were temporary and did not provide much peace or safety. Persecution and apostasy (fueled by the collapse of a Church sponsored bank) plagued Kirtland. Responding to the perceived threat of a concentration of (arguably arrogant) Mormons, mobs and an all-out war drove the Mormons from Missouri.
The story in Nauvoo is not that different. The Saints gathered there, almost out of default. They built a very successful city and started a temple. Soon, however, understandable Mormon efforts to consolidate power and defend themselves led to more fear and persecution, and the martyrdom of the Prophet and his brother. Another gathering place was abandoned.
The Mormons moved west and gathered in an isolated valley - - this time away from the rest of society. From around the world, members of the Church were commanded to gather to the latest Zion, in the Rocky Mountains. At incredible sacrifice, Saints left families, livelihoods and homes and dragged themselves across a continent. For fifty years or so, the gathering continued. Many died and were impoverished. Wards and branches in Europe emptied. Salt Lake City grew into a major city. But, maybe that was just the law of averages. You know, third (or fourth) time the charm.
So, does gathering work? It clearly has accomplished amazing things. Cities and temples and a place for God’s Church to grow. But it has almost always engendered fear and suspicion, pride and persecution. Could there have been another way of doing this? Or, to paraphrase Winston Churchill’s famous statement on democracy, is gathering the worst system for building the Kingdom of God, except all others that have been tried?
To the outside observer, I am not sure are gathering has always been successful. The first commandment to gather to a specific location directed the Saints to Kirtland, Ohio. (See D&C 37). But then, almost immediately, Jackson County, Missouri was identified as Zion and gathering began there, too. Unfortunately, both gatherings were temporary and did not provide much peace or safety. Persecution and apostasy (fueled by the collapse of a Church sponsored bank) plagued Kirtland. Responding to the perceived threat of a concentration of (arguably arrogant) Mormons, mobs and an all-out war drove the Mormons from Missouri.
The story in Nauvoo is not that different. The Saints gathered there, almost out of default. They built a very successful city and started a temple. Soon, however, understandable Mormon efforts to consolidate power and defend themselves led to more fear and persecution, and the martyrdom of the Prophet and his brother. Another gathering place was abandoned.
The Mormons moved west and gathered in an isolated valley - - this time away from the rest of society. From around the world, members of the Church were commanded to gather to the latest Zion, in the Rocky Mountains. At incredible sacrifice, Saints left families, livelihoods and homes and dragged themselves across a continent. For fifty years or so, the gathering continued. Many died and were impoverished. Wards and branches in Europe emptied. Salt Lake City grew into a major city. But, maybe that was just the law of averages. You know, third (or fourth) time the charm.
So, does gathering work? It clearly has accomplished amazing things. Cities and temples and a place for God’s Church to grow. But it has almost always engendered fear and suspicion, pride and persecution. Could there have been another way of doing this? Or, to paraphrase Winston Churchill’s famous statement on democracy, is gathering the worst system for building the Kingdom of God, except all others that have been tried?
Monday, March 16, 2009
Gospel Doctrine Lesson 12: The Gathering of My People
Here are some materials to start your preparations of Lesson 12, "The Gathering of My People." This link has an interesting summary of the history of “gathering” by Global Mormonism, a BYU project that compiles scholarly research on the LDS Church. The old lesson materials at Keepapitchinin contain some good questions and nice tidbits, including a story of Lucy Mack Smith leading a group of early converts to Kirtland (with a bit more detail than the Our Heritage version). And, finally, here is an old Ensign article by Milton Backman on the Ohio period. Its scholarly tone struck me as quite different from what you see in the Ensign today.
Of course, if you know of good resources for this lesson, please share!
Of course, if you know of good resources for this lesson, please share!
Friday, March 6, 2009
Is He Talking to Me?
One of my ongoing challenges with the Doctrine & Covenants is trying to decide what, exactly, I am supposed to do with it. So many of the revelations, particularly the earlier ones, seem to be directed to specific individuals, facing specific situations. Section 25 is a perfect example. This revelation closes with the Lord telling Emma Smith, “[T]his is my voice unto all.” Yet, the section is a tangle of general admonitions to avoid pride and worldliness and keep the commandments, along with very specific directives that were clearly intended for Emma and her unique situation. She was told to support Joseph in his calling, act as his scribe and compile a hymn book. These were not instructions for “all”; they were personal instructions for her.
The challenge repeats itself over and over in the D&C. Many of the sections are in response to specific questions or directed to specific individuals. Yet they have become scripture, supposedly with broad - - even universal - - application. See D&C 1:38; 25:16. How do you interpret these revelations and decide what they really mean to us? Is it reasonable to conclude that Lord’s instructions to Oliver Cowdery on translating the gold plates are a pattern for how I seek answers to my prayers? Does the direction to Emma to support Joseph in his calling as a prophet and “rejoice in her husband, and the glory which shall come upon him” really have application to how I should treat my wife? What am I to make of the Lord’s instructions regarding whether specific missionaries were to travel by land or water?
I wonder if our attempts to "liken the scriptures unto ourselves" are sometimes a bit too superficial. Maybe Emma’s instruction to rejoice in her husband was more about accepting and embracing the challenges the Lord had given her. Maybe it teaches us more about submission and gratitude than about marriage and family relations. For me, that is the challenge of the Doctrine & Covenants - - trying to understand what the real message is for us. For that, I think we need to know the context and background, in addition to the words. We cannot always take things as they appear on the surface, but need to think and study and work at it. Realizing this makes me appreciate Joseph Smith all the more. Understanding revelation is hard work.
The challenge repeats itself over and over in the D&C. Many of the sections are in response to specific questions or directed to specific individuals. Yet they have become scripture, supposedly with broad - - even universal - - application. See D&C 1:38; 25:16. How do you interpret these revelations and decide what they really mean to us? Is it reasonable to conclude that Lord’s instructions to Oliver Cowdery on translating the gold plates are a pattern for how I seek answers to my prayers? Does the direction to Emma to support Joseph in his calling as a prophet and “rejoice in her husband, and the glory which shall come upon him” really have application to how I should treat my wife? What am I to make of the Lord’s instructions regarding whether specific missionaries were to travel by land or water?
I wonder if our attempts to "liken the scriptures unto ourselves" are sometimes a bit too superficial. Maybe Emma’s instruction to rejoice in her husband was more about accepting and embracing the challenges the Lord had given her. Maybe it teaches us more about submission and gratitude than about marriage and family relations. For me, that is the challenge of the Doctrine & Covenants - - trying to understand what the real message is for us. For that, I think we need to know the context and background, in addition to the words. We cannot always take things as they appear on the surface, but need to think and study and work at it. Realizing this makes me appreciate Joseph Smith all the more. Understanding revelation is hard work.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Talk Amongst Yourselves: Emma Smith
As the wife of Joseph, Emma Smith was witness to many of The Restoration's key events. She has been the center of controversy almost from the beginning, although she seems to have experienced something of a rehabilitation in the LDS Church during the past 20 years or so. She is the key figure in Lesson 10. Here are some snippets from other sources relating to Emma:
D&C 25:3-4 Behold, thy sins are forgiven thee, and thou art an elect lady, whom I have called. Murmur not because of the things which thou hast not seen, for they are withheld from thee and the world, which is wisdom in me in a time to come.
“I feel very anxious to see you all once more in this world. The time seems long that I am deprived of your society, but the Lord being my helper, I will not be much longer. … I am filled with constant anxiety and shall be until I get home. I pray God to spare you all until I get home. My dear Emma, my heart is entwined around you and those little ones. I want you to remember me. Tell all the children that I love them and will come home as soon as I can. Yours in the bonds of love, your husband.” (Letter from Joseph to Emma Smith, January 20, 1840, from Chester County, Pennsylvania).
“Joseph used to say that he would have [Emma] hereafter, IF HE HAD TO GO TO HELL FOR HER, AND HE WILL HAVE TO GO TO HELL FOR HER AS SURE AS HE EVER GETS HER.” (Statement of Brigham Young in the Journal of Discourses, Volume 17, page 159).
D&C 25:3-4 Behold, thy sins are forgiven thee, and thou art an elect lady, whom I have called. Murmur not because of the things which thou hast not seen, for they are withheld from thee and the world, which is wisdom in me in a time to come.
“I feel very anxious to see you all once more in this world. The time seems long that I am deprived of your society, but the Lord being my helper, I will not be much longer. … I am filled with constant anxiety and shall be until I get home. I pray God to spare you all until I get home. My dear Emma, my heart is entwined around you and those little ones. I want you to remember me. Tell all the children that I love them and will come home as soon as I can. Yours in the bonds of love, your husband.” (Letter from Joseph to Emma Smith, January 20, 1840, from Chester County, Pennsylvania).
“Joseph used to say that he would have [Emma] hereafter, IF HE HAD TO GO TO HELL FOR HER, AND HE WILL HAVE TO GO TO HELL FOR HER AS SURE AS HE EVER GETS HER.” (Statement of Brigham Young in the Journal of Discourses, Volume 17, page 159).
So, what are your thoughts on this interesting woman?
Monday, March 2, 2009
New Stuff for Lesson 10, and a Lesson 9 Follow-On
Here is some resource material for Lesson 10. Jim F. at Times and Season did a very good, verse-by-verse analysis here. As usual, we have Keepapitchinin’s post with vintage lesson materials. Keepa takes an interesting approach, focusing on Emma Smith and marriage. Along the same lines, I found this lesson overview, which talks a lot about Emma. I have not decided what to do with this since I cannot readily tell where it comes from. But it is interesting.
Finally, I ran across this post by Andrew Ainsworth at Mormon Matters regarding myths associated with the “One True Church” idea. If you have not done lesson 9 yet, it has some interesting quotes. Or, maybe you will want to do some follow-up.
Finally, I ran across this post by Andrew Ainsworth at Mormon Matters regarding myths associated with the “One True Church” idea. If you have not done lesson 9 yet, it has some interesting quotes. Or, maybe you will want to do some follow-up.
Friday, February 20, 2009
The Power of Godliness
The reading material for Lesson 8 contains one of my favorite passages from the Doctrine & Covenants, D&C 84:19-21. This passage explains that in the ordinances of the Melchizedek Priesthood, the “power of godliness is manifest.”
This passage is interesting for a number of reasons. At its most basic level, I like the idea that the power of godliness is manifest in priesthood ordinances. For those of us who have been in the Church for a while, it is easy to take the sacrament, see a child baptized or attend a wedding and think it is pretty routine, ordinary stuff. This passage reminds me that it is not. Priesthood ordinances show us God’s power and bind us to him as we covenant to obey, receive remission of sins, and renew promises to always have His spirit to be with us. And what greater manifestation of God’s power can we see than the creation of a family that will continue into beyond death?
I think it is interesting, though that this passage does not refer to the power of God, but the power of godliness. As mentioned above, the power of God is manifest in priesthood ordinances that save us and bless our lives. But I think the power of godliness is also manifest in priesthood ordinances in at least a couple of ways. First, there is an obvious synergy between a priesthood-holder’s righteousness and discipleship, and the priesthood power he is able to exercise. This connection between worthiness or godliness and priesthood power is pretty clear. See, e.g., D&C 121:36-42. Second, I think that each individual achieves greater levels of godliness as they receive priesthood ordinances and enter into covenants with God. Our own personal power of righteousness grows as we progress and come closer to God, assisted by ordinances like baptism, confirmation, the endowment and marriage.
Finally, I think it is pretty intriguing that Joseph received this revelation in 1832, relatively early in the restoration timeline. This was well before the sealing power was restored or temple ordinances were understood. In fact, although I am no historian, I do not believe that the Church at this time was really performing any Melchizedek Priesthood ordinances, unless you count ordinations to offices in that priesthood. I wonder what Joseph thought that phrase meant. Did he understand this as a foreshadowing of additional knowledge and ordinances?
How do you think the power of godliness manifest in the ordinances of the priesthood? Is there a difference between the power of God and the power of godliness? And what (if anything) does Section 84 say about Joseph’s understanding of the restoration process?
PS: Mormon Matters had a recent post on ordinances with some interesting discussion. You can find it here.
This passage is interesting for a number of reasons. At its most basic level, I like the idea that the power of godliness is manifest in priesthood ordinances. For those of us who have been in the Church for a while, it is easy to take the sacrament, see a child baptized or attend a wedding and think it is pretty routine, ordinary stuff. This passage reminds me that it is not. Priesthood ordinances show us God’s power and bind us to him as we covenant to obey, receive remission of sins, and renew promises to always have His spirit to be with us. And what greater manifestation of God’s power can we see than the creation of a family that will continue into beyond death?
I think it is interesting, though that this passage does not refer to the power of God, but the power of godliness. As mentioned above, the power of God is manifest in priesthood ordinances that save us and bless our lives. But I think the power of godliness is also manifest in priesthood ordinances in at least a couple of ways. First, there is an obvious synergy between a priesthood-holder’s righteousness and discipleship, and the priesthood power he is able to exercise. This connection between worthiness or godliness and priesthood power is pretty clear. See, e.g., D&C 121:36-42. Second, I think that each individual achieves greater levels of godliness as they receive priesthood ordinances and enter into covenants with God. Our own personal power of righteousness grows as we progress and come closer to God, assisted by ordinances like baptism, confirmation, the endowment and marriage.
Finally, I think it is pretty intriguing that Joseph received this revelation in 1832, relatively early in the restoration timeline. This was well before the sealing power was restored or temple ordinances were understood. In fact, although I am no historian, I do not believe that the Church at this time was really performing any Melchizedek Priesthood ordinances, unless you count ordinations to offices in that priesthood. I wonder what Joseph thought that phrase meant. Did he understand this as a foreshadowing of additional knowledge and ordinances?
How do you think the power of godliness manifest in the ordinances of the priesthood? Is there a difference between the power of God and the power of godliness? And what (if anything) does Section 84 say about Joseph’s understanding of the restoration process?
PS: Mormon Matters had a recent post on ordinances with some interesting discussion. You can find it here.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Priesthood Restoration: When Did It Happen?
One thing about the restoration of the priesthood has always seemed a little strange to me. We know with precision when and how the Aaronic Priesthood was restored. It happened on May 15, 1829 when John the Baptist appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery on the banks of the Susequehanna River. The Melchizedek Priesthood? Well, that’s a different story.
We do not really know when it was restored. We know that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery say that they were visited by Peter, James and John. We know these three restored to Joseph and Oliver the keys of the apostleship. But unlike John the Baptist, Peter, James and John do not get their own section of the Doctrine & Covenants with a handy date.
Putting a date on this appearance has been difficult. “Ben” at The Juvenile Instructor wrote a very interesting post a while ago on dating the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood. You can find his post here. Richard Bushman, in Rough Stone Rolling, fleshes out his opinion (referred to in the JI post) that the three apostles may have appeared to Joseph and Oliver when they were fleeing a mob near Colesville, Ohio in June 1830. Does it matter when it happened? If so, why? Why the specificity with respect to some important visions and manifestations, but not this one?
To add to the uncertainty, Bushman suggests that it is not entirely clear that the Melchizedek Priesthood, per se, was restored by Peter, James and John in that original vision. Bushman notes that at a June 1831 conference, Joseph ordained several men to the “high priesthood.” At least in some sources, Joseph and others state that this was the first time the Melchizedek Priesthood had been conferred in this dispensation. In fact, Bushman says Joseph himself was ordained to the “high priesthood” that day by Lyman Wight.
If Peter, James and John had restored the Melchizedek Priesthood in 1829 or 1830, why was Joseph ordained to the “high priesthood” by Lyman Wight in 1831? And what about those statements that the 1831 conference was the first time the Melchizedek Priesthood had been conferred in the last dispensation? I have some thoughts about this, but would like to hear yours.
We do not really know when it was restored. We know that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery say that they were visited by Peter, James and John. We know these three restored to Joseph and Oliver the keys of the apostleship. But unlike John the Baptist, Peter, James and John do not get their own section of the Doctrine & Covenants with a handy date.
Putting a date on this appearance has been difficult. “Ben” at The Juvenile Instructor wrote a very interesting post a while ago on dating the restoration of the Melchizedek Priesthood. You can find his post here. Richard Bushman, in Rough Stone Rolling, fleshes out his opinion (referred to in the JI post) that the three apostles may have appeared to Joseph and Oliver when they were fleeing a mob near Colesville, Ohio in June 1830. Does it matter when it happened? If so, why? Why the specificity with respect to some important visions and manifestations, but not this one?
To add to the uncertainty, Bushman suggests that it is not entirely clear that the Melchizedek Priesthood, per se, was restored by Peter, James and John in that original vision. Bushman notes that at a June 1831 conference, Joseph ordained several men to the “high priesthood.” At least in some sources, Joseph and others state that this was the first time the Melchizedek Priesthood had been conferred in this dispensation. In fact, Bushman says Joseph himself was ordained to the “high priesthood” that day by Lyman Wight.
If Peter, James and John had restored the Melchizedek Priesthood in 1829 or 1830, why was Joseph ordained to the “high priesthood” by Lyman Wight in 1831? And what about those statements that the 1831 conference was the first time the Melchizedek Priesthood had been conferred in the last dispensation? I have some thoughts about this, but would like to hear yours.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Faith and Tangibility
Some of the comments to an earlier post discussed Oliver Cowdery’s use of a diving rod, an interpretation recognized by several D&C commentators. If you interpret the “gift of Aaron” in Section 8 as Oliver’s use of a diving rod, it makes for some interesting reading. Oliver’s gift has told him many things (verse 6). The gift only works for Oliver because of the power of God (verse 7). If he has faith in his gift, he will use it to do marvelous things (verse 8). Oliver’s gift is the work of God (id.).
When I first learned of the “gift of Aaron” and what it that might be, my initial action was that it was, well, odd. I mean, a diving rod? And, I sort of put the idea aside. Then, last week, I read the section heading for Section 11, which says, “This revelation was received through the Urim and Thummim in answer to Joseph’s supplication and inquiry.” And I thought, “Whoa.”
Joseph used the Urim and Thummim and a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon. He used the Urim and Thummim to receive revelations that became scriptural passages of the Doctrine & Covenants (see some discussion of the U&T here and here). Is a divining rod any stranger than a Urim and Thummim? At least I have seen a diving rod. I have heard people talk about diving rods. I have never seen a Urim & Thummim. And that got me thinking about faith.
Diving rods and seer stones and interpreters are certainly outside our daily experience and it is easy to think them odd. But weren’t they just aids that Joseph (and perhaps Oliver) used for a while in seeking inspiration and revelation from God? Don’t we all use tangible objects to help us believe and seek God’s guidance?
I have long thought that part of the power of ordinances is their tangibility. You know precisely when you were immersed in water, and that meant something to you. You know when hands are placed upon your head. When you eat the bread and drink the water, it is a signal to your soul (the tangible and the intangible part) that you are seeking for God’s spirit. When I really think about it, I see lots of examples of tangibility as an aid to faith. The temple might be the ultimate example. Among other things, don’t lots of people who really need revelation and guidance go to the temple because they believe being in a sacred place - - a building - - will help them find it?
I guess it is natural to think that things outside our experience, like Urim & Thummims (what is the plural of Urim & Thummim, anyway?) and seer stones are kind of strange. But, we have a wealth of tangibility that Joseph and Oliver did not have: Sacrament emblems blessed by the priesthood; the laying on of hands; Celestial Rooms. All these things help us when our faith needs bolstering. Maybe God just works through the tools we have.
When I first learned of the “gift of Aaron” and what it that might be, my initial action was that it was, well, odd. I mean, a diving rod? And, I sort of put the idea aside. Then, last week, I read the section heading for Section 11, which says, “This revelation was received through the Urim and Thummim in answer to Joseph’s supplication and inquiry.” And I thought, “Whoa.”
Joseph used the Urim and Thummim and a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon. He used the Urim and Thummim to receive revelations that became scriptural passages of the Doctrine & Covenants (see some discussion of the U&T here and here). Is a divining rod any stranger than a Urim and Thummim? At least I have seen a diving rod. I have heard people talk about diving rods. I have never seen a Urim & Thummim. And that got me thinking about faith.
Diving rods and seer stones and interpreters are certainly outside our daily experience and it is easy to think them odd. But weren’t they just aids that Joseph (and perhaps Oliver) used for a while in seeking inspiration and revelation from God? Don’t we all use tangible objects to help us believe and seek God’s guidance?
I have long thought that part of the power of ordinances is their tangibility. You know precisely when you were immersed in water, and that meant something to you. You know when hands are placed upon your head. When you eat the bread and drink the water, it is a signal to your soul (the tangible and the intangible part) that you are seeking for God’s spirit. When I really think about it, I see lots of examples of tangibility as an aid to faith. The temple might be the ultimate example. Among other things, don’t lots of people who really need revelation and guidance go to the temple because they believe being in a sacred place - - a building - - will help them find it?
I guess it is natural to think that things outside our experience, like Urim & Thummims (what is the plural of Urim & Thummim, anyway?) and seer stones are kind of strange. But, we have a wealth of tangibility that Joseph and Oliver did not have: Sacrament emblems blessed by the priesthood; the laying on of hands; Celestial Rooms. All these things help us when our faith needs bolstering. Maybe God just works through the tools we have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
