How Important Is the Study of Doctrine?

Is it important to study the doctrines of the Church?  How important?  If it is important, why is it important?  What role does a study of doctrine play in avoiding false doctrine?  Can a correct understanding of doctrine help us build faith?  What is the role of doctrine in repentance?  Is it possible to learn correct doctrine from books?  How about the Book of Mormon, the Bible and other books in our standard works?  Can other books help us learn?  How important is the ability to read and write well to the understanding of correct doctrine?  Can a person obtain an adequate understanding of the gospel without studying gospel doctrine?  President Kimball taught that education is important and that gospel education is the most important education.  If that is true, why is it so?  What is the best way to tell the difference between true doctrine and personal opinion?  Does it matter if the opinion is true?  Our leaders have said that Mormonism includes everything that is true.  That is, if it is true it is part of the gospel.  What does that mean, and is it a good teaching?  How is it possible to make a lifelong study of Church doctrine without getting out in left field with speculation and possibly false doctrine?  Are the writings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, James E. Talmage and Bruce R. McConkie still valuable for the study of doctrine?  Or do we risk getting off in left field from the study of these sermons and writings?

Over the next few months and possibly years, I am going to try to answer some of these questions if I can.  It seems to me that the way the Church teaches doctrine has changed a lot since I was converted by the doctrine nearly forty-seven years ago.  I do not understand these changes, but in order to obtain a testimony of them, I need to understand them better.  I think of it as part of the pondering that is so important in receiving personal revelation.  Of one thing I am certain, in order to understand the scriptures, one must believe them.  Knowledge without belief is futile.  A lack of belief inevitably leads to misunderstanding and incorrect knowledge.

The Search For An Honest Man

In ancient Greece it is said that Diogenes went about all of his life in search for an honest man and could not find one. We Latter-day Saints place a high value on personal honesty, whatever that is. We all know the passage, “Wo unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell.” (2 Nephi 9:34) And every interview for a temple recommend includes the question: Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man? So why don’t we get more instruction on just exactly what this virtue is? Is complete honesty commanded? I never heard of honesty requiring that we tell the whole truth when our wife asks, “How do I look” or “Do I look fat?” Are there other situations when incomplete honesty, or in other words dishonesty, are desirable or even required? I for one would like to know more about what honesty actually is.  There seems to be a wide variety of opinion among the members of the Church, and even some of our Church leaders seem to be confused on this subject. It would be useful if the definition of honesty was as well understood as the definition of chastity, don’t you think?

The Outrageous Claims of Mormonism

From the perspective of traditional Christianity, the claims of Mormonism are outrageous.  Arguably their most outrageous claim is that the early Christian church, one or more of them, removed “many plain and precious parts” from the scriptures shortly after the death and resurrection of the Savior.  What was left out when the New Testament was first put together many centuries ago?  Who decided what was to be included?  Upon what basis or criteria were some early Christian works deemed worthy while others were not?  Perhaps more importantly, who authorized these scholars and clergymen to decided for all of us what is and is not scripture?  How can we be sure that they were objective and unbiased in their scholarship?  Was something that should have been included left out?  Was anything that should have been left out included?

If we do not have answers to all of these these questions, can we be certain that our understanding of Christian doctrine is approved by the Savior?  Those who feel that Mormons are not Christians because some of their claims are outrageous may be the ones who are truly outrageous, not the Mormons.  If we are honest and humble followers of Christ,  concern should be true or false, not orthodox or heretical.

I want to know what true scripture was left out of the Bible.  How do I find out?  Help me out here.

Plain and Precious Parts Removed… Is It Happening Today?

No, it is not happening today.  But what we leave out is always as important as what we include.  And Satan is not just a tempter.  He also lulls and deceives.  We know what not to reveal or divulge.  At least we think we do.  Do we know as well what must be said?  Or are we in danger of leaving out “plain and precious parts?”  The conference talks of today are the scriptures of tomorrow.

I love Priesthood Correlation and I have a testimony that it is inspired by God. Ever since Priesthood Correlation became a bigger part of the Kingdom of God we are abused less and less by false doctrine and personal opinions being promoted as Church doctrine by some members and occasionally even by some leaders.

With that said, is it possible for Priesthood Correlation to be misused or even abused? Is Priesthood Correlation appropriate in all situations? If not, then when it is appropriate and when is it inappropriate? I am making no statement here. This is not a rhetorical question. I am genuinely ignorant in this matter, and I am hoping for some answers eventually.

I noticed years ago that books written by named authors are generally much better books than those written by committees. I’m not referring to Church books in particular, but to books in general. Textbooks are usually authored by committees and they are almost never as informative, interesting and inspiring as books covering the same material written by an authority in the field. The Encyclopedia Britannica, for an example, is considered by many to be the best encyclopedia in the world. But its individual articles are written by acknowledged experts and authorities in the field. And they sign their work so that if anything is wrong, the reader knows who to blame for the error. The short bibliography at the end of each article is also compiled by a specific scholar who has signed his work.

Now this doesn’t mean that individually signed articles are appropriate in every situation. Obviously when the Church is putting together a lesson manual or a book such as True to the Faith for new members, it needs to speak with one voice. We must not confuse new members with a multitude of conflicting opinions on the subject of doctrine. But does that mean that all Church books should be homogenized and pasteurized until they read like a shop manual or a textbook? Could the works of James E. Talmage or Spencer W. Kimball’s The Miracle of Forgiveness have been widely read in the Church if they had been written today in our correlated environment rather than years ago?

And what about General Conference? Have you ever heard a General Conference talk that so carefully avoids offending anyone, or sticks so closely to saying things that could not remotely be disagreed with doctrinally that the talk seems to have been homogenized and pasteurized until what is left is true only in some vague and indiscernible way? Some without the spirit, including myself on occasion, find such talks boring and good only for encouraging sleep.

And when we take too much truth out of a talk or Church manual for the sake of correlation, if that ever happens, is it possible to do what the “great and abominable church” did with the scriptures as described in 1 Nephi 13?

I love the truth, whatever it is. I love the truth if I can find out what it is. I love and fervently believe the restoration prophets including those living today, especially those living today. They are true successors to Joseph Smith. They are true prophets.

But truth is more than what is said. It is also what is left out. And if too many “plain and precious” parts are left out of the truth, it is not true anymore. It becomes like a textbook, a book written by a committee. Nearly all of the scriptures, both ancient and modern, were written by individual prophets, not by groups and conclaves gathered to homogenize and pasteurize prophetic material until there is little truth left in it but just the dried husks and dead forms such as mentioned by John Wesley, the first Methodist:

“It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit were common in the church for more than two or three centuries. We seldom hear of them after that fatal period when the emperor Constantine called himself a Christian, and from a vain imagination of promoting the Christian cause thereby, heaped riches and power and honor upon Christians in general, but in particular upon the Christian clergy. From this time they almost totally ceased; very few instances of the kind were found. The cause of this was not as has been supposed because there was no more occasion for them because all the world was become Christians. This is a miserable mistake; not a twentieth part of it was then nominally Christian. The real cause of it was the love of many, almost all Christians, so called, was waxed cold. The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other heathens. The Son of Man, when he came to examine His Church, could hardly find faith upon the earth. This was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church because the Christians were turned heathens again, and only had a dead form left.” (Wesley’s Works, vol. 7, 89:26, 27)

Correlation is good. It is from the Lord. Used correctly it can prevent confusion and certain apostasy. But we need to seek the help of the Holy Ghost and the counsel of the Savior’s true prophets in deciding how to use it. And we need to take care that we do not abuse correlation and in doing so serve the devil by leaving out “plain and precious” parts. Someday, our General Conference talks may become scripture.  After all, for us the canon is open, thanks to the miracle of continuing revelation from our Savior.  May it always be so.

Scriptures That Nobody Understands

Do you understand all the scriptures that you read?  If you do, you are a better man than I am because much of the Word of God is utterly opaque and confusing to me.  And I have learned that none of the scriptural commentaries, even those most admired, are able to shed enough light on some of them to enlighten me.  I guess I am just dense.  Or perhaps it is true that we learn line up line…, etc.  And I have many more lines and precepts to learn before I can understand them.

For instance, what does this passage in D&C 64 mean:

37 Behold, I, the Lord, have made my church in these last days like unto a judge sitting on a hill, or in a high place, to judge the nations.

38 For it shall come to pass that the inhabitants of Zion shall judge all things pertaining to Zion.

39 And liars and hypocrites shall be proved by them, and they who are not apostles and prophets shall be known.

40 And even the bishop, who is a judge, and his counselors, if they are not faithful in their stewardships shall be condemned, and others shall be planted in their stead.

41 For, behold, I say unto you that Zion shall flourish, and the glory of the Lord shall be upon her;

42 And she shall be an ensign unto the people, and there shall come unto her out of every nation under heaven.

43 And the day shall come when the nations of the earth shall tremble because of her, and shall fear because of her terrible ones. The Lord hath spoken it. Amen.

Who or what are these terrible ones that will strike fear in all the nations of the earth?  And why would Zion want to strike fear in other nations?  Verse thirty-seven seems to suggest that the day will come before the Second Coming when Zion will be a sovereign and independent nation.  How can that be?  Aren’t we just a church?  Sure, we are the Kingdom of God on earth, but that is a heavenly kingdom only.  Isn’t that right?  Perhaps some might sugggest that this describes a period of Zion’s history after the Second Coming and during the Millennium.  But are there going to be nations of the wicked upon the earth during the Millennium that Zion will have to strike fear in them?  This is just a very puzzling scripture.  And when I go to the commentaries, nearly all of them just skip over this passage when they are commenting on D&C 64. I don’t understand it.

Here is another one in 3 Nephi 20:

43 Behold, my servant shall deal prudently; he shall be exalted and extolled and be very high.
44 As many were astonished at thee—his visage was so marred, more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men—
45 So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him, for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.

It is repeated in the next chapter, 3 Nephi 21:

10 But behold, the life of my servant shall be in my hand; therefore they shall not hurt him, although he shall be marred because of them. Yet I will heal him, for I will show unto them that my wisdom is greater than the cunning of the devil.

I have never heard an explanation of these passages that satisfied me.  Some say the “marred servant” is Jesus.  But that makes no sense because it is Jesus that is speaking here and when has he ever referred to himself as his own servant?  It is clear to me that he is referring to a prophet.

Others say this is a reference to Joseph Smith.  But Joseph Smith was never so marred in his visage that he astonished others because of his appearance.  And the use of the word “visage” connotes and denotes a man’s face.  It calls to mind a horribly disfigured face.  Does that describe Jesus or Joseph Smith?  I don’t think so.

Still others suggest that this refers to a future prophet, one that has yet to make his appearance upon the world scene, one that will come before the Second Coming.  This explanation does not seem to contain any unnacceptable inconsistencies, but perhaps that is because it is the most open ended, the most vague.

So which is it?  I just don’t understand the passage, and it has occurred to me that perhaps no one else does either.  But I’m sure that won’t stop some from explaining it to me.  It never has in the past.  One thing that may be relied upon is the pride of those who imagine that they know a great deal more than they really do.  Ask a question on the Internet and it will always be answered regardless of whether or not the answering person has any knowledge of the subject.

Of course, my own ignorance is great too.  I simply do not understand these two passages and have been unable to obtain that understanding in spite of the efforts that I have made to do so.  Furthermore, the scriptures are full of passages like these, passages that no one knows the meaning of.  These are the passages that are the most interesting to me.  I collect them.  I find the scriptures that I do not understand to be far more interesting than those that I do.  After all, if I already understand a thing, there is no way that I can learn it, is there?  To learn, I must focus upon the unknown.  Otherwise, the concept of line upon line, precept upon precept doesn’t have any meaning.

I hope to share some of the other scriptures that puzzle me on this blog from time to time.  Are there any that puzzle you?

How Wide Is The Divide?

Today in high priest group we discussed Elder Holland’s talk to the last General Conference entitled, “My Words Never Cease.”  In it he discusses the doctrine and scripture underlying the principle of continuing revelation and the concept of new scripture that adds to what we already have in the Bible.  During the discussion I became aware of two forces or ideas that were being expressed.  One is that we must teach the true gospel of Jesus Christ in such a manner that it does not offend anyone.  The other is that we must preach the truth even if some are offended because truth always offends some.

Which is it?  Must we preach truth even if some are going to be offended?  Or should we carefully avoid bringing up doctrinal differences with other faiths who might be offended in the interests of being accepted as mainstream or perhaps not so mainstream Christians?  Just how different are our doctrinal beliefs?  Or “how wide is the divide” as some have recently expressed it?  And if the divide is wide, if our beliefs are very different from those of traditional Christianity, how likely is it that we will be able to convince them that we are Christian even though we believe very differently?

Finally, is there any danger to the saints themselves in coming to believe there is very little difference between what we believe and what the evangelicals and other traditional Christians believe?  Is there any chance that some of our own members will become confused about doctrine and begin to think that “one church is as good as another” or that it isn’t really important to be a baptized Mormon if one is a sincere believer in a Protestant faith that is pretty much the same?

What is salvation in Mormon doctrine?

I have been a little frustrated in recent years by the various ways in which knowledgeable Latter-day Saints use the term “salvation.” Since joining the Church as a high school senior in 1963 before my 18th birthday, I have always used it to mean “eternal life” or “exaltation” which means receiving a fullness of the Father and a “continuation of the seeds” in the highest of three degrees in the Celestial Kingdom which is the highest of three kingdoms of glory. (See D&C 76 and 131). Every other reward or punishment in the next life is some form of “damnation.”

I use my definition for salvation because of my studies of the scripture, the writings of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie, the writings of Robert L. Millett of the Religion Department at BYU, and the official Church manual True to the Faith which has been through correlation and is distributed to new members of the Church.

Other knowledgeable members with an interest in doctrine insist on using the term “salvation” to mean any inheritance in a kingdom of glory whether it be be telestial, terrestrial or celestial. They reason that any “kingdom of glory” must be considered a form of salvation regardless of whether or not it involves exaltation and eternal life. After all, only the Atonement of Jesus Christ makes such a reward possible, and the Prophet Joseph Smith is reported to have said that the telestial kingdom is so glorious and so much better than the life we live here in mortality that we would commit suicide to get there if we could see what we are missing. What the prophet’s actual words were, and whether or not they were reliably recorded, I cannot say.

While I have never read anything in True to the Faith that I clearly disagree with, and I accept it as an authoritative statement on official Church doctrine, I also believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God and the “most correct book on earth” as proclaimed by Joseph Smith. And the other day I ran across this passage which I found interesting because of my frustration over the varying and sometimes conflicting definitions of salvation used by Latter-day Saints. Here is the passage, and it clears things up for me:

40 And he shall come into the world to redeem his people; and he shall take upon him the transgressions of those who believe on his name; and these are they that shall have eternal life, and salvation cometh to none else. (Alma 11:40)

What does this mean for us? In the vast majority of cases where the words “saved” or “salvation” are used in scripture, it is a reference to eternal life and exaltation. There are a tiny number of instances where these words are used to mean something else. But those instances are so few that when we use these terms to mean anything other than eternal life and exaltation, we ought to carefully explain our definitions. Otherwise, many will be confused. Our meaning will not be clear. We must not use these terms willy-nilly and just assume that others understand. Remember, even the Sons of Perdition will be “saved” in the sense of being restored to resurrected, physical bodies before they are cast into Outer Darkness with the devil and his angels. And the resurrection could never take place without the Atonement of Jesus Christ either. But no one would suggest that the Sons of Perdition are “saved” or inherit “salvation.”

False Prophets, True Prophets and Service

“A false prophet tells you what you want to hear. A true prophet tells you what the Lord wants you to hear.”

I heard this a few weeks ago, and it rings true to me. I can’t seem to get it out of my mind. Ever since mankind left the Garden of Eden, he has been stoning the prophets, and otherwise killing them. And that certainly was not because they were telling the people what they wanted to hear.

Is this a true principle that can be applied to service work? We hear a lot about service in the Church as the answer to almost everything, but when service is mentioned it is usually in general terms. One rarely hears anyone explain just exactly what it is. What is service anyway? Is it work that is wanted by those who receive it, or is it work that the Lord wants them to receive? Sometimes I get the idea that service is whatever we want to do for neighbors that will make us feel good rather than what they need or want.

For instance, to many Elder’s Quorums, service is fixing a roof or painting a fence or perhaps doing some yard work for an elderly widow. Perhaps it is collecting some canned goods for donating to a “poor” family that doesn’t have enough to eat. Does this mean that a brother or sister doesn’t need “service” if he can afford to hire a contractor to fix his roof or paint his fence? If he has plenty of food, does that mean he needs no service? What if his biggest need is to overcome the problem of loneliness? Does the Church have service projects to deal with that? It is hard to see how paint, yard work, canned goods, etc. will help a new member deal with his loneliness after he has lost all his friends and family when he joined the Church. And we all know that many new members lose everything socially. They have no friends except us when we do “service” by taking them into our families and circles of friends. And a person does not have to be a new member to be lonely. With the disintegration of the family in our time, loneliness has become a major problem everywhere including the Church.

What many think of as service is highly overrated, in my view. We need to provide the service that the Lord wants us to provide, not what we think we would like to do. The first step is to find out from the Lord and from our fellow ward members what is really needed. And then we must do like a true prophet does and provide what the Lord wants us to provide. Service is wonderful indeed, but that depends on the service. Let’s not be like the Boy Scout who came home all beat up.

“What happened,” his family asked.

“I helped a little old lady across the street,” he replied.

“But why are you all beat up?”

“I guess she didn’t want to go,” he shrugged.

Let us provide the service that is needed. If we aren’t willing to do that, let us just forget about service.

Will This Dispensation Produce a Paul?

The Apostle Paul was never the President of the Church in ancient times as Peter was.  It is not even certain that he was ever a member of the Twelve.  But few Christians, Mormon or otherwise, would deny that he wrote inspired scripture and was a true prophet of God.  Will God raise up such a man in this dispensation, the one that the Savior brought forth with the help of Joseph Smith?  Will future generations study holy scriptures originating in this dispensation as we today study the writings of Paul?  Perhaps the Miracle of Forgiveness by Spencer W. Kimball will someday be part of our open ended canon, do you think?  Something by Jame E. Talmage?  Something by Joseph Fielding Smith?

What do you think?  This is the last and greatest of all dispensations, the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times.  Will this dispensation produce another Paul?  Perhaps it already has.  Is that possible?  For myself, I believe that Elder Bruce R. McConkie is the Paul of our times.  His writings, at least some of them, will prove to be as immortal as we all are.  What is your best guess?

Spiritual Wickedness In High Places

In my last post I reviewed some of what the prophets have taught about “churches” and the fact that ultimately there are only two: the church of Jesus Christ, and the church of the devil. Today, I would like to add what I consider to be a related scripture from the New Testament. I think it is especially pertinent today because of the primary campaigns being waged here in the USA by both the Republicans and the Democrats who are vying for the office of President of the United States.

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Ephesians 6:12)

This is the Apostle Paul, of course. But what was he writing about, and how is it relevant to our day? Is it relevant? On the official Church website, this verse is cross referenced in the Topical Guide to Darkness, Spiritual; Secret Combinations, Governments, and Wickedness among others. Does Paul imply by this that governments are or can be a threat to the gospel of Jesus Christ? Is the Church in danger from such threats around the world? How about here at home? What can we learn from Church History? I personally feel it likely that our national elections are very much influenced by the machinations of evil men combined to get power over the people. What to do about it is much less clear to me. But I am weary of our elected leaders obviously serving someone else rather than those who voted for them and put them in office.

Technorati Tags: scriptures, paul, bible, politics, christianity, religion

Powered by ScribeFire.