General Conference, Elder Christofferson and Jesus Christ

What a marvelous conference! Elder Christofferson of the Twelve included these verses among others in his talk:

33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.

34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned. (3 Nephi 11:33-34)

Truly, this man is a prophet of God! I have heard the first of these two verses many times. But only when I read the Book of Mormon do I get the second verse. I’m sure I have just missed them because I wasn’t paying attention on other occasions, but this time I was paying attention. Verse 33 is relatively meaningless without verse 34, and it drives me crazy when someone giving a Sacrament talk uses only the first one. They are a couplet. They are together for a reason. The Savior said them together in his sermon to the ancient Nephites, and they should be used together by his saints in these latter days.

When I realized that Elder Christofferson was quoting this passage, I gave his talk even greater attention. Would he use both verses? Hallelujah, he did! Once more I have another new hero.

Are Mormons Becoming Protestants?

Are Mormons becoming Protestants?  Of course not.  Even if they would accept us as one of them, we would betray the gospel of Jesus Christ and his prophets if we became Protestant.  Yet I have heard some online who feel there is a spirit among some Latter-day Saints to become more Protestant-like.  Whereas in past generations Latter-day Saints have celebrated our differences from the traditional Christian world, today it seems more common to dwell upon the common ground we both share.  Is this a good thing?  Is this a change in our doctrine?  Is this trend from the rank and file membership, or is it being taught our prophet-leaders?

Thoughts on Interfaith Relations
President Gordon B. Hinckley has consistently advocated dialogue and mutual respect in interfaith relations. He has admonished members of the Church to cultivate “a spirit of affirmative” for those of differing religious, political, and philosophical persuasions, adding that “we do not in any way have to compromise our theology” in the process. He gave this counsel: “Be respectful of the opinions and feelings of other people. Recognize their virtues; don’t look for their faults. Look for their strengths and their virtues, and you will find strength and virtues that will be helpful in your own life.”

When members are not well grounded in the teachings of their own faith, how are they to resist being taught rather than teaching?  I ask this question in the light of this passage from the Doctrine and Covenants:

Doctrine and Covenants 43:15

Again I say, hearken ye elders of my church, whom I have appointed: Ye are not sent forth to be taught, but to teach the children of men the things which I have put into your hands by the power of my Spirit;

When all about me are trying to find common ground with the Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, etc. I get an uneasy feeling.  Can one always teach respect for another’s faith without putting himself into temptation?  If we spend much time in highlighting the good in the faiths and beliefs of others, is there a chance we will imply to the unsophisticated that one faith is about as good as another?  If the Methodist faith is so wonderful, why not be a Methodist? Surely God wouldn’t mind.  He loves all of his children.  And if I am a Methodist, I won’t have to quit smoking and keep the Law of Chastity.  Suppose I wanted to marry.  Suppose my future spouse is a Methodist.  What is going to best persuade me to marry a Latter-day Saint instead?  Will I do best by learning all the good things about Methodists and their teachings, or by learning what is false about their teachings?

This has puzzled me as long as I have been a Church member.  If I accentuate the false teachings of the sects of apostate Christendom, I am encouraged to cling to the gospel as a drowning man clings to a life raft.  If I do the opposite and look constantly for the good in their denominations and teachings, I will minimize the importance of the differences between us.  In which case, I might as well be a Protestant.

Joseph Smith had almost nothing good to say about the Protestant denominations of his day.  Just read his writings and sermons to confirm this.  The gospel was restored because traditional Christianity had become rank with apostasy and false doctrine.  Brigham Young and the other successors to Joseph Smith had this same negative and almost militant view of “the sectarians.”  Yes, there is a lot of truth in all religions.  Yes, there are good people in other churches and bad ones in the LDS faith.  Are these wonderful people in other faiths wonderful because of their churches or in spite of their churches?  I’ve also met wonderful atheists, agnostics, humanists, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and Muslims.

Whenever I hear someone complain that I express negative thoughts about this or that false teaching in another church, I am told that such negativity will cause us to lose new converts.  Maybe so.  But is there any danger that failing to emphasize the falseness of their teachings will cause some of our members to misunderstand and become confused about our own teachings? Many of our members are not particularly interested in doctrine and might decide various teachings of other denominations are superior.  Why should we worry more about bringing others into the Church than we do about keeping those we already have?

For a number of reasons, the Church is true.  The other churches are not.  There is more to it than that, but that is most basic.  The whole idea of a true church implies that the others are false.  Baptists don’t ever talk about this or that denomination being “true.”  I never heard that until I became a Latter-day Saint.

I think we need to love and respect people of other faiths.  That does not mean that we need to love and respect their false churches.  If we forget this, our ability to retain the members we already have will go down as the number of new members goes up.

Can we love the sinner and hate the sin?  Yes, of course.  Can we love the Baptist or Methodist without loving his false church?  I think so. Is this distinction too fine for some to understand? I hope not.

When I became a Mormon it was because I knew the Baptist faith of my childhood was teaching nonsense about the Jesus Christ.  Had the Church made an effort to underline the things we had in common, I would have seen no reason to become a Mormon.  If just being a good person is all God requires, I can do that anywhere.  I do not need to be a Mormon to do that.

Is the faith of the Latter-day Saints part of the ecumenical movement?  I left the Protestants behind because I knew that philosophizing, voting, participating in conclaves and conventions, and learning about other faiths has no bearing upon what is true and what is false.  Truth and falsehood need no excuses or explanations.  If a thing is true, it is true regardless of what the “ecumenical” opinion is.

I think it is wrong to think well of the false doctrines promoted by the other churches.   It is wrong and it is also spiritually dangerous. Please correct me if I am wrong.

The Two Classes Of Atheists

This is from a pamphlet written by Orson Pratt which is included by James E. Talmage in his well known book The Articles of Faith.  It is in an appendix.  I do not believe I have ever met another Latter-day Saint who agrees with this quote by Orson Pratt, but I do.  I believe it completely.  I probably read this before I joined the Church in 1963 a few months before my eighteenth birthday.  I love it because to me it rings true, just as the gospel did when I first heard it from the missionaries so long ago.

What do you think and feel?  Does this brief paragraph by Orson Pratt ring true to you?

Practical Religion

In James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith

9. Immaterialists and Atheists—“There are two classes of atheists in the world. One class denies the existence of God in the most positive language; the other denies his existence in duration or space. One says ‘There is no God;’ the other says ‘God is not here or there, any more than he exists now and then.‘ The infidel says ‘God does not exist anywhere.’ The immaterialist says ‘He exists nowhere.’ The infidel says ‘There is no such substance as God.’ The immaterialist says ‘There is such a substance as God, but it is without parts.‘ The athiest says, ‘There is no such substance as spirit.’ The immaterialist says ‘A spirit, though he lives and acts, occupies no room, and fills no space in the same way and in the same manner as matter, not even so much as does the minutest grain of sand.’ The atheist does not seek to hide his infidelity; but the immaterialist, whose declared belief amounts to the same things as the atheist’s, endeavors to hide his infidelity under the shallow covering of a few words. * * * The immaterialist is a religious atheist; he only differs from the other class of atheists by clothing an indivisible unextending nothing with the powers of a God. One class believes in no God; the other believes that Nothing is god and worships it as such.”—Orson Pratt, in pamphlet Absurdities of Immaterialism, p. 11.

God’s Law and Homosexuality

1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, (2 Timothy 3:1-3)

What is the meaning of this passage from the New Testament? Is it a reference to homosexual behavior? If so, is it pertinent only to the times in which Paul lived, or is it binding upon us who live today? How do homosexuals interpret this verse and others like it in the Bible? Is the Bible just wrong about this subject?

From the Old Testament on this topic, we read:

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. Leviticus 18:22-23)

Here God is apparently equating homosexuality with bestiality. Does this mean that the sins are of comparable wickedness?

I have heard homosexuals and their fans say that this passage is no longer binding on us today because it is part of the Law of Moses which was done away with the death of the Savior. Others have ridiculed the idea by pointing out the fact that many passages in the Old Testament say adulters and those break the sabbath are to be put to death. Are such laws reasonable today? If not, why should we pay any attention to this passage? Or does the prohibition on homosexual behavior in the New Testament indicate that this law was not done away with the Law of Moses and may still be in effect?

Also in Leviticus is another passage that may indicate how serious the sin of practicing homosexual behavior is:

13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

If God is fair and just, was he not also fair and just in ancient times? If so, does that not mean that the punishment fit the crime? If the fair and just punishment for homosexual behavior is death, just how serious does God consider this sin?

Even in our own day the true prophets of God who are his mouthpieces and spokesmen have taught that a homosexual is a pervert. Here are some passages from general conference and other sources in which President Spencer W. Kimball uses that word for homosexuals:

“. . . Many have been misinformed that they are powerless in the matter, not responsible for the tendency, and that ‘God made them that way.’ This is as untrue as any other of the diabolical lies Satan has concocted. It is blasphemy. Man is made in the image of God. Does the pervert think God to be ‘that way’? . . .

“Sometimes not heavenly but earthly parents get the blame. Granted that certain conditions make it easier for one to become a pervert, the second Article of Faith teaches that a man will be punished for his own sins. He can, if normal, rise above the frustrations of childhood and stand on his own feet. . . .” (Kimball, Spencer W. The Miracle of Forgiveness.)

And also this while President Kimball was the president of the Twelve:

There are said to be millions of perverts who have relinquished their natural affection and bypassed courtship and normal marriage relationships. This practice is spreading like a prairie fire and changing our world. They are without “natural affection” for God, for spouses, and even for children. (General Conference, April 1971)

Many other examples could be given, but this sampling should be enough to give us food for thought. Apparently the Savior does not want us to engage in homosexual practices.

Finally a caveat, in ancient times death was the penalty for adultery or homosexual behavior. An abomination is “that which God hates,” and both heterosexual adultery and homosexual behavior are abominations. The Mormon prophets have condemned in the strongest possible language all sexual sin, not just homosexual sin. What God wants is for us to be chaste. That is, he wants us to live the Law of Chastity. Ultimately there will be terrible penalties for those who do not repent of these things. And there will be great blessings both for those who do repent as well as for those who never indulge in the first place.  God loves us, and we are all sinners.  He only gives us these commandments because in his infinite wisdom he knows that keeping them will lead us to great happiness, and violating them will lead us to great misery and death.

The Sin Second Only To Murder

5 Know ye not, my son, that these things [fornication] are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost? (Alma 39:5)

This quote from the Book of Mormon makes clear that fornication, adultery and sex sin in general are second only to murder in the eyes of God. I mention this here because I have heard active Latter-day Saints say that this is not so. Some have even ridiculed this teaching which has been reiterated by many presidents of the Church and members of the Twelve.

It is important that we as Latter-day Saints obtain our values from the gospel of Jesus Christ rather than from the secular world around us. Pop culture tells us a different story, but the teachings of the prophets are true and the mind of God. They are his mouthpiece or spokesmen here on earth. If we commit sex sin, we must repent and be forgiven, or we will be damned. Those who claim otherwise are simply wrong.

Will animal sacrifice be restored in the latter days?

Generally I believe the things that were taught to me by the missionaries when I was converted and baptized by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1962-1963.  These teachings were further reinforced when I read The Articles of Faith and Jesus the Christ by James E. Talmage along with other doctrinal works such as A Marvelous Work and a Wonder by LeGrand Richards, The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, and Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie.  Since I read these during the early 196o’s when I was receiving the bulk of the personal revelation that led to my joining the Church, I tend to believe them even though they were not “official Church doctrine” which I was unaware existed in those days.  For me “official Church doctrine” is what I learned from the missionaries who taught me since they were official representatives of the Church.

These doctrinal books were amazingly consistent in their teaching of the doctrines, so much so that along with the promptings of the spirit I felt, I believed them to be true. After all, the truth never contradicts itself even though our faulty perception of the truth occasionally does.

I found especially interesting the concept of “the restitution of all things” initiated in our day by the Prophet Joseph.  It was the beginning of the ongoing restoration of ancient Christianity.  Part of that restitution was to be the restoration of animal sacrifice, something that the Prophet Joseph taught and that President Joseph Fielding Smith taught.

I have since become aware of an apparent inconsistency in the teaching of doctrine surrounding the ancient ordinance of animal sacrifice.  It puzzles me, and I am hoping that someone with a greater knowledge of doctrine and the history of doctrine can help me understand.

Joseph Smith taught:

“Thus we behold the keys of this Priesthood consisted in obtaining the voice of Jehovah that He talked with him [Noah] in a familiar and friendly manner, that He continued to him the keys, the covenants, the power and the glory, with which He blessed Adam at the beginning; and the offering of sacrifice, which also shall be continued at the last time; for all the ordinances and duties that ever have been required by the Priesthood, under the directions and commandments of the Almighty in any of the dispensations, shall all be had in the last dispensation, therefore all things had under the authority of the Priesthood at any former period, shall be had again, bringing to pass the restoration spoken of by the mouth of all the Holy Prophets; then shall the sons of Levi offer an acceptable offering to the Lord….

… it is generally supposed that sacrifice was entirely done away when the Great Sacrifice [i.e.,] the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus was offered up, and that there will be no necessity for the ordinance of sacrifice in future; but those who assert this are certainly not acquainted with the duties, privileges and authority of the Priesthood, or with the Prophets.

The offering of sacrifice has ever been connected and forms a part of the duties of the Priesthood. It began with the Priesthood, and will be continued until after the coming of Christ, from generation to generation. We frequently have mention made of the offering of sacrifice by the servants of the Most High in ancient days, prior to the law of Moses; which ordinances will be continued when the Priesthood is restored with all its authority, power and blessings….

These sacrifices, as well as every ordinance belonging to the Priesthood, will, when the Temple of the Lord shall be built, and the sons of Levi be purified, be fully restored and attended to in all their powers, ramifications, and blessings. This ever did and ever will exist when the powers of the Melchizedek Priesthood are sufficiently manifest; else how can the restitution of all things spoken of by the Holy Prophets be brought to pass. It is not to be understood that the law of Moses will be established again with all its rites and variety of ceremonies; this has never been spoken of by the prophets; but those things which existed prior to Moses’ day, namely, sacrifice, will be continued.

It may be asked by some, what necessity for sacrifice, since the Great Sacrifice was offered? In answer to which, if repentance, baptism, and faith existed prior to the days of Christ, what necessity for them since that time? The Priesthood has descended in a regular line from father to son, through their succeeding generations.”—Joseph Smith (Oct. 5, 1840), in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith,, 171-73.

I especially remember the phrase “the restitution of all things” when it was explained to me by the missionaries.  It made sense. It caused me to love better the Old Testament because for the first time the Old Testament was integrated into my understanding of the gospel which earlier as a Baptist was poor because the Old Testament was almost entirely ignored along with those parts of the New Testament that were not included in the writings of Paul.

But… I have since learned that there seems to be some inconsistency between this teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith and what has been taught by his successors in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I have further been confused to find a passage in my study of the Book of Mormon that seems to say that animal sacrifice has been completely done away since the death of Jesus Christ in ancient times.

18 I am the light and the life of the world. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.

19 And ye shall offer up unto me no more the shedding of blood; yea, your sacrifices and your burnt offerings shall be done away, for I will accept none of your sacrifices and your burnt offerings.

20 And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost, even as the Lamanites, because of their faith in me at the time of their conversion, were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and they knew it not. (3 Nephi 9:18-20)

Other modern prophets have confirmed this:

“The law of sacrifice was ended upon the cross and a new era was inaugurated, the era of the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ which would give men the opportunity to serve God in the spirit of love.”—Joseph L. Wirthlin, Conference Report, April 1948, 144.

“With the sacrifice of Jesus, ‘the performances and ordinances of the Law of Moses’ were fulfilled (4 Ne. 1:12), and his death ended the practice of sacrifices on an altar. To his disciples in the western continents, Jesus said that he would no longer accept burnt offerings, but that anyone who believes in him should offer a broken heart and a contrite spirit (3 Ne. 9:19-20; cf. D&C 59:8).”—Gloria Jean Thomas, “Sacrifice,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 3:1248.

So which is it?  Does an apostle’s statement or the The Encyclopedia of Mormonism have more authority than the first president of the Church, Joseph Smith, or the apostle who became the tenth president of the church, Joseph Fielding Smith?  Is there some other way to understand the passage in the Book of Mormon?  We know that when considering the teachings of the apostles and prophets we need to make allowance for the possibility that they were not “speaking as a prophet” as is the case when they are giving their personal opinions. We also know that the scriptures are not always correctly interpreted by accepting the first understanding that comes to mind.  Sometimes there are other scriptures that do not verify the questioned passages and even some that seem to contradict.  There is also the possibility of ancient errors in the Book of Mormon.  Those possibilities are referred to by the ancient authors of the Book of Mormon themselves.

I am pretty confused on this issue.  I do not like contradiction because I know that the truth is always consistent with itself.  Whatever was true in the early 19th century is still true today.  If there seems to be an inconsistency, it is only because our perception of truth is faulty or incomplete.

Can anyone reading this clear it up for me?  This is a gospel question.  What is the answer?

What Do The Latter-day Saints Think About Knowledge and Education?

A number of years ago while I was still living in Ketchikan, Alaska, I taught early morning seminary for three years.  It was perhaps the most richly rewarding service I ever did in the Church.  During those years, I read a statement by President Spencer W. Kimball which I cannot quote verbatim because to date I have been unable to find it.  Basically he said that education was among the most important of all human activities, and the most important education was gospel education.  I was deeply impressed by this. In looking for that passage I happened upon something said by Joseph Smith on the same topic of education and knowledge and its importance.

Spiritual knowledge is the knowledge that saves.

The Prophet Joseph Smith said, “The principle of knowledge is the principle of salvation. This principle can be comprehended by the faithful and diligent; and every one that does not obtain knowledge sufficient to be saved will be condemned. Salvation is nothing more nor less than to triumph over all our enemies and put them under our feet. And when we have power to put all enemies under our feet in this world, and a knowledge to triumph over all evil spirits in the world to come, then we are saved.” (History of the Church 5:387.)

I’ve been a member of the Church for nearly fifty years since I joined from a Baptist background in the early 1960s.  It was the Book of Mormon and the teachings of the prophets that first gave me my  testimony.  I am not one who fits well into groups, and I only have a very small number of very close friends.  So it was not the cultural or social aspects of the gospel that drew me into the fold of Christ.  In the early 1960s the main doctrinal works were Jesus the Christ and The Articles of Faith by James E. Talmage.  There was also a huge appetite in the Church in those days for the writings of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie, my personal heroes.  I gorged myself on Talmage, Smith and McConkie.  I loved the teachings, teachings primarily bringing to light the sermons and ideas of Joseph Smith.

Today I am alarmed to see there is not as much interest in doctrine as there was then.  And from my perspective it seems like there is a greater number of saints who can be described as cultural or social Mormons, those whose interest in gospel is more about the Church than about what the prophets teach.  Obviously this is just a perception that I have.  It could be completely wrong.  But from where I stand this is what I see.

Of course, the best source of doctrine is the scriptures themselves, the standard works.  But I really miss the interest in doctrine of my early days in the Church.  The scriptures themselves tell us that anything a man speaks by the power of the Holy Ghost is scripture.  Many saints including myself consider the conference talks to be scripture when the Holy Ghost testifies to us that what we are hearing is true and from God.  I wonder, did LeGrand Richards write Marvelous Work and a Wonder while under the influence of the Holy Ghost?  I hope so.  That book was the manual for the Gospel Essentials class for many years.  How about the writings of Talmage, Smith and McConkie?  Were they writing under the influence of the Holy Ghost?  If so, then their works contain scripture as well.  Are there errors and personal opinion included?  I imagine that is a possibility.  But a great deal of their writing they wrote as moved upon  by  the Holy Ghost, ie. scripture.

Now I am fairly certain that today a decision has been made to focus on the standard works and discourage the publishing and reading of doctrinal works by individual apostles.  We are encouraged to get our doctrine straight from the standard works themselves.  I believe this is from God through his true prophets.  But it brings with it some unique problems.  First, is reading level.  Many of the scriptures are very hard to understand even if one has a huge vocabulary and highly developed reading skills.  Normally this would not be a problem if an honest seeker of the truth is prepared to receive personal revelation as he reads the scriptures.  But the second problem is this: People with inadequate reading skills will have a more difficult time enjoying the study of the scriptures, and as all of us have a tendency to intellectual laziness, this will discourage many from reading the scriptures.  I may be completely wrong, but it seems to me that average reading skills are declining in our society because of television, movies, DVDs, surfing the Web, computer and video games, etc.  Reading is no longer a highly popular form of entertainment as it once was.  And since reading is a skill that improves with practice, if people read less, over time they will not read as well.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that there are far more Sacrament talks today than ever before which do not include any scriptural references, and even fewer that are focused on the scriptures.  Many of the talks I hear in Sacrament don’t seem to have anything to do with the gospel at all.  Telling temple stories, BYU stories, mission stories, and other Church stories can include some aspects of faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, and receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.  But often they don’t.  If a Sacrament talk does not include any of the doctrines, scriptures or principles of the gospel, in what sense is it a gospel talk?  Such a talk would be more appropriate for a weekly meeting of the local Toastmaster’s Club.

I was recently in a Gospel Doctrine class when to my horror I heard the teacher say that knowledge of the gospel was not necessary to have a powerful testimony.  Perhaps he meant that being a gospel scholar such as Elder McConkie was not a prerequisite, but it didn’t come out that way.  He seemed to be saying that a deep understanding of the gospel was not needed.

I immediately raised my hand and said, “That can’t be true.  If gospel knowledge is not important, how do we account for the passage in the Doctrine and Covenants that says, “It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance.” (D&C 131:6)  This is possibly among the favorite scriptures of Elder Bruce R. McConkie and he quoted it often.  I also mentioned the fact that a person cannot study the scriptures without gaining knowledge.  And our prophets are continually asking us to study the scriptures.  If a person does not know the scriptures and hence the doctrines, it means he hasn’t been studying the scriptures.

Unfortunately, I was fairly new in the branch, and the Branch President was in the class.  Perhaps he thought my class comment was contentious.   I don’t know.  Be he called me into his office after the meeting and chastised me.  From that moment on I did my best not to say anything in class.  And a few weeks later he was released.

How important is gospel knowledge? How can we get it unless we search the scriptures?  If we do not use our knowledge of the scriptures in the talks and lessons we give, is that not a fairly good indication that we are not studying the scriptures as we should?  Perhaps I am being judgemental, but when I hear a talk in Sacrament that includes no scriptural references or does not focus on a scriptural theme, I just assume the speaker doesn’t know his scriptures very well because he is violating the commandment we have all received from Jesus Christ to “search the scriptures.”

It grieves me to see an interest in doctrine decline in the Church if that is in fact happening.  I hope I’m wrong about this, but it really frustrates me to attend Church week after week and hear many stories told in Sacrament meeting without hearing any of the parables of Jesus or other stories from the Bible and Book of Mormon.  Often the youngest speakers fresh out of Primary do a better job of sticking to the gospel in their talks than the adults do.

Have you ever heard a conference talk that did not include the scriptures?  I don’t think I have.  We need to follow the example of our prophet-leaders, not just their counsel.

What Is Our Doctrine?

I ran across this today.  It is not from Bruce R. McConkie but from his son, Joseph Fielding McConkie.  It says in a far more eloquent way something I have been saying for years, something that I testify is true:

IT IS NOT UNCOMMON IN gospel discussions for someone to challenge what is being said with the question, “Is that official Church doctrine?” This question often means the one asking it does not like what is being said and is seeking a reason not to be bound by it. The question is generally successful in putting the one being challenged on the defensive because of the difficulties associated with defining “official Church doctrine.” In telling the story of the Creation, for instance, teachers are commonly challenged with the question, “Does the Church have an official position on the theory of evolution?” The answer is no, it does not. On the other hand, and this is certainly very important in such a discussion, the Church does have an official position on the doctrine of the origin of man. The way questions are framed is very important. On the one hand, the Church is not in the business of evaluating scientific theories; on the other, it is in the business of teaching that all humankind are the offspring of divine parents and thus not the product of an evolutionary process. The knowledge that we obtain in the temple, knowledge required for us to enter into the presence of the Lord, and the ordinances performed there do not permit the notion that our blood line traces to animals.

If the body of “official doctrine” is to be limited to formal declarations by the First Presidency, the Church has precious little doctrine. From the time of its organization in the spring of 1830 to the present, there have been very few instances in which the First Presidency has issued “official” doctrinal declarations. These have included the statement on the origin of man, a doctrinal exposition on the Father and the Son, and most recently the proclamation on the family. Each of these declarations is marvelous in its own right, but if our definition of “official doctrines” is defined so narrowly that it is limited to these declarations and the few others we have received, we could not even declare faith, repentance, and baptism as doctrines of the Church. Indeed, most of what we understand to be the doctrine of the Church finds no mention in such documents. Certainly the standard works, the temple ceremony, and much instruction that has come to us by those whom we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators is also “official doctrine.”

I was only 16 when I first learned from the Holy Ghost that the Church is true, but prior to that I had been engaged in a desperate search for something, anything that I could believe in.  It certainly wasn’t the teachings of the churches I grew up in.  When the missionaries first began giving me the lessons, I quickly realized that they were speaking the truth, something that one does not hear very often.  I did not join the Church because these teachings were and were not “official Church doctrine.”  I joined because I knew it was true, and I loved it because it was true.

I am not and never have been interested in what is or is not “official Church doctrine.”  I am interested in truth if I can find it.  Thank heaven I found some of it in the summer of 1962.  The official Church doctrines are true, but not all that is true is official Church doctrine.  If we limit our understanding of truth to official Church doctrine, we are limited indeed.  After all, what is truth anyway?  The Savior said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)  The truth is Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ is the truth.  Really, in sense he is all there is in the universe.  He created it.

The Doctrine of Jesus Christ And The Faith To Keep His Commandments

Many years ago after his resurrection in the Old World, Jesus Christ visited the Americas and taught this simple but amazing doctrine recorded in the eleventh chapter of 3rd Nephi:

32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.

33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.

34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.

Easy to say. Not so easy to do.

A little further in the chapter the Savior says:

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.

Simple isn’t it? Believe and be saved. Don’t believe and be damned. But I was at first puzzled by verse 40. How could this be? The Church of Jesus Christ teaches a great deal more than this simple doctrine, doesn’t it? Does that mean it “cometh of evil?” I just cannot believe that. Is not this Church the one that brought forth the Book of Mormon and these words in the first place? What would we know about the Savior’s teachings in ancient America if it were not for this Church?

Then it struck me. The gospel as taught by the Savior’s only true Church is 1) Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, 2) Repentance, 3) Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins, and 4) receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. Isn’t this just another way of saying the same thing. I think it is.

The Savior said “believe” and ye shall be saved. But what did he mean by believe? He said to be baptized. Could it be that the word “believe” means “believe enough to be baptized?” I have noticed that in the scriptures the word “believe” is sometimes used differently than we use it in 21st century English. The word “believe” carries with it the connotation of having faith. And faith by nature demands action, in this case the action to be baptized. The Savior might just as well have been saying “Have faith in me” and be saved. If a man says he has faith in Christ or that he believes in Christ and then refuses to keep the Savior’s commandments, does he really believe or is he merely giving lip service?

I don’t believe a man has faith in Christ unless he makes his best effort to keep the Savior’s commandments. And the first of those commandments is to be baptized. If a man does not have enough faith in Christ to be baptized, he doesn’t have enough faith to be saved because he doesn’t really believe in Christ. “If ye love me, keep my commandments,” the Savior said in the 14th chapter of John. If we do not do our best to keep his commandments we are proving that we do not love him, that we do not have faith in him, and that we do not believe in him.

The Savior has made his doctrine clear. We cannot deny it or we will be damned by His own words.

Mormon Prophecy and Secret Combinations

11 For all flesh is corrupted before me; and the powers of darkness prevail upon the earth, among the children of men, in the presence of all the hosts of heaven—

12 Which causeth silence to reign, and all eternity is pained, and the angels are waiting the great command to reap down the earth, to gather the tares that they may be burned; and, behold, the enemy is combined.

This is taken from the 38th Section of the Doctrine and Covenants. What does it mean? I don’t know, but a have a couple of ideas.

“…all flesh is corrupted”
Could this mean that we are all mortal, living in a telestial world, and all men everywhere are filthy unless they come unto Christ and are sanctified so that they are washed clean in the blood of the Lamb?”

“…the powers of darkness prevail upon the earth”
What does the word “prevail” mean in this context?  It might mean that those who are in seats of power over the nations are in darkness, or in other words they are influenced or controlled by Satan, the great deceiver.

“…Which causeth silence to reign”
This phrase I do not understand at all.  I hope to learn more, by and by.

“…the angels are waiting the great command to reap down the earth”
This phrase is also mysterious.  I believe that it is literal as well as metaphorical.  Apparently angels are going to have a role in the destruction of the wicked at the end of the world.  In other words, it is not going to be entirely a holocaust by the hands of mortal men.  Who will or what will be reaped down?  I hope it will not be me.  It is a frightening verse.  If it is a reference to the wicked and their destruction at the beginning of the Millennium, who are the wicked?  How can I be sure I’m not one of them?  How is “wicked” defined?  It is a word used often throughout scripture.  It must have a meaning beyond those who are not a member of the Church, or those who are merely imperfect and sinners.

“…gather the tares that they may be burned”
I assume this does not mean literal weeds growing among literal wheat.  But how far does the metaphor go?  Does it mean that the wicked will be literally burned at the beginning of the Millennium?”  Or does it mean that something else will happen to them that is represented by this metaphorical reference?  If the latter, what could it be referring to?”

“…behold, the enemy is combined.”
Who is the enemy? I suppose it is a reference to the enemies of Jesus Christ and his covenant people, but could it mean something else too?   And what does the word “combined” mean?  I believe it is a reference to secret combinations, those who intentionally or unwittingly follow Satan in opposition to Christ and his covenant people.  They are undoubtedly organized into syndicates, cartels, and other criminal organizations.  Are these the combinations spoken of?  Is this what “combined” means in this context?  I think so, but what else could it mean?”

I find these two verses fascinating precisely because I am not certain what they mean.  I am sure there are others who understand them better.  It is my hope that such a one will find this blog post and enlighten me in the comments.