Prayer, Scripture Study, and Fasting

Over the last several years I have found myself praying less, studying the scriptures less, and fasting not at all. In years past I have considered myself a man of prayer, one who prayed often and fervently. Not so much lately. I feel like I am in a precarious position, in great danger actually. I am nearing the end of my life as all of us are, but at sixty-seven years of age I am nearer than many. Does my dwindling in the matters of prayer, scripture study and fasting mean that I am failing to “endure to the end?” I would be mortified if I were to lose my exaltation after a lifetime of devotion and service. Keeping the commandments has never come easily to me. Walking the straight line has been difficult all these years. It would be a shame to fail after so many years of effort.

How can I motivate myself to the levels of prayer, scriptures study and fasting that were once such an integral part of my life, so many years ago?

To Accept A Call Or Not

Is it ever appropriate to turn down a call from the Bishopric or the stake presidency? I suffer from a chronic health problem that is embarrassing to discuss with anyone outside of my immediate family, and from time to time it is incapacitating to the point where I cannot go to Church. This makes fulfilling most callings problematical. I made the mistake in a previous ward of sharing with others the nature of my problem, and while that mollified some who might otherwise have thought I was a slacker in my church work, I am sure that some of the less charitable members just thought I was malingering and making excuses for staying home from church which could not be more untrue. I love going to church. I have been very active since January of 1968.

The best calling for working around my occasional handicap was a few years ago when both my wife and I were called to teach the Gospel Doctrine class. We alternated with her teaching every other Sunday, and I taught on the off Sundays. And when I was too sick to come to church she filled in for me. We did this for over five years, and it worked out very well for us and for the ward as well.

But when we moved here to Idaho about three years ago, I decided to keep my health problems a little more private than I did for the twenty-three years we were in our last ward. There I had a couple of bad experiences that convinced me I should not share my most personal problems with everyone. In a ward of any size, there will always be at least two or three who are uncharitable in their reaction.

Well, they called me to be the Sunday School president here in our new ward. I explained to the member of the Bishopric who called me that several times a year I have to miss Church for two, three or even four months because of my condition. I did not turn down the call, but thought they should know I would not always be able to do a good job. They went ahead and called me anyway saying they would make sure I had a strong counselor who could stand in for me when I could not come. Well, my counselor is a wonderful man who has been in the Church less than a year. He has a testimony but not a lot of Church background. And this morning I am feeling bad about not being able to go to Church. I feel like I’m dropping the ball.

What should I have done otherwise? Should I have just turned down the call? Should I have blabbed all my most personal health problems? Or should I have done what I did and just let them deal with my not being there many Sundays? I am missing Church again this morning, and it is about the fourth or fifth consecutive Sunday that I have missed.

I love the Church. I love going to Church. I want to honor and magnify my callings. But I have other responsibilities, some such as my family are even higher responsibilities than my responsibility to take care of my normally considerable load of Church work.

What do you think? I have agonized over taking my Bishop into my confidence or perhaps my stake president, but I know from years of past Church service that some leaders do not truly understand the importance of confidentiality. And until we buy the home we are shopping for, we are renting and have attended several different wards. The more people I share my problem with, as I foolishly did in the ward where I attended for over twenty years, the more chance there is that I will have the same problems here that I did there.

I guess these may seem like dumb questions to some of you. If that is the case, please forgive my foolishness. When I’m not feeling well, sometimes my judgment is below par as well.

Mormons, Jews, Christians and Future Holocausts

For years I have watched a change of attitude in the Church towards traditional Christianity.  I haven’t understood the reason for it, nor have I been comfortable with it.  I joined the Church from a Baptist background, and if I had wanted to be a Protestant, I would have just remained a Baptist.  After all, we are the true Church, the only true Church.  A true church strongly implies false churches.  Sure, there is truth in all of them, but so what?  Even Satan worshippers have some truth.  They believe there is a Satan, just as we do.  They believe in keeping the commandments even though they are the devil’s commandments rather than the Lord’s.  They have scriptures just as we do.  And my guess is that their scriptures are just as inspired as ours even though the inspiration is from below.  There is truth in Buddhism, Islam, the Hindu faith, and Judaism.  There is even some truth in atheism.  I do not see how the denominations of traditional Christianity can be justified merely by asserting that they contain some truth.  They do not have the priesthood, revelation or prophets.  They teach copious amounts of false doctrine.  Perhaps of greatest importance is the undeniable fact that without the priesthood, they are unable to perform those essential ordinances without which it is impossible to obtain eternal life.  In the denominations of traditional Christianity there is no salvation.

But of greater significance to me, is the fact that the attitude of the Prophet Joseph Smith was negative concerning the “sectarians.” That was his term for the many denominations of traditional Christianity.  Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie, the primary inspiration of this blog, did not use the term “sectarian” so much as they referred to “apostate Christendom.”  But although the terms they used were not the same, their negative view of the Protestant and Catholic denominations were in the tradition of Joseph Smith as was my own because of the reasons for which I joined the Church.  I had obtained a testimony of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.

After all, is not this a passage from our scripture?

I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all ^awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those ^bprofessors were all ^ccorrupt; that: “they ^ddraw near to me with their lips, but their ^ehearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the ^fcommandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the ^gpower thereof.” (Joseph Smith–History)

If traditional Christianity had not gone astray, there would have been no Great Apostasy and no need for a Restoration. Because of this teaching, and the attitudes of Joseph Smith and the early latter-day prophets, this change in LDS understanding and attitude towards the false churches has been a puzzle to me to me and a source of no small amount of distress.  Are these changes from God, or are they just false attitudes creeping into the Church?

Well, yesterday I had a thought that may have been from the Lord because I never thought it before, and it answered all my questions and set my heart at rest on this matter.  A young and brilliant attorney in my ward spoke in Sacrament Meeting, and at one point he spoke about the claim some sectarians make that we are not Christians.  I thought his remarks excellent.  Whether we are Christian or not depends on how one defines the term “Christian.”  If in the course of conversation with a Gentile we are using different definitions, of course there will be little or no true communication or understanding.

Whenever this topic of who is and is not Christian comes up, a nagging question comes up in my mind.  Why do we care what the they think?  There is a sense in which we are not Christians.  We are not heirs to the false doctrines and philosophies of traditional Christianity.   On the other hand, there is a sense in which they are not Christians.  How can one follow Jesus Christ while rejecting his prophets? That is exactly what the Protestants and Catholics do.  There is a sense in which we are the only Christians.  So why do we care what they think?  Joseph Smith didn’t.  He denounced those denominations as false churches all the days of his short life.  So did his successors until recently.

After the meeting I went up to this fellow and asked, “Why do we care?  Why do we care whether or not the false churches consider us to be Christian?  We are in this life to please God, not man.  His are the only opinions that matter.  He told me what I thought he would, something I have heard from dozens of other saints when I pose this question.  “We want the other churches to accepts us as Christians because of our missionary work.”  But that makes no sense.  When others join us from a Catholic or Protestant background as I did, we are ripe to become members of the Church because we have begun to doubt the teachings of the church in which we grew up.   Do our missionaries have a lot of success in baptizing nonmembers who are still convinced their church is right?  I doubt it very much.

Then during the Sunday School part of the block, I thought something I have never thought before.  We are living in a very difficult time for people of all faiths.  Just as the other churches are being persecuted on all sides by the atheists, agnostics and secularists, so are we.  The gays are mad at us, as are those who believe there can be a legitimate “choice” to kill an unborn child.  Others hate us because we love and defend our God-inspired Constitution.  Many despise religious tea party people because they remind the wicked that there is a difference between right and wrong.  The government controlled media portray those who believe in a far more negative light than those who keep their mouths shut about God.

But more importantly, this intolerance for those who are religious is increasing rapidly.  What will happen in the future?  Does persecution lie ahead, not only for the Mormons but for all those who believe in God?  Could there ever be another holocaust or genocide, this time not just targeting Jews but all who believe? I think it could happen.  There are a couple of reasons.

First, our scriptures proclaim that when Christ comes at the Second Coming, there will be few left upon the earth.

Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall ^akill you: and ye shall be ^bhated of all nations ^cfor my name’s sake.

And then shall many be ^aoffended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.

And many ^afalse prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

And because ^ainiquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax ^bcold. (Matthew 24:9-12)

[...]

For then shall be great ^atribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect’s sake those ^adays shall be shortened. (Matthew 24:21-22)

Also, the latter-day Prophet Bruce R. McConkie and others have said that the saints will endure greater persecutions ahead than those they have known in the past:

Nor are the days of our greatest sorrows and our deepest sufferings all behind us. They too lie ahead. We shall yet face greater perils, we shall yet be tested with more severe trials, and we shall yet weep more tears of sorrow than we have ever known before. (Bruce R. McConkie.  The Coming Tests and Trials and Glory.  General Conference, April 1980)

If these prophecies are true, and I believe they are.  Then all we who believe in God must stick together.  We need to forget our differences and focus on our mutual belief in God and his love for us.  For only his love and our faith in him will get us through the difficult times ahead.  Those who have taken the part of Satan, with or without realizing it,  can persecute all of us regardless of religious persuasion.  And they can persecute us with a great persecution, possibly unto death.  But as long as we remain faithful, we need not worry.  As long as we keep the promises we have made to God, he will protect us and sustain us in this life and in the life to come.

The bottom line for me, and what I learned from my contemplation is that because very difficult times lie ahead for all of us, we Latter-day Saints do not want to be alone against the terrors that evil men seek to inflict upon us.  We are all children of the same Heavenly Father, brothers and sisters.  And we need to love and care for each other amidst all the machinations of the secular world, the crusading atheists, and the worldly.

But not only that, the Latter-day Saints are very well organized.  They can do much for those of other faiths if they will let us and need our help.  In some cases we can provide some of the leadership that is needed for our spiritual and temporal survival.  We are strong in the Lord and can use that strength to love and serve others.

In any case, I am no longer puzzled or distressed that we are reaching out to the other churches.  We need friends both inside and outside of the Church.  We can help each other.  And we are going to need it.

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.

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?