Friday, January 28, 2011

The Deprivations of Israel

Across the Church, we have just finished a year’s course of study on the Old Testament, but I sense some confusion exists among not just a few members as to the role of the priesthood and the nature of the temple ordinances as they existed in Israel in what we refer to as the dispensation of Moses. This comment should not be viewed as a criticism of those who taught that course of study but rather should be seen as a logical result of our tendency to often avoid what appear to be seemingly unnecessary details.


When Israel was invited to settle in Egypt at the time of Jacob and his twelve sons, the Melchizedek Priesthood was operational among the people. During their many years of captivity, they began to lose their grasp on the blessings of that priesthood through increasing disobedience to the Lord’s commandments. This was the state of things as Moses led the children of Israel out of Egypt and into the wilderness.


Now a series of verses in the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 84 become very relevant. Speaking of the Melchizedek Priesthood, the Lord reveals that “this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God. Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest. And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh; For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live” (19-22). In the next verse, we learn that Moses “plainly taught” this truth “to the children of Israel in the wilderness, and sought diligently to sanctify his people that they might behold the face of God” (23). Very clearly at that time, the Melchizedek Priesthood still had a presence among them.


However as we well understand, while Moses was on Mount Sinai receiving further instructions from the Lord concerning Israel’s future relative to the higher priesthood, the people with Aaron’s consent fashioned a golden calf and commenced to worship it. As a result of their unfaithfulness, the Melchizedek Priesthood began to recede from their midst until it was held only by the prophets in Israel until the coming of Christ’s ministry. “But they hardened their hearts and could not endure his presence; therefore, the Lord in his wrath, for his anger was kindled against them, swore that they should not enter into his rest while in the wilderness, which rest is the fulness of his glory. Therefore, he took Moses out of their midst, and the Holy Priesthood also; And the lesser priesthood continued, which priesthood holdeth the key of the ministering of angels and the preparatory gospel; Which gospel is the gospel of repentance and of baptism, and the remission of sins, and the law of carnal commandments, which the Lord in his wrath caused to continue with the house of Aaron among the children of Israel until John, whom God raised up, being filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother’s womb” (24-27).


Until Moses was translated, he alone held the keys necessary to administer Israel by means of the Melchizedek Priesthood even though Aaron had been ordained the High Priest in the Aaronic Priesthood and as such held the keys of that priesthood. The greater priesthood is always superior to the lesser one when the keys of presidency in the greater are present. However, with Moses out of their midst, the keys of presidency that Aaron held as the High Priest within the Aaronic Priesthood gave him the authority and the responsibility to administer in Israel. From that day until the time of Christ’s ministry upon the earth, the Melchizedek Priesthood would be manifest among the children of Israel residing in the lands of the East in the workings of the prophets only. However, they did not hold the keys of presidency in that ministry, and thus they were not able to establish a Melchizedek Priesthood organization within Israel. That is what the Lord meant when He said that Moses was taken “out of their midst, and the Holy Priesthood also” (25).


Under the auspices of the Aaronic Priesthood, Israel was truly deprived of the blessings which flow from the workings of the Melchizedek Priesthood. For many of those camped at the base of Mount Sinai, they would live long enough to sense their real loss having experienced something of both worlds. For by means of the carnal commandments they were now to follow and the carnal ordinances that were then administered in their behalf, salvation was not possible. They were in possession of only a preparatory gospel, not a gospel with the power to save. In their temples, the Holy Ghost had no role. The Light of Christ was the Spirit that ministered there. For dispensations of the Holy Ghost are possible only by those who hold the greater priesthood. Perhaps needless to say in light of this, the ordinances performed in their temples were not those required for consideration of eternal life. Israel was no longer in possession of even the basic saving ordinances, for God “swore that they should not enter into his rest while in the wilderness, which rest is the fulness of his glory” (24).


How different were the circumstances of those led away from Jerusalem by the Prophet Lehi. They were in possession of the greater priesthood and not the lesser. They taught and practiced the saving ordinances of baptism and confirmation whereby they had the right to be guided, inspired, and comforted by the Holy Ghost. They organized themselves and administered the Melchizedek Priesthood according to the revealed plan of their day namely, the patriarchal order. Apparently, they were in possession of the saving ordinances necessary for exaltation. If not, why did Jacob teach over four hundred years before the birth of the Savior the following: “O then, my beloved brethren, repent ye, and enter in at the strait gate, and continue in the way which is narrow, until ye shall obtain eternal life” (Jacob 6:11). The concept of and the requirements for eternal life were well known to the people of Nephi as is attested to by the many references to the same in the Book of Mormon.


Saturday, January 22, 2011

Our False Gods

While reading Brother Hugh Nibley’s talk entitled, “One Eternal Round,” I came across the following passage: “The gulf between Adam’s golden age and our own becomes narrow at those times when the gospel is restored, but presently starts to broaden as the Saints begin to drift away toward the normal human condition. Nephi found this to be a law of nature. In ancient times, apostasy never came by renouncing the gospel but always by corrupting it. No one renounces it today, and so we have the strange paradox of people stoutly proclaiming beliefs and ideals that they have no intention of putting into practice” (Temple and Cosmos, 395). To illustrate this point, Brother Nibley enumerates eight “beliefs and ideals” that he suggests are being ignored in our day. One of these is that “a great and inspired bicentennial message by one we called our prophet was instantly swept under the rug” (Ibid., 396).


Naturally, this comment caught my attention, and I proceeded to the endnotes to determine the source of his concern. As soon as I read the title, I remembered having read the message but initially could remember none of its particulars: “The False Gods We Worship” by President Spencer W. Kimball, Ensign, June 1976. Hopefully, this writing will be sufficient motivation that others will review this message thoughtfully.


President Kimball reminds us that we are blessed to reside on this beautiful earth whereon there is much that is good and beautiful, and it naturally follows that the Lord “expects righteousness and obedience to his commandments in return.” This is no more than an illustration of the “general principle that where much is given, much is expected” (Luke 12:48). However, at the same time we should not attempt to ignore the great wickedness that is all around us. The Brethren now as with prophets since the days of Adam “constantly cry out against that which is intolerable in the sight of the Lord: against pollution of mind, body, and our surroundings; against vulgarity, stealing, lying, pride, and blasphemy; against fornication, adultery, homosexuality, and all other abuses of the sacred power to create; against murder and all that is like unto it; against all manner of desecration.” “That such a cry should be necessary among a people so blessed is amazing to me. And that such things should be found even among the Saints to some degree is scarcely believable.”


The root cause for the Saints in particular to fail in their pursuit of the things of God is “idolatry” according to President Kimball. “Sadly, we find that to be shown the way is not necessarily to walk in it, and many have not been able to continue in faith.” “Few men have ever knowingly and deliberately chosen to reject God and his blessings. Rather, we learn from the scriptures that because the exercise of faith has always appeared to be more difficult than relying on things more immediately at hand, carnal man has tended to transfer his trust in God to material things.”


Particularly in the United States, the Lord has blessed us with “unequalled” prosperity and expects that we will use these riches in order to accomplish our earthly mission. However, the reality is that “many people spend most of their time working in the service of a self-image that includes sufficient money, stocks, bonds, investments portfolios, property, credit cards, furnishings, automobiles, and the like to guarantee carnal security throughout, it is hoped, a long and happy life. Forgotten is the fact that our assignment is to use these many resources in our families and quorums to build up the kingdom of God.” The result is that many members refuse to accept callings in or make appropriate contributions to the building up of the Lord’s Kingdom because they are too busy gathering and/or enjoying the material things of this world.


But this is not all. “We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel--ships, planes, missiles, fortifications--and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching: ‘Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you’” (Matthew 5:44).


President Kimball concludes his message with this suggestion: “We believe that the way for each person and each family to prepare as the Lord has directed is to begin to exercise greater faith, to repent, and to enter into the work of his kingdom on earth, which is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It may seem a little difficult at first, but when a person begins to catch a vision of the true work, when he begins to see something of eternity in its true perspective, the blessings begin to far outweigh the cost of leaving ‘the world’ behind.”


A final thought comes from Brother Bruce Satterfield. Writing concerning the manner in which Peter, Andrew, James, and John immediately and completely gave up the means whereby they had earned their livelihoods and in some cases even their families in order to accept the Lord’s calling to serve Him, Brother Satterfield concludes: “The message of the calling of the disciples is that the cost of discipleship demands that we give up whatever is required by God and whatever holds us back from full dedication to the kingdom” (Bruce Satterfield, Supplementary materials for New Testament Lesson 4, “Prepare Ye the Way of the Lord”).


Sunday, January 16, 2011

What Kind of Saints Are We?

In his talk entitled, “One Eternal Round,” Brother Hugh Nibley taught that “Origen [Greek, cir. 185 to 254 A.D.], the first and foremost of Christian theologians, divided the church itself into two bodies of members--the ‘esoteric’ and the ‘exoteric’--corresponding to two different ways of comprehending the teachings. The words are his, and they speak volumes. Both societies shared the common membership, but while the exoteric side made up the popular congregations, the esoteric community was limited to those who understood and could be trusted with the deeper meaning of the doctrine. This division between the people is not a natural one or an inevitable one, for normal human beings are capable of qualifying for either society. . . . Throughout the Book of Mormon the church itself regularly splits into a worldly society, notably the religion of the Nehors, and another consisting of ‘a few . . . humble followers of Christ’ (2 Nephi 28:14) to whom special gifts and revelations were given (Alma 12:9). These were Origen’s exoteric and esoteric churches respectively. That is why true Israel was called a peculiar people; people often ask today in what sense the Latter-day Saints are still peculiar, and it is not always easy to find an answer” (Temple and Cosmos, 386-388). The particulars of Nehor’s activities, end, and effects upon the society of his time are to be found in Alma 1:1-16.


In this writing, Origen’s division of the believers of his era into the esoterics and the exoterics is being used to illustrate the apparent differences of approach of Church members today between those who are actively seeking to perfect themselves over time with their sights fixed upon eternal life and those members who apparently seek some lesser goal as the purpose of their membership. Bluntly expressed, many members of Christ’s true Church will find themselves eventually judged as having fallen short of the reward of living for eternity in the celestial kingdom.


So, what brought me to this subject? The impetus was an intermittent string of poorly prepared and presented church lessons to classes the members of which in varying degrees appeared prepared and ready to learn. The original title of this piece might have been “Teaching and Learning in the Church.” However, without much thinking on the narrower topic, it became clear that the problem was more pervasive. It was about this time that I read Brother Nibley’s talk on “One Eternal Round,” and the thought once again forcibly struck me that seemingly far too many of us Saints simply are not taking the gospel and our Church membership seriously enough. Thus for our consideration, here are some possible evidences of Origen’s dichotomy to be found in the Church today.


If we were truly concerned about excelling in the callings and assignments we received from our leaders, would we find it adequate to begin our preparation for a talk in Sacrament Meeting or the teaching of a classroom lesson one or two days before hand? Would lessons in our priesthood and auxiliary meetings be taught from the manuals themselves as opposed to a lesson plan we had written ourselves based on the assigned and supplementary materials? Would lessons consisting of overwhelming class participation at the expense of the lesson subject matter being presented for its intended benefit be our objective? And if gospel learning, understanding, and progression were truly our desire, would we not take our scriptures to church with us as well as our study materials furnished by the Church for adult priesthood and Relief Society lessons? If learning were our sincere objective, would we not prepare ourselves for the lessons that are scheduled to be taught on a given day? The answers to these questions may seem so obvious, but the reality of what happens all too often in fact is not conducive to proper teaching and successful learning. All too apparent is the distinction between those who are approaching their study of the gospel from the exoteric as opposed to the esoteric perspective.


How successfully has the home teaching program been implemented in our wards? Up until recently, there were approximately nine hundred members on our ward’s roster. Of these, about three hundred had taken no recognized or remembered overt action to make their presence manifest to ward leaders. Some few months ago, a senior missionary couple was assigned to our ward. Their present assignment is to locate and identify as many of these members-in-hiding as possible. There are at least two concerns illustrated here. First, a very high percentage of all the members known or suspected to live within our ward’s boundaries are not actively pursuing their salvation as made apparent by their shunning the necessary participation with the Saints. Second, why are we who live in the ward and consider ourselves actively involved not able to locate and identify those of our brothers and sisters who are not so participating? Would the time and effort of a full-time missionary couple not be better spent working with members who are more or less known to ward leaders and who are in need of strengthening? How do these practices illustrate the differing motivations of Origen’s exoterics and esoterics?


When it comes to the mysteries of God, there are mysteries and then there are mysteries. Those that we may know and that are available to us for our advantage here and now may be learned if we but qualify ourselves for a temple recommend and attend a temple regularly and thoughtfully. Of these mysteries the Lord said, “But unto him that keepeth my commandments I will give the mysteries of my kingdom, and the same shall be in him a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life” (D&C 63:23). Is temple attendance in your temple district what it ought to be? In ours, it is not, and temple presidencies are limited as to the means they may use to encourage increased temple attendance. Why? Because the Lord’s will is that members attend His house in response to personal feelings of need or desire and not as a result of external pressure. So here we have another illustration of Origen’s dichotomy. For those who preside over us in the stakes and wards of the Church, the distinction between those of their flocks who are actively seeking to better themselves and live the gospel evermore diligently are more or less distinguishable from those who lack the required faith and hope to make gospel living an integral part of their lives.


My personal belief is that in order for us to eventually qualify for eternal life we must strive unceasingly to more fully live our lives according to God’s will as prescribed in His gospel and taught by His chosen leaders in our day. And for those who believe that the Church’s success and growth today provide sufficient evidence that “all is well in Zion,” they should consider the teachings of the Prophet Nephi who saw our day in fact. All is not well in Zion, for Satan will pacify many “and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well--and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell” (2 Nephi 28:21).


The Lord himself pointed out the distinction that is the subject of this writing when He taught that there are those who “seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand” the things of God (Matthew 13:13). Clearly, it behooves us to so live that His Spirit may be with us making it possible for us to see and to hear and to understand the marvelous truths the Lord has made manifest for our betterment and our enlightenment.


Monday, January 10, 2011

The "Natural Man"

Very likely, the most illustrative verse of scripture on the role, attributes, and future of the “natural man” was uttered by King Benjamin in his majestic address to his people. “For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father” (Mosiah 3:19).


What do we learn from this verse of scripture? Until Adam and Eve submitted themselves to the enticings of Lucifer and fell from a state of immortality to one of mortality taking the world and its contents with them the earth thus evolving from a terrestrial sphere to one of a telestial nature, God’s spirit children could not be branded “natural” in the scriptural sense of the word. Indeed even after their fall, Adam and Eve were not examples of natural persons given that in the garden they were made knowledgeable about the gospel which understanding they took with them as they were ushered out of their plush surroundings and began tilling the hostile earth. Children were born to them in the course of time, “And Adam and Eve blessed the name of God, and they made all things known unto their sons and their daughters” (Moses 5:12). It was at this point, in the progression of things, that “Satan came among them, saying: I am also a son of God, and he commanded them, saying: Believe it not; and they believed it not, and they loved Satan more than God. And men began from that time forth to be carnal, sensual, and devilish” (Moses 5:13).


So who are the natural men? The children of our first parents down to this very day who have never had the opportunity to hear the gospel preached or who rejected the gospel when it was preached to them or turned their backs on the gospel after they had received it. The Prophet Benjamin makes clear that in general terms the believers or saints are not numbered among the natural men because they have “put off the natural man and become [Saints] through the atonement of Christ the Lord.” In Benjamin’s words, we are obligated to “become as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord sees fit to inflict upon us, even as a child doth submit to his father.” The Lord expressed this notion somewhat differently when He said “no power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile” (Doctrine and Covenants 121:41-42).


However, again I say, we Saints, those of us who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, should take to our hearts and understandings the realization that we may fall from our somewhat protected standing if we fail to actively pursue our sainthood. Unfortunately, many about us and before us have done so. Here are the warning words of Brother Hugh Nibley and the Prophet Nephi: “Being carnal, sensual, and devilish is an acquired skill. Nephi gives up on his own people but cannot excuse them: ‘And now I, Nephi, cannot say more; the Spirit stoppeth mine utterance, and I am left to mourn because of the unbelief, and the wickedness, and the ignorance, and the stiffneckedness of men; for they will not search knowledge, nor understand great knowledge, when it is given unto them in plainness, even as plain as word can be’ (2 Nephi 32:7)” (Hugh Nibley, “One Eternal Round,” Temple and Cosmos, 387).


It is a simple dichotomy. Natural men “love Satan more than God,” while Saints love God and embrace the gospel while rejecting all things which are of Satan. Saints seek to be one with God by means of the atonement. Or as Brother Nibley taught, “Those humans, spirits, or angels who are ‘at one’ with God are naturally at one with each other and with all his creatures” (Ibid., 379).


Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Judas Iscariot, A Son of Perdition?

One of the interesting and unanswerable questions that is discussed periodically by church members concerns the topic of whether Judas Iscariot eventually will be judged to be a son of perdition or not. This writing comes by way of preparation for the almost inevitable discussions to occur in many if not most church units as we study the New Testament during 2011. In this as with so many matters concerning God’s actions, it would be wise for us not to rush to judgment.


Matthew reports the following exchange during the course of the “last supper.” “And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me. And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began every one of them to say unto him, Lord, is it I? And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me. The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said” (Matthew 26:21-25). During His ministry, the Lord referred to Judas as being a devil (John 6:70). In His intercessory prayer to His Father, the Savior referred to Judas as “the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled” (John 17:12). In this dispensation, the Lord revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith that through His atonement “all might be saved whom the Father had put into his power and made by him; . . . except those sons of perdition who deny the Son after the Father has revealed him” (Doctrine and Covenants 76:41-48). However, does this information really tell us what Judas’s circumstances will be in the eternities?


While we actually know nothing of what was in Judas’s heart or head, that has not stopped some from speculating on this matter. Some years ago, I read concerning Judas’s motivation in a work written by an Anglican minister who lived in the nineteenth century. While his views are interesting in light of what we do know of Judas’s nature and of his position among the Twelve, we are still left wanting as to how he could justify to himself the traitorous bargain he concluded with the Lord’s enemies. “The entry to Jerusalem had kindled his [Judas’s] hopes, after many chagrins and disappointments, for the popular excitement promised to force on Jesus the part of a National Messiah. But, blind, to His own interest, as Judas must have thought Him, He had thrown away the splendid opportunity. Instead of allying Himself with the dignitaries of Judaism, and inaugurating a mighty Jewish uprising, with high priests and chief Rabbis as His supporters, He had assailed both Temple and School, and proceeded to open rupture with them. Instead of a crown, He had spoken of a cross; instead of honours for His followers, He had foretold persecutions and martyrdom. . . . If ruin were certain, he would profit, if he could, before all was over. If Jesus must fall into the hands of His enemies, he might as well get money by what was unavoidable. Had not He, argued the diseased spirit, disappointed him; led him about, for years, in hopes of gain in the end; and had He not, now, told him that the only inheritance he could expect was poverty and suffering? He would go to the chief priests, and see what could be done” (Cunningham Geikie, The Life and Words of Christ, 1896, p. 433).


In what sense was Judas Iscariot a son of perdition? After multiple readings of Jesus The Christ, this writer is left with the distinct impression that James E. Talmage believed Judas was a son of perdition in the eternal sense. Of course, I may be in error. The relevant discussion is found on pages 649 through 651 of his outstanding effort.


Other Latter-day Saint writers do not judge Judas with such finality. In 1918, the President of the Church, Joseph F. Smith, said, “No man can sin against light until he has it; nor against the Holy Ghost, until after he has received it by the gift of God through the appointed channel or way. To sin against the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Truth, the Comforter, the Witness of the Father and the Son, wilfully[sic] denying him and defying him, after having received him, constitutes this sin. Did Judas possess this light, this witness, this Comforter, the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, this endowment from on high? If he did, he received it before the betrayal, and therefore before the other eleven apostles. And if this be so, you may say, ‘he is a son of perdition without hope.’ But if he was destitute of this glorious gift and outpouring of the Spirit, by which the witness came to the eleven, and their minds were opened to see and know the truth, and they were able to testify of him, then what constituted the unpardonable sin of this poor, erring creature, who rose no higher in the scale of intelligence, honor or ambition than to betray the Lord of glory for thirty pieces of silver? But not knowing that Judas did commit the unpardonable sin; nor that he was a ‘son of perdition without hope’ who will die the second death, nor what knowledge he possessed by which he was able to commit so great a sin, I prefer, until I know better, to take the merciful view that he may be numbered among those for whom the blessed Master prayed, ‘Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do’ ” (Gospel Doctrine, 434-435).


Some members who think of themselves as liberal thinkers in gospel matters may find it interesting to note that Elder Bruce R. McConkie, who is still widely recognized for his understanding of the gospel and his rather strict interpretation of the scriptures by particularly those members of the more mainstream or conservative alignments, concluded that Judas “was probably not a son of perdition in the sense of one who is damned forever, but in the sense that he was a son or follower of Satan in this life” (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary 1:765).


I believe that President Joseph F. Smith’s reasoned and merciful statement concerning Judas’s eventual fate should be our approach in discussions stemming from our study of the New Testament this year.