I've been on a bit of a hiatus due to health problems, but I now hope to be back on a regular basis. Anyway, I had something on my mind about the recent documentary aired by BBC where John Sweeney investigates the Mormon Church and Mitt Romney. I know its been a while since it aired but I just saw it tonight on Youtube. However, I would like to give my opinion on it.
I would mainly like to comment on the way Elder Holland answered the questions and held his ground in the midst of the controversial topics. I thought he did a very good job under the circumstances. Rather than break the documentary down step-by-step or accuse someone of not doing a good job, I think I will just stick to the issues at hand and give my opinion of some of the subjects covered:
1. Polygamy: I think it should have been emphasized that polygamy was phased out gradually following the 1890 revelation, and completely banned in 1910 with the exception of existing marriages. Also, more effort should have been taken to show that the FLDS is separate from the urban polygamist groups as well as the mainstream LDS church.
2. Book of Abraham: The issue was way too over-simplified by saying that Egyptologists translated the real document and it doesn't match up, and that the pictures were changed. I think maybe Elder Holland could have pointed the way to Hugh Nibley's research, including the research on the hypocephalus that just came out recently in "One Eternal Round." Theologians in LDS and secular circles alike have argued for a Semitic connection to the Egyptian funeral documents and the work of the scholars should have at least been mentioned.
3. Temple Penalties: I think an explanation about how many traditions mention you should be willing to die for your faith, and if that includes not revealing secrets given to you by God, you should be willing to make any sacrifice. I don't think its fair to say that someone can't be loyal to the government because they are willing to keep sacred covenants with God and not subject those sacred covenants to mockery.
4. Strengthening the Members Committee: Most big corporations have an internal affairs department, this is nothing new or sinister. Most churches also keep files on members and try to get members back if they leave. I was with several churches prior to being LDS and this would not have been strange or unusual in any of them. Investigating to make sure standard doctrine is taught and that members who have strayed know they are welcomed back does not seem like a bad thing.
5. 1826 Glasslooking Trial: This was incorrectly said "con-man" which isn't true. When Joseph Smith was on-trial for glasslooking it was because he was trying to make a living by helping people to find buried treasure on their property by gazing into his seer stone. These people believed in his prophetic abilities and did not feel like they had been taken. However, this was an illegal activity in the state of New York. Most believing LDS would not have a problem knowing that Joseph Smith attempted to use his prophetic abilities to get by in frontier America.
After considering these things, I think more and more that the church should explain more controversial materials in their publications. They have been doing this lately, such as in the "Joseph Smith Papers" books and the Book of Mormon issue of the Ensign. I believe that the more these controversial issues are out on the table, they will actually be less controversial because people will know their true explanation. I think it would serve to make the church stronger in the long run.
Showing posts with label Mormonism (Doctrine and Covenants). Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mormonism (Doctrine and Covenants). Show all posts
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Friday, February 11, 2011
Consecration and the Book of Acts
In this post I'd like to go over a passage in Acts that is problematic to many free-grace thinkers, and that is Acts 4:34 to 5:11. This is the story of Ananias and Sapphira, a husband and wife pair that sold their possessions but didn't give the proceeds to the church, so they were both struck dead by the Lord.
It is apparent from verse 34 that Christians at the time were living in a communal living arrangement similar to what early Mormons termed "the Law of Consecration" and were required to give all their possessions to the church, and in return the church would take care of them. The idea being that all belongs to God and we are only stewards of the possessions. Also, there are no poor because everyone has an equal amount as well as an equal work-load.
Ananais and Sapphira in this passage keep a portion of the proceeds for themselves and lay the rest at the apostle's feet, thinking that since nobody knows about it they will go unpunished. Anytime we lie to the Lord or disobey his commandments we miss out on a blessing. In this case, they missed out on their chance to live out a full life. We don't hear anything about them being unsaved, just that they lost their lives for their disobedience.
I have heard various explanations for this passage, some of which try to say that they both had a heart condition and died of natural causes. These are mostly the free-grace thinkers that like to teach that no tithing or consecration is expected of the believer once the Law of Moses was fulfilled, since the atonement of Jesus Christ fulfilled the law. Others have believed that God changed the commandment once the church was established and no longer living as a community. Many have found it a challenge to fit this passage into their theology.
However, consecration (a forerunner to today's tithing) has always been required by God of His followers, even before the Law of Moses, and its clear that after the Law of Moses was fulfilled He still had a requirement. Instead of a 10% tithe the requirement here is 100%. Even today we should be expected to give our 100% in following God.
While God's procedures are currently more lax than they were then, in that we don't see anyone being struck dead on the spot for not paying their tithing, God still requires us to at least be willing to give our all, including our time and talents, as well as a 10% tithe, in building up the Kingdom of God on the Earth. I think this passage is a good justification for having tithing in our day and is a good defense for the Mormon doctrine of Consecration.
Mormons and Masons are familiar with these concepts as we make covenants. Mormons make covenants with God at baptism, confirmation, sacrament, and in the Temple. We agree to follow God and take upon ourselves the name of Jesus Christ. Masons also make promises to God during their obligations that bind them to honor their vows to support their lodge and be loyal to its teachings.
Commandments such as these that are mentioned from the Book of Acts are not meant to be drudgery, but are for our benefit. They result in blessings when followed. We see one benefit in verse 34, "Neither was there any among them that lacked..." There are many other intangible spiritual benefits that are greater than anyone can describe when we keep these commandments. Obeying God always results in happiness and more freedom.
It is apparent from verse 34 that Christians at the time were living in a communal living arrangement similar to what early Mormons termed "the Law of Consecration" and were required to give all their possessions to the church, and in return the church would take care of them. The idea being that all belongs to God and we are only stewards of the possessions. Also, there are no poor because everyone has an equal amount as well as an equal work-load.
Ananais and Sapphira in this passage keep a portion of the proceeds for themselves and lay the rest at the apostle's feet, thinking that since nobody knows about it they will go unpunished. Anytime we lie to the Lord or disobey his commandments we miss out on a blessing. In this case, they missed out on their chance to live out a full life. We don't hear anything about them being unsaved, just that they lost their lives for their disobedience.
I have heard various explanations for this passage, some of which try to say that they both had a heart condition and died of natural causes. These are mostly the free-grace thinkers that like to teach that no tithing or consecration is expected of the believer once the Law of Moses was fulfilled, since the atonement of Jesus Christ fulfilled the law. Others have believed that God changed the commandment once the church was established and no longer living as a community. Many have found it a challenge to fit this passage into their theology.
However, consecration (a forerunner to today's tithing) has always been required by God of His followers, even before the Law of Moses, and its clear that after the Law of Moses was fulfilled He still had a requirement. Instead of a 10% tithe the requirement here is 100%. Even today we should be expected to give our 100% in following God.
While God's procedures are currently more lax than they were then, in that we don't see anyone being struck dead on the spot for not paying their tithing, God still requires us to at least be willing to give our all, including our time and talents, as well as a 10% tithe, in building up the Kingdom of God on the Earth. I think this passage is a good justification for having tithing in our day and is a good defense for the Mormon doctrine of Consecration.
Mormons and Masons are familiar with these concepts as we make covenants. Mormons make covenants with God at baptism, confirmation, sacrament, and in the Temple. We agree to follow God and take upon ourselves the name of Jesus Christ. Masons also make promises to God during their obligations that bind them to honor their vows to support their lodge and be loyal to its teachings.
Commandments such as these that are mentioned from the Book of Acts are not meant to be drudgery, but are for our benefit. They result in blessings when followed. We see one benefit in verse 34, "Neither was there any among them that lacked..." There are many other intangible spiritual benefits that are greater than anyone can describe when we keep these commandments. Obeying God always results in happiness and more freedom.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Religion and the Problem of Evil
I'm in the middle of developing a new blog entry, but in the mean time I thought I'd post my third master craftsman paper, which pertains to the Rose Croix degrees of the Scottish Rite. The topic is on Albert Pike's view of religion and the problem of evil.
The most interesting thing I learned while doing the reading assignment for this quiz was Albert Pike’s views on religion that are expressed in the book A Bridge to Light by Rex R. Hutchens. We learn that we must be tolerant of all religious views, even when they are different from our own. We also learn that many religions shared views on God and the problem of evil. Albert Pike believed that all creeds held that God’s identity is “immutable and permanent” and that God is “great, good, and wise.” (Page 131 in A Bridge to Light) Since these traits are common to all religions, members of these faiths can stand side-by-side, in Scottish Rite Masonry, worshipping the same God with these common characteristics.
Even the concept of a Messiah is a universal one, and many religions are awaiting the coming of a Messiah-type figure. Therefore, it is not appropriate for a Christian to not be tolerant of another’s religious views. Also, if Jesus Christ is God, then the other religions that are worshipping God are ultimately acknowledging Him anyway, even if expressing their belief of Him using different characteristics. The same universal truths have been expressed differently, appropriately to those who perceive them. Religion follows the same format with God sharing common characteristics. This brings to mind a quote from the Mormon scripture Doctrine and Covenants, “All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself.” (D&C 93:30) We must be tolerant since people have the truth that is appropriate for them.
The problem of evil is also something addressed by Albert Pike, and is an issue that all religions have addressed. That good will eventually triumph over evil is a common trend throughout most religions. The existence of an all-powerful God almost begs the idea that evil must be part of His plan, since nothing can exist unless He allows it. Therefore, many believe that evil is God’s way of testing us. The evil in the world gives us a chance to show our virtues, a chance to improve, and a chance to learn survival of adversity. This is the way God gives us “trial by fire” so that we ultimately come out of the experience better people. This idea hints at the royal secret, or equilibrium, that good and evil are kept in a constant balance.
The most interesting thing I learned while doing the reading assignment for this quiz was Albert Pike’s views on religion that are expressed in the book A Bridge to Light by Rex R. Hutchens. We learn that we must be tolerant of all religious views, even when they are different from our own. We also learn that many religions shared views on God and the problem of evil. Albert Pike believed that all creeds held that God’s identity is “immutable and permanent” and that God is “great, good, and wise.” (Page 131 in A Bridge to Light) Since these traits are common to all religions, members of these faiths can stand side-by-side, in Scottish Rite Masonry, worshipping the same God with these common characteristics.
Even the concept of a Messiah is a universal one, and many religions are awaiting the coming of a Messiah-type figure. Therefore, it is not appropriate for a Christian to not be tolerant of another’s religious views. Also, if Jesus Christ is God, then the other religions that are worshipping God are ultimately acknowledging Him anyway, even if expressing their belief of Him using different characteristics. The same universal truths have been expressed differently, appropriately to those who perceive them. Religion follows the same format with God sharing common characteristics. This brings to mind a quote from the Mormon scripture Doctrine and Covenants, “All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself.” (D&C 93:30) We must be tolerant since people have the truth that is appropriate for them.
The problem of evil is also something addressed by Albert Pike, and is an issue that all religions have addressed. That good will eventually triumph over evil is a common trend throughout most religions. The existence of an all-powerful God almost begs the idea that evil must be part of His plan, since nothing can exist unless He allows it. Therefore, many believe that evil is God’s way of testing us. The evil in the world gives us a chance to show our virtues, a chance to improve, and a chance to learn survival of adversity. This is the way God gives us “trial by fire” so that we ultimately come out of the experience better people. This idea hints at the royal secret, or equilibrium, that good and evil are kept in a constant balance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
