ENTRY 48 TRUTH VERSUS BELIEF

What if someone mixed up the words TRUTH and BELIEF and KNOW? 

 

How many times have you or someone you’ve known confused these words and used one when they really meant the other?  For example, have you heard someone declare emphatically that they KNOW something was absolutely TRUE, when in fact it was their own opinion?  They replaced the word Belief with the word KNOW. 

 

This happens on a regular basis.  We see it all the time as people battle verbally about some subject that they have strong emotions regarding.  Both sides are just as emphatic that they KNOW the facts about the issue.  The issue could be religious, political, scientific, or even about relationships.  Especially relationships! Yet both sides are in complete opposition to each other.   How can this be?  How can two opposing sides both declare that their opinion is the correct opinion and the other is the fabrication? 

 

People instinctively understand that by declaring they KNOW something is TRUE has a lot more persuasive power than to humbly explain that they only BELIEVE something is TRUE.  They resort to the use of the word KNOW in order to make a stronger case for their cause. 

 

It’s evident that both sides cannot be TRUE.  It’s possible that one side is true.  Or it’s possible that the other side is actually true.  It’s possible that both could be wrong!  But it’s impossible that both could be correct.

 

Well, actually that’s not exactly true either.  Both sides in opposition could be correct!  From their different vantage points, they may be seeing a side of the issue that other is incapable of seeing.  The issue may be more complex than either opponents are able to recognize from their individual perspectives.  Combining their separate vantage points together may yield a new perspective that reveals further details about the debated issue and sheds further light on the subject.

 

However, that synergistic vantage point could never be achieved so long as both sides are entrenched in their pride and unwilling to acknowledge that what they declare they KNOW is nothing more than a BELIEF.  And BELIEF can be wrong.  By using the word BELIEF in our assertions, we open our minds up to the possibilities of recognizing new vantage points that may be presented to us at some future point in time.     

 

In moments of honest reconciliation, the opposing parties would admit that their stance is mere BELIEF.  This creates the scary possibility that their side might be in the wrong.  The other party might be actually correct.  However it allows the mind of the individual to begin to consider something new and to see the issue from another angle.

 

Here is one example of mixing up TRUTH and BELIEF:

 

Imagine someone gets up at the stand for the purpose of giving an inspirational speech.  Maybe it is at a Graduation Ceremony or maybe it is at a regular church service.  And they say something to the effect of “Never be afraid to stand up for your Beliefs!”  We hear this so many times that it is ingrained in our culture.  Repeating the phrase “Stand up for your Beliefs!” is an American Tradition.

 

There is a problem with that phrase.  The problem is that your Beliefs can be in error.  And my Beliefs can be in error too.  So we have everyone grandstanding for their errant beliefs because their culture has taught them to be Confident, Wish on a Star and just “BELIEVE!!!”  “You gotta stand up for yourself!”  “If you believe it than it’s true for you!”   So no one backs down.  No one reconsiders.  No one examines the evidence.  They can’t do it because pride won’t allow it.  No one shuts up and listens.  They’ve been taught that taking a stand is  a noble virtue but that listening, reconsidering and changing your mind is weak.

 

However, in all reality it takes greater strength to be humble and consider your opponents viewpoint.  It takes the greatest strength of all to admit your error and correct your ways and give acknowledgment to that group you formerly considered to be your opponent.     

 

What if the rally phrase were this: “Never be afraid to stand up for TRUTH!” 

 

What would happen if that were the battle cry?  Well, the first thing that would happen is that people would ask, “What is Truth anyway?”  Now, we begin to search and ponder and consider.  Now we begin to look at our BELIEFS and consider whether these sacred cows really measure up to Truth.  We find ourselves having to figure out what COULD even be considered in the category of TRUTH.

 

So that’s one thing to avoid.  The mixing up of words like TRUTH and BELIEF and KNOW.

ENTRY 47 DEFINITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN FOR GRANTED

TRUTH is the way things really are, the way things really were and the way things really will be.

 

FAITH is a measurement of our internal motivation to do the Will of God.  It is not a Belief despite that common misuse of the word.  It is an attitude regarding the desire to understand and actually do that which God would have an individual do with the circumstances that God has placed the individual in. 

 

BELIEF is an idea or concept we think is real or true according to our perception thus far, but it has not been verified or proven to be reality.  It is a Theory or Hypothesis. Naturally it will appear to be True, otherwise we would not hold it as a Belief.  However, it is not necessarily True.  Two basic attitudes form our Beliefs.  One is Curiosity which fuels our desire to learn more and it is likened to a little child who is willing to consider or entertain new Beliefs that are presented despite the absurdity of the new idea to others.  The other is Humility which requires that we are willing to recognize our capacity to make mistakes and let go of Beliefs that are shown to be false as we receive new information.  Maintaining these two attitudes is required to continue learning and growing.   

 

KNOW (KNOWLEDGE) is the information, data or evidence an individual has personally received, collected or assembled in their efforts to determine what is real.  This information is verifiable by others by repetition of the same circumstances to receive the same experience.  Quite often through out history, what is KNOWN has been overthrown by additional information or a new perspective.  More often than not, that which is KNOWN can be relegated back to that which is mere BELIEF by additional information.  We would be wise to avoid lumping anything permanently into the KNOW category in our present mortal circumstances in which we suffer from a limited perspective. 

 

WISDOM is the practical application of Knowledge to produce the greatest benefit possible in the long term and for the greater whole.

 

TESTIMONY is the relating or telling of the First Hand, Eye-Witness account an individual has experienced.

 

WITNESS is an individual who has First Hand, actual experience regarding a matter that is set before the people for examination and inquiry.

 

GOD is that force or intelligence that knows all things, has power over all things, and created all things.  [END DEFNITION] [No, really that is the END of the definition.  Don’t add anything more to it than that. We’ll talk about why.]

ENTRY 45 CUSTOMS OF OTHER RELIGIONS

Is it acceptable to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and participate in worship services and sacrament meetings outside the halls of an LDS church or on a day other than Sunday? 

An apostle of the LDS Church, Elder Quinten L. Cook related a story in the October 2015 General Conference in which he and his wife participated in the customs and traditions of another religion.  He demonstrates by his example that it is acceptable for members of the church to participate in such services.  Here is his account:

“The early Christian Church changed observance of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday to commemorate the Lord’s Resurrection. Other basic sacred purposes of the Sabbath remained unchanged. For Jews and Christians, the Sabbath symbolizes the mighty works of God.²⁰

My wife and I, and two of my colleagues and their wives, recently participated in a Jewish Shabbat (Sabbath) at the invitation of a dear friend, Robert Abrams and his wife, Diane, in their New York home.²¹ It commenced at the beginning of the Jewish Sabbath on a Friday evening. The focus was honoring God as the Creator. It began by blessing the family and singing a Sabbath hymn.²² We joined in the ceremonial washing of hands, the blessing of the bread, the prayers, the kosher meal, the recitation of scripture, and singing Sabbath songs in a celebratory mood. We listened to the Hebrew words, following along with English translations. The most poignant scriptures read from the Old Testament, which are also dear to us, were from Isaiah, declaring the Sabbath a delight,²³ and from Ezekiel, that the Sabbath “shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the Lord your God.”²⁴

The overwhelming impression from this wonderful evening was of family love, devotion, and accountability to God. As I thought about this event, I reflected on the extreme persecution that the Jews have experienced over centuries. Clearly, honoring the Sabbath has been “a perpetual covenant,” preserving and blessing the Jewish people in fulfillment of scripture.²⁵ It has also contributed to the extraordinary family life and happiness that are evident in the lives of many Jewish people.²⁶

For members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, honoring the Sabbath is a form of righteousness that will bless and strengthen families, connect us with our Creator, and increase happiness. The Sabbath can help separate us from that which is frivolous, inappropriate, or immoral. It allows us to be in the world but not of the world.” (Quentin L. Cook, October 2015 General Conference)

 

Here are some points to consider regarding his story and example:

This was a ceremony for the Sabbath which occurred on a Friday rather than on a Sunday, indicating that the particular day of the week is not necessarily a critical element.  The chosen day may have and probably should have a significant meaning to the participants.  However, we see that someone who normally observes the Sabbath on a Sunday, may participate in Sabbath observance on a different day.

The Jewish and Christian religious systems of beliefs do share some similar history and theology.  For example, both believe in a God who is Just and Merciful.  Also both believe in some common scriptures.  The Old Testament and the Torah share a common literary ancestor.

However, they are also decidedly divided on some key points that would be considered uncompromising issues for both parties.  For example, traditional Jewish belief would not consider Jesus Christ to be the Savior of the world.  Yet this is the key tenant of the Christian beliefs. 

The Jewish Sabbath custom includes the preparation of two loaves of bread representing the double manna that God would provide on the day before the Sabbath so that the people of Moses would not have to work and collect manna on the Sabbath.  Wine is always served alongside the bread. Elder Cook who is Mormon would certainly be unable to partake of the wine. This would be a contrast made obvious to both the host family and the guests at this particular occasion.

Yet, these two very different religious parties can welcome one another into each other’s services and ceremonies with participation for the purpose of putting aside differences and allowing the other to approach God in the manner most meaningful to that individual.  They can do this while side by side with other seekers of God who may not view the ritual with the same understandings.  For example, Elder Cook as a participant would be acknowledging the offered prayers made by the host to God, yet these prayers would not be conducted in the name of Jesus.  Likewise, he would be partaking of the Jewish bread which to the Jewish family would have the same reverence that his own sacramental bread would have to him if he were at one of his regular LDS services.  Yet he would not have partaken of the wine, demonstrating that both he and the host family were willing to make allowances for the other’s differing views.  The Jewish family did not see Elder Cook as an unworthy participant despite his lack of full acceptance of both their religious beliefs or of their own sacred ordinances.  And Elder Cook did not see the Jewish family as unworthy priests despite their administration of holy ordinances that did not correspond fully with his own religious practices. 

No one need be excluded based on their different approach to God.  Oaths of loyalty to an organization need not be attached to the symbolic ceremonies as prequalifying factors.  Rather the ceremonies are intended to turn ones heart to inner reflection and toward our relationship with God while allowing others freedom to do the same.  Each may do this in a manner most acceptable to an individual’s conscientious effort to approach God.  We may accept the sincerity of others as genuine and by doing so, we are allowed the same courtesy by them.

Finally notice the conclusion which Elder Cook derived from his experience.  He remembered the centuries of Jewish persecution and noted that this practice by the Jewish people was a “covenant” acceptable to God on their behalf and a “fulfillment of scripture”.  This is curious as we understand that Elder Cook being a Mormon apostle would view covenant making with God as only valid if the covenant is made under the correct authority.  Cook’s acknowledgement that they were blessed by God for their manner of sacramental-type observance on the Sabbath is an admission that the Jewish people had permission from God to do such things.  In other words, they had authority from God to do such things, elsewise God would not have blessed them for it. 

This is not inconsistent with Elder Cook’s teachings nor with the scriptures ascribed to the LDS Church.  A careful review of the LDS scriptures does indeed reveal that true authority can only be received directly from God to any one particular individual.  The reception of that authority may come to an individual within a specific church, such as was the case for Alma the younger for example.  Or the authority may come to an individual from without the church, such was the case for Samuel the Lamanite for another example.  In other words, the authority to perform ordinances and observances comes directly from the source who is God. 

The Jewish people would not have been blessed by God if they did not have God’s permission or authority to repeat such behavior on the Sabbath.  God is the source of all things and may provide to whomsoever God chooses.  This of course is self-evident.  The permission to perform such things comes from God and is not necessarily limited to one particular organization.  God can bless individuals who turn to God through the observances which they find most meaningful to them as they reach out to God.  Elder Cook provides this by his example and conclusions as he participates in a Jewish observance that would be the equivalent to a Christian Sacrament (equivalent in terms of the depth and sacredness by which they, the Jewish family would have viewed the service).  Elder Cook shows that LDS members may participate in holy ordinances outside of the LDS organization if both the participant and the host find edification and union through the experience.  It would certainly be fair and only make sense, if others were allowed the same courtesy to participate in LDS ceremonies without necessarily embracing the full LDS religion or necessarily having to agree with everything espoused by the LDS religion.

Elder Cook noted “The Sabbath can help separate us from that which is frivolous, inappropriate, or immoral”.  The example he provided was a Jewish Sabbath as an example for the LDS people.  In other words, he found nothing “inappropriate” in their practice nor anything “immoral” in participating in their rituals.  Elder Cook found joyful meaning in his participation in a Jewish Service.  I agree whole heartedly with his example.  It is a “wonderful” way to reach out to others who believe differently and act differently.  It is a way to bridge the gaps by placing ourselves in their world view for a moment and considering the merits of their approach to the divine.  What can we learn from them? 

 

What a humble approach to religion.  I am grateful for Elder Cook’s example in this thing.     

ENTRY 44 COUNSEL FROM ELDER BEDNARD

"Brothers and sisters, share the gospel with genuine love and concern for others. Be courageous and bold but not overbearing in sustaining and defending our beliefs, and avoid contention. As disciples our purpose should be to use social media channels as a means of projecting the light and truth of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ into a world that increasingly is dark and confused."

ELDER BEDNARD AUGUST 2014

This is why I have written the entries that I post to this blog site.  It is an opportunity to present the Gospel of Jesus Christ to my family and friends.  It is a forum that eliminates contention by providing a place where anyone can consider these entries if they like or simply ignore them if they are not interested.  I welcome everyone's feedback and responses and I am willing to consider your words and reflect on the truthfulness of the ideas that you present.  I hope you will do the same for me.

ENTRY 43 JOSEPH FOUGHT POLYGAMY

It is entirely within the realm of possibility that Joseph did not teach polygamy. I think that because of the following:

1. The Book of Mormon teaches against polygamy, calling it an abomination.

 2. The one single verse used as a “loophole” in Jacob’s sermon must be read out of context to support the reading of it in an interpretation that would allow for polygamy.

 3. Doctrine and Covenants 1835 Edition Section 101 declares unmistakably that one man should have but one wife. This was the D&C of Joseph’s lifetime.

 4. All public statements made by Joseph Smith during his lifetime flatly condemned polygamy. All statements attributing it to him are presented after his death when he could not rationalize for nor defend against the statements.

 5. Section 132’s origins are highly suspicious. If Brigham had “the keys” than he should have been able to receive his own revelation instead of borrowing authority from a dead prophet by claiming he had this hand-me down revelation that contradicts the Book of Mormon.

 5. Emma’s personal statements denied Joseph was unfaithful to her. A broken hearted wife is the first to throw a cheating bum out on the street. Her testimony of his innocence has a lot of weight.

 6. Accounts of Emma fighting against Joseph’s polygamous relationships all come from polygamous Utah Mormons who had a vested interest in discrediting her.

 7. Joseph’s sons defended their father’s name against polygamy charges.

 8. The two affidavit books collected in Utah are statements given by women who were vested in defending the polygamous lifestyle they had lived by for decades. They gave these statements long after Joseph was gone and was unable to give a response to.

 9. William Clayton’s journal describes Joseph teaching polygamy…however, he wrote two journals covering the Nauvoo time period…the journal entries are published chronologically but I believe the second journal was written later, for example during his Utah years when he was also re-writing the official History of the Church under the direction of Brigham Young.

 10. Beyond direct source material such as publications printed during the lifetime of the individual or journal entries that can be proven to be legitimately written by a person directly involved, everything else is just a repeat of what someone else said…second and third hand accounts that are unreliable. Just about all of the material we have available to us has been tampered with in some way over the years.

 11. Of course, I hold the possibility open that I could be wrong about these things, but I think there is reason to believe that Joseph Smith was not teaching anything like what we have been told.

 12. And last of all, “do unto others as you would have done unto you.” And “inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these, ye have done it unto me.” These teachings of Christ are sufficient alone for a man to understand that if he doesn’t want to share his wife with another man, then he ought not to ask her to share him with another woman. So, if Joseph was teaching such a doctrine, and publicly lying about it…then it really does not look like anything of Christ to me.

I recommend the following book for your consideration:

JOSEPH FOUGHT POLYGAMY

ENTRY 42 SPIRIT OF PROPHECY

10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Even the angels shy away from praise and shun pledges of loyalty.  They teach others to give these things to Jesus Christ alone.  In all things they testify of Christ and by so doing they prophecy.

For forty minutes of your time, you can listen to the following testimony of Christ that is offered in a true spirit of prophecy.  Shall I dismiss this man's message because he has no recognized authority? 

Listen to a Prophet's Voice

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0rAOFUJ-qYw

ENTRY 41 HISTORY

There is enough material to make the case for either side of the discussion, and even for third or fourth theories...as if we are left to ourselves to see which view has the most appeal to our hearts. We prove nothing conclusively about the past but demonstrate everything about our own desires as we selectively filter the material before us.

ENTRY 40 GENTILES

Who are the Gentiles?

There is a curious definition in the online version of the Miriam-Webster Dictionary:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gentile

Full Definition of GENTILE

1 often capitalized: a person of a non-Jewish nation or of non-Jewish faith; especially: a Christian as distinguished from a Jew

2 : heathen, pagan

3 often capitalized: a non-Mormon

I understood that the most common use of the term would be the first definition:  a person of a non-Jewish nation.  However, I was taken aback a little when I saw that third definition:  a non-Mormon.  Could the Mormon use of the term be so widespread and common that it would warrant a distinctive definition within the dictionary?  I had to look into it a little more, so I checked a second dictionary site:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gentile

 gentile

[jen-tahyl] /ˈdʒɛn taɪl/

adjective, ( sometimes initial capital letter)

1. of or relating to any people not Jewish.

2. Christian, as distinguished from Jewish.

3. Mormon Church. not Mormon.

4.heathen or pagan.

5.(of a linguistic expression) expressing nationality or local origins.

6.of or relating to a tribe, clan, people, nation, etc.

There it is again.  How many dictionaries are now including this definition? 

Oddly enough, the definition seems to lack…something.  It does not really seem congruent with how Mormons use the term itself when they actually do use it.  In daily life, when has a Mormon ever referred to others as “Gentiles”?  For example, did you ever hear a Mormon suggest that we go across the street to help the Gentiles shovel the walks?  Did a Mormon ever say, “Let’s also invite the Gentiles to our Barbeque?”  It is not really a term that is commonly used except in discussion of scriptural references for various groups of people.  Mormons do not really even speak in terms of sending missionaries out to convert the Gentiles.  Missionaries are sent out to gather the House of Israel.  The gathering is a self-selecting process through conversion.   

From being raised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and listening to the teachings of leaders and reading the books of authoritative Mormons, my understanding of Mormon theology has been that we view ourselves as descendants of the tribes of Israel.  We send the missionaries out to gather the tribes of Israel who have been scattered among the nations of the world.  Those who are stirred in the heart by communication from the Holy Ghost will recognize the message within the Book of Mormon as a message to them.  They will view this message as a call to repent and gather once again.  Having been converted to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the convert becomes baptized and confirmed a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  From that point on, the convert is part of the House of Israel.  Ultimately speaking, the tribes of Israel are all one family, children of Jacob who would also belong to the seed of Abraham.  The House of Israel is God’s covenant people.  They are God’s covenant people because the promises made to Abraham are then fulfilled in his posterity.  The posterity receives and makes covenants with God in the temple. 

The understanding that the convert is now a member of the House of Israel is especially apparent when a Patriarchal Blessing is administered.  The contents of the blessing are tailored by inspiration to the specific individual.  However, every patriarchal blessing includes a declaration of lineage belonging to one of the Tribes of Israel.  In this way, the member of the church learns how they are included within the House of Israel. 

The Gentiles would include those who are not of this lineage.  That is to say, not of the lineage of the House of Israel.  However if a soul is not literally of the seed of Abraham, they may become so through adoption.  It has also been taught that the scattering of Israel was so prevalent and wide spread that at this point every nation now includes members of this family.  It has also been postulated that the blood of Abraham now runs through probably every soul on earth and therefore the only thing that would prevent a person from being included within the family would be a lack of faith in the Gospel.

So I suppose with that consideration, then we could say that Mormons would define Gentiles as Non-Mormons…with the understanding that they could be included within the House of Israel if they so choose to convert.

The problem is that no one else in the world uses the word Gentile in that manner.  No doubt it would be amusing if not irritating to the rest of the religious world to find a Mormon viewing an orthodox Jew as a Gentile.  Perhaps it is also irritating (if not amusing) for many Christians to learn that Mormons also think of themselves as Christians. 

If we can’t come to an agreement on the definition of terms, we at least have to allow the individual the freedom to self-identify on their own terms.  Allowing others to apply the terminology to their own world viewpoint, allows us the freedom to do the same.  Insisting that Christians are those who only believe X and Jews are those who only believe Y and Mormons are only those who believe Z, creates a limitation upon ourselves that prevents true understanding across the spectrum of differing beliefs.  What if someone believes X and Y and under some conditions Z?  Do they belong to all three groups?  Or do they belong to none of the groups?  Who is better qualified to decide which group they feel most comfortable identifying with than the individual themselves?  Therefore, when we are listening to others, we must understand how they define the terms and allow them the freedom to use those terms in a manner that allows them to communicate freely with us.

The usage of the word “Gentile” has evolved over the centuries.  It first came into use in and around the 1400's.  And as you can see, our dictionaries reflect the evolution of the word to reflect the language of the people at the time of the dictionary's publication.  And yet the challenge in understanding the word goes even beyond evolution within a language because the scriptures we read today did not come from English at all.  Translations are never so simple as matching up two words in a language-to-language dictionary.  Languages are nuanced with idioms and expressions that fit the personality of the culture.  To make a translation, you must not only be fluent in both languages, you must also be fluent in the culture.

The Old Testament was translated from Hebrew and Aramaic.  What we now read as Gentile in the Old Testament was translated from “Goi” or the plural “Goyim”.  The New Testament was translated from Greek.  What we now read as Gentile in the New Testament came from the word "Ethnos" (Ethne for the plural form).   The word Goi had much more flexible usage than we realize.  It had the meaning of a collective body of people, especially a nation of people or nations of people.  The context of the word had to be considered during the translation process and often the translators of our King James Bible (1600s) had to use different words for an English translation of the word Goi.  Sometimes it was translated to heathen, nation, people and another.  In some instances the word was even used to refer to the House of Israel when speaking of the House of Israel as a nation.  So the word Gentile is really more of a reflection of 1600 era Protestant usage than it is of anything else.

The evolution of the word has now reached our generation and for the most part the usage is those not of the Jewish heritage.  The general idea being that the word had once been used to include "those not of the House of Israel before the scattering of the ten tribes" and then only the House of Judah after the scattering of the tribes of Israel.  Although there are also those who use the term to mean not of Christianity.  And apparently, there are those who use the term to mean those who are not of Mormon heritage.    

However, to put it in simple terms, Gentile as used by ancient writers really means “those other guys”, “not us”, “not our nation”. 

This blog entry is intended for the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Those who self-identify as Mormon and incidentally have the habit of pronouncing the word Mormon as “Christian”.  I happen to be one of those.  I would like to discuss how we use the word Gentile when we study the Book of Mormon.

Realizing that the common usage of the word Gentile is “those other guys”, a careful crosscheck in the Book of Mormon will show that this definition provides a startling result.  However it is the best definition for those who believe the Book of Mormon is scripture from God.  Without using that concept of Gentile when we read the Book of Mormon, we will ultimately fail to comprehend the message intended by the Book of Mormon's original authors. 

Why?  Because the Book of Mormon was written by prophets and from their viewpoint they saw us as …THOSE OTHER GUYS.  The writers of the Book of Mormon were descendants of Lehi who came out of Jerusalem.  Lehi descended from Joseph.  He was of the house of Israel.  He kept a record.  And his son Nephi kept a record.  And their descendants kept a record and they kept this record for the purpose of convincing their posterity that Jesus was the Christ.   

They also kept this record for the purpose of convincing three distinctive groups that Jesus was the Christ.  Those three groups were listed in the title page of the Book of Mormon and include the Lamanites who are a Remnant of the House of Israel, the Jews, and also the Gentiles.

Notice that the children of Lehi, the Lamanites are included as the House of Israel.  The Jews are also a separately defined group.  The Jews were the nation that Lehi had left behind in Jerusalem when he fled 600 years prior to the birth of Christ.  So, if you are not a descendant of Lehi and you are not a Jew, of what group are you in Book of Mormon terms?  There is only one group left…you are a Gentile.

Now I know what the theology is that is taught from the pulpit in church.  I know many books have been written stating otherwise, and we must allow others the freedom to define the terms for their own purposes if we are to understand the message they were trying to communicate as they spoke.  However, if we are to accept the Book of Mormon as a work of scripture, accepting it for what it claims to be…then we must accept the terms that are defined by the authors of the Book of Mormon as we read the Book of Mormon.   

From the beginning of the record, the Book of Mormon tells us there are three groups of people that will be discussed in the record.  The authors of the record have defined the groups of people thus:

1.        Remnant of the House of Israel = Descendants of Lehi

2.       Jews = those who remain in Jerusalem

3.       Gentiles = those who bring forth “this record” (the Book of Mormon).

Who brought forth the Book of Mormon?  The Gentiles.

Therefore, when reading the Book of Mormon, understand that the converts of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are NOT the House of Israel.  Not in Book of Mormon terms.  The converts of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are the Gentiles. 

This definition changes everything you will see in the Book of Mormon as you read it.  It will be like looking at one of those funny abstract pictures that looks like nothing but different shades of the same color, but as you adjust your focus to a different level, a three dimensional picture begins to take shape.  What was once a confusing looking mess suddenly has clarity and focus that you never realized before.  And that is when you find the amazing three dimensional picture.   If  you want the Isaiah chapters in the Book of Mormon to make sense…change your focus.  If you want to recognize who the call to repentance was that Mormon was declaring, change your focus.  Realize YOU are the Gentiles they were talking about.  We are “those other guys” that the prophets of the Book of Mormon were writing about.

Joseph Smith knew this when he offered the dedicatory prayer in the Kirtland temple. 

“Now these words, O Lord, we have spoken before thee, concerning the revelations and commandments which though hast given us, who are identified with the Gentiles.” (D&C 109:60)   

He then goes on to pray for the "other groups" including the return of Judah to the lands given to Abraham and including the House of Israel driven to the ends of the earth.

None of this negates any of the other concepts related to the House of Israel that we have been taught.  We may very well be of the tribes.  The tribes are prophesied to gather.  You are free to define the terms for your own understanding and declare that you are Mormon, Christian, and of the House of Israel.  The point is, that when you read the Book of Mormon, the authors of that book have placed you in a different group for their own purposes.  They did this, because they wanted us to understand something.  They wanted us to understand how to repent of our specific sins of our specific day and age.  They gave us a warning that we might repent and come unto Christ.  They did this for our benefit.  We are that other nation.  We are those Gentiles.

I don't think after reading this today, I have fully persuaded you about just how profound this understanding of who the Gentiles really are in the Book of Mormon is.  So,  I hope to give specific examples in a later post. 

ENTRY 39 WHO OWNS THE WORDS

As mentioned in a previous post, the problem with overstating a speaker’s position can create a distortion of the truth.   For example, claiming a man is speaking by revelation, when in fact, the man himself is not even making such a claim.  Doing so, not only over magnifies the intentions of the individual, it also warps the message into something that was never meant by the original speaker.  Here is an example:

 

Joseph made a statement that sounded boastful, and unbecoming a prophet. However, Joseph's quote is taken out of context

Joseph Smith is reported as saying:

I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam... Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.” (History of the Church, 6:408–409. Volume 6 link

 

Question: Is the quote of Joseph Smith's "boasting" of keeping the Church intact accurate?

The entries in History of the Church were made by scribes after Joseph's death
Even in the History of the Church (where the speech is recreated in 6:408-409), it is described as resting upon a "synopsis" by Thomas Bullock. Is it, therefore, a primary source? Arguably not.[6]
But there are further questions. The date of the sermon is 26 May 1844. A month later, the Prophet was dead. Did he supervise this entry? No. The last years of his entries in the History of the Church were actually made by others after his death.[7] It was common at the time for other authors to write as if someone else was speaking. So, these are not Joseph's words--they are the words which others (who admired him enormously after his murder) put in his mouth. The basic content is more likely to be accurate than the subtle details of tone and style.
This point is vitally important to keep in mind when trying to assess the character of Joseph Smith, his moral and spiritual quality, through the so-called "Documentary History." Even when it seems to have Joseph Smith speaking in the first person, the History of the Church may or may not actually be representing Joseph Smith's actual voice. (Dean Jessee's "Preface" to his collection of The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith specifically addresses the issue of the seeming egotism that entered into Joseph's later statements which was quite foreign to the man himself--this came not because Joseph suddenly became egotistical, but because the voice we hear is no longer Joseph's: it is the work of scribes following his death. They felt comfortable "praising" Joseph in ways which he would probably not have used.)

 

·         The above came from the following link...
http://en.fairmormon.org/.../Did_Joseph_Smith_'boast'_of...

↑ This wiki article was originally based on a personal message from Daniel C. Peterson. It has...

 

Some of things attributed to Joseph Smith that were included in the History of the Church came from publications written by John C. Bennett after he was forced out of Nauvoo. John C. Bennett wrote his expose in retaliation. When William Clayton under the direction of Brigham Young in Utah compiled the History of the Church they would pull from many sources and occasionally would borrow from Bennett’s Expose to fill in the gaps to support their current teachings within the Utah church. These quotes were cited as "source unknown" but still attributed to Joseph. How reliable was Bennett’s expose?  If you spend a little time reading it, you discover he was grossly exaggerating. 

 

The above quote of Joseph boasting is thought to be traced to Thomas Bullock.  This would have been a faithful follower, but as he wrote his notes he filtered it through the lens of his own perceptions.  This would have been what he thought Joseph was saying, not a word for word transcript.  The trouble is that we don’t even know for certain if it was Thomas Bullock as the source.  That is just the best source trail we can determine.  So what we really have here is William Clayton’s interpretation on Thomas Bullock’s interpretation on Joseph Smith’s words.  By the time the History of the Church was being prepared for print in Utah, Joseph was long since gone.  He was martyred, which made him epic hero status among all those who remained as followers.  They took his words and magnified them to reflect a character that really did not exist.  But we can observe one thing about this quote as we read by the spirit of Christ, since it clearly portrays pride and vanity, we know that whoever was saying it was not speaking by the direction of Christ.  Even if it was an exact transcript of his words and accurately portrays the intentions of his message, we know that this is not a message delivered by the revelation of God.  However, I think it is a message that more accurately portrays the concept of Joseph that the Utah Saints had built up of the man after he had been murdered. 

 

The more accurate and reliable statements would be first person journal accounts.  Documents personally written and published during someone’s lifetime have more reliability.  When books are acknowledged by personal ownership then we have words from the individual which we can know they took ownership of.   

 

Understanding that changes like this were done to the records is important if we are to have an accurate understanding of what has been left to us as an inheritance of our traditions both in religion and in scripture.

ENTRY 38 REVELATION

Revelation is more than inspiration or more than a great idea. It is knowledge directly from God. Determining if a work is revelation begins with the speaker or author who is presenting the information. Does the presenter claim the information came from God? Or does the presenter claim to be the originator of the subject? We can't make claims that exceed the author's own claims. If the author does not claim the words are revelation from God, then we cannot jump to the conclusion that the revelation is from God.

God has told us to take caution how we use his name. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. That isn't referring to impolite language that you use when you smash your thumb with a hammer. Intention of the heart is everything to the Lord. Taking His name in vain is the act of using his name to gain more authority in the eyes of others.  This is essentially trying to rob authority from God that God has not actually granted. This occurs whenever we stand up at the podium and say that something is in the name of Christ when in all actuality Christ never told us to say it. It occurs when we perform ordinances without permission...from God. It also occurs when we seal in the name of Christ without receiving sealing power. It is especially tempting to use spiritual gifts to bolster ourselves up and seem more important than we really are. These are the kinds of actions that involve taking the name of the Lord in vain. It is vanity to declare we represent God without God asking us to make that representation.

Establishing a relationship with God is highly personal. There are a variety of the gifts of God and to each person is given different gifts. Learning to recognize those gifts and apply them to our personal situations without giving in to the temptation of pride and vanity is a test that everyone who seeks for the Lord must face. The gifts from God vary from subtle to the miraculous, but it is between the receiver of the gift and Christ to determine how to best apply those gifts in the service of others. Therefore, one person could receive communication from Christ by conscientious thought, or an internal conversation, by dreams, by voice, by angelic visitation, or by direct face to face communication. Regardless of the method there is only one source.  Christ is the source.  The person takes on the responsibility of speaking in the name of the Lord whenever they share those gifts with others, and especially when they share the source of those gifts which is Christ.  The level of commitment in taking on the name of the Lord must be determined by the individual. It is their risk of sin if they feign more authority than God grants. It is their responsibility to determine how much of that authority would be appropriate. 

It is an equal risk of sin to not give appropriate credit to the author of all good things, which is Christ.  If it is wrong to take on more authority in the name of Christ, it would be equally wrong to hide the true source of authority by which we receive a genuine gift from God.  This would be an attempt to rob Glory from God.  We attempt to do so by enjoying the gifts of God and enjoying the attention we receive for those gifts, without giving proper acknowledgment to the giver of the gifts.

We must not rob authority from God by claiming his name in something he has not given.  Neither should we rob glory from God by hiding his name in something which he has given.

For this reason, we must allow other individuals to make the determination of how much of the Lord's name is appropriate in the words that they speak.

If there is any hesitation on the part of the speaker to declare that the Lord gave him the words, then I will give the speaker the benefit of the doubt. That is to say, I give him the benefit of the doubt that he is not a vain, authority seeking person who would pretend to speak in the name of God. I would not presume that the speaker would pretend to speak for God and result to verbal sleight of hand to make us think he is speaking for God when he really is not.  God would see through such a ruse easily and wouldn’t accept the excuse that “Hey, I didn’t actually say you said it Lord.  They just assumed you said it.” Therefore, the words may be inspirational, good advice, best theory, worth pondering over, but I would not consider it as a revelation until the deliverer makes known that it is a revelation.    If God wants a spokesman, the spokesman will be direct about the origination of the words.  For that reason, we cannot claim revelation is received by someone else when that person has not made the claim themselves. If they did not deem it appropriate to make that claim public, then we are in no position to make that claim for them.

Therefore it is inappropriate to assert that "the Brethren" have known the Lord personally or been sealed up to eternal life or have been given the keys of the kingdom of God...etc...when they themselves have not made such a claim. If it is vanity to use such experiences to build oneself up as an authority, would it not be double vanity to amplify another's experiences to increase the persuasion of our own arguments? 

For example, to say that a leader of the church speaks for God even though the leader has never made that claim themselves.  Or to say, the leaders of the church have all seen the Lord, even though the leaders have never made that claim publicly.  Or to say that the leader was speaking for God when he spoke on some specific issue, even though the leader did not claim he was delivering a message for God at that time. Wouldn’t that be taking God’s name in vain by proxy? 

Why would someone do this?  They would do it to strengthen their assertions as they quote the statements made by the leaders.  They take on the position that should you disagree with them you are disagreeing with God.  The reasoning is that the leaders speak for God but are too humble to say it directly and since we agree with the leaders, we are “on the Lord’s side”.  And since you disagree with the leaders then you are not on the Lord’s side. 

But they are making claims for the leaders that the leaders would not make for themselves.

Why did the leaders not claim it was revelation from God?  Because the leaders have integrity. They know that a revelation is a message from God and that no statement should be made in the name of God unless it actually came from God.  Likewise, leaders with integrity know that when the message does come from God that they must make the means of that revelation known so that the people can judge appropriately and be held to the weight of full responsibility for any words that God delivered personally.

Therefore, when a member claims revelation on behalf of a leader, they are speaking in the name of the Lord falsely because they themselves have not received revelation from God and the leaders have not claimed to receive revelation for God, but they claim the leader’s statements are revelation.  They claim more in the name of the leaders than the leaders claim for themselves.  They do so to increase their own personal authority.    

Remember when the Spirit of God took Jesus up to the temple wall and then withdrew from him?  The devil came and tempted Jesus telling him that it was written that the angels would protect him.  If he tossed himself off the wall and the angels saved him before all the people,  just think of all the people who would believe.  The display of power would grant Jesus instant authority to persuade the people.  But Jesus would not do it.

“Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.

3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.” (Mathew 4)

 

It is evident from the narration about the temptations of Christ that the miraculous power of God is not to be used for self gratification.  Authority of God is used to serve others, not to serve self.  Anytime God speaks to someone it is a miraculous occurrence.  Therefore, speaking as if you have received a revelation in the name of God is a serious claim.  There is a heavy weight associated with that claim.  If it is true, it is a miracle.  If it is true that God wants you to deliver a message in His name, then He will make that known to you.  If God is giving people knowledge through the miraculous means of revelation than the message is something that we should listen to carefully.  The miraculous stamp of authority means that God is giving you knowledge that you will be held responsible for.  It is being delivered with His seal of approval.  It was something Christ did not do even to win persuasion over others.  Christ only used the authority of God in accordance with the will of God for the purposes of God.  Christ did not exceed the authority given by the Father.  

When a prophet speaks for the Lord and the Lord has genuinely given him or her a message to deliver, the person will tell us in some manner that the message is from the Lord. The words may be "thus saith the Lord" or something to that effect.  There should not be any ambiguity about the level of ownership the Lord has taken on the words delivered.   If there is ambiguity then it carries no more authority than the opinion of the speaker and the precepts of men.   But when it is truly made in the name of the Lord, it carries the full authority of God. 

For some examples, I would recommend reading the story of Joseph Smith in the History of Joseph Smith (Pearl of Great Price), or in the revelations published in the Doctrine and Covenants.  I would also recommend a few other examples from the Book of Mormon, such as Lehi, Nephi, Jacob, Isaiah, Abinidi, Alma, 3rd Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni.  I would also recommend all of the stories regarding revelations from the Old and the New Testament.  Anytime someone had a prophetic message to deliver to the people, they declared:  what the message was, how they received the message and who the source of the message was.  The originator of the message was the Lord and sometimes he spoke to these individuals by dreams, by angels or by his own voice or in person.  They included the explanation of the source for the audience to determine how much validity to place on the message.  By doing so, the weight of responsibility was put on the shoulders of the people.  It was up to the hearers of the word to determine how valid the words were.

Sometimes a man is speaking and we just have this feeling in our heart that his words are true.  In fact more than a feeling, we just know that it is a message from God to us.  "It was just what I needed to hear", we say as we tell our friends about the message delivered in church last Sunday.  However, that does not mean the speaker was speaking by revelation.  It just means that you were listening by revelation.  It was a message from God...to YOU.  You received the revelation.  What was the form of the revelation?  The form was God's light filling your soul with a renewed understanding.  Again, that places the burden of revelation...and the burden of claimed authority of revelation...squarely on your shoulders.  The speaker must take responsibility for how much authority to claim on his own words.  And you must take on the responsibility for how much authority to claim on your words.  You may receive your revelations at any time and from any source.  And when you receive them, you must recognize that the source of any true revelation comes only from Christ.     

We are better off to be modest in our claims about speaking in the name of God.

We should hesitate before we claim more authority for others than they claim for themselves.

When the claim of Revelation is made in the name of God, we must weigh the claim seriously.

If it is a valid Revelation than we will be accountable to God for how we respond to the message.