The Love of God for His Children--A Wonderful Excerpt Shared©

About three months ago I started a study of the Lord’s Prayer found in Mt. 6:5-15. I have about 50 old, many public domain, commentaries I picked up online. I am going through each one, culling out the gems on the Lord’s Prayer. It’s been a remarkable experience for many reasons. First, though I anticipated the possibilities would be good, I have learned much, much more about the Lord’s Prayer than I anticipated. Virtually every day there is something new. With this many commentaries, one can imagine the variety of approaches, thought, and analysis I have experienced. It  has redounded as a great blessing to me; one that is difficult to summarize.  Second, I have come to appreciate that there are many faithful students of the scriptures who are not Latter-day Saints, but who love the Lord and have invested considerable thought and creative effort to express those thoughts in their writings about scripture. I know that many, if not most of them, would disagree with my basic Christian view, but that said, I have been lifted, edified, inspired, motivated, and thrilled by the things I have encountered in this three-month journey. I not only don’t mind saying so, I feel an obligation to do so.  

An example of all of this is below. If you have served a mission you may have experienced something which seems to be common–sometimes you don’t find that golden investigator until you reach the last house on the lane after hours of walking and being rejected, or at the top of a large apartment building which you were ready to leave to go to dinner, but you only had one more floor to finish it up. Well, that is sort of what happened to me this morning. I have studied these commentaries a half an hour or more each morning for the past three months. I am presently working on the 48th one in the collection. Yet, this morning I read one of the very best items of many great ones I’ve encountered during this journey.

I know nothing about David James Vaughan, except I love what he wrote which I have reproduced below.  In Mt. 6:9 the Lord instructs us to address God as “Our Father which art in heaven.” In the excerpt below Vaughan concentrates on one aspect of the fatherhood of God–his love for his children.  His insights touched me deeply. You read it (I suggest carefully) and then I will have a few additional comments (please note especially number 6 below.)  Enjoy!

********

There is no greater secret, of all truth and holiness and joy, than to have correct and grand views of the ‘fatherly’ relationship and character of God. Therefore, by all strange ways, the enemy of our peace tries to misrepresent it. God has made ‘the father’ His metaphor, and one great reason why God has established the relationship of a ‘father’ for this earth is to lead up to Him.

I. Love antecedent.—A ‘father’s’ love must, of necessity, precede the love of the child: long before the child can really know or love him, he has known and loved the child. The child’s love is the response and echo, after long intervals. You cannot conceive the time when God began to love you. But you can very easily date almost the hour when you began to love Him. God had done thousands of things for you before you ever did one thing for Him.

II. Love anticipatory.—Being antecedent, it is always anticipatory. It is a love that always stands in the front. A son little knows and thinks of all that’ a father’ has been thinking for him when he was helpless, and unconscious, and asleep. And you are not conscious of a millionth part of what has been going on within the veil of the great Father’s address to you. When you came into the world, there was everything ready for you; and your life commenced, has gone on all through, a planned one. It has all been a copy of a chart which lay for ever and ever in the breast of Godhead. Therefore it is the Divine love so exceeds the human.

III. Love prospective.—A ‘father’s’ love to his child has always—though the child may not see it—a reference to the child’s future. A ‘father’s’ love always has in itself something of the nature of education—therefore it disciplines you. It is just so with God. His love, and every act of it, always has a future in it. And just as a ‘father,’ being a man, trains his child for manhood, so God, being eternal, trains his creatures for eternity. You can only read a ‘father’s’ love in that light. It is always prospective love, mysterious—just because God sees: a future which His child does not see.

IV. Love’s qualities.—

(a) A ‘father’ never magnifies a child’s faults. He always sees excellences more than he sees the bad points. Is that the way in which you think of God’s looking on you? Do not you generally think of God exactly the opposite?—quick to see what is wrong—watching for sins—and, when He sees them, slow to forgive them.

(b) A ‘father’s’ love is always equal to all his children. Can God be partial? And yet you often think of God as very partial, and fancy that He does not love you as much as He loves some other.

(c) A ‘father’s’ love is a very wide thing. It takes in with a large embrace all the little things and all the great things in his child’s life—all and everything.

(d) A ‘father s’ love never dies. Whatever the child may do—whatever the ‘father’ may be constrained to do, upon whatever his child does, it does not alter a ‘father’s’ love. He may punish—he may be angry—he may hide himself; but his love is unchanging. And why is this in the ‘father’? Because his relation approaches and assimilates to God’s relation to His creatures. He is a representative on earth of God. He is a ‘father.’ God is a ‘Father’!

It will take you out of a great many distresses and difficulties if you will only remember ‘the Fatherhood of God.’(1)

********

Here are just a few of the thoughts that this passage generated:

1. The first sentence reminds me very much of something Joseph Smith said in his famous King Follett discourse: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God....”(2) Vaughan’s addition is that Satan tries to misrepresent God’s character as Father.

2. There is a spirit and sweetness permeating this passage which strikes at the core of my being.

3. I am pretty sure my children would raise an eyebrow at his assertion that a father “never magnifies a child’s faults.”  I was young, had almost no wisdom, and had never been a father before!  But I do try now to see their excellencies more than their faults.

4. I was taken aback, nearly bowled over, by his explanation that the love God as our Father has for us, like our earthly fathers, began long before we knew or loved him.  “You cannot conceive the time when God began to love you,” he writes.  Latter-day Saints may have a leg up on most Christians as far as that is concerned.  Nevertheless, even we probably only see through a glass darkly on that subject.  But this statement wrenched my heart as I realized the truth of it, because of my knowledge of the pre-mortal existence.

5. Similarly, the truth of the expression “A son little knows and thinks of all that ‘a father’ has been thinking for him when he was helpless, and unconscious, and asleep.  And you are not conscious of a millionth part of what has been going on within the veil of the great Father’s address to you.”  The frequency with which that happened and continues to happen, should have led me to consider this in relationship to Heavenly Father long before now.  Alas!  

6. The truth of these ideas is really almost self-evident, but I only encountered them the first time this morning!  I am writing this and sharing it with you in hopes that learning them now may be a great blessing to you for a much longer period of your life than it will be for mine.

7. Finally, he gives two examples of principles pertaining to God’s love as a Father, which when we  think of God, we often do in the exact opposite way.  1) Do we not think God concentrates on and magnifies our faults, rather than our excellencies?  2) Do we not think God’s love is partial and fancy that he does not love us as much as others, rather than loving all of his children equally?  Take the positive view here and these become stunning and meaningful insights that tend to draw your heart to God.

I hope you enjoyed James Vaughan.

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:

1.   The Rev. James Vaughan, cited in James Nisbet, The Church Pulpit Commentary, (Mt. 6:9),  from Bible Analyzer software available online at http://bibleanalyzer.com/

2.  Joseph Fielding Smith, comp., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1967, 345.

“A Book of Books”: Writing the History of the Church in “One of the Most Important Eras of the World”©

It is interesting how one’s reading in various books sometimes converges. At the moment I am reading three books. The first is the latest book by former General Relief Society President, Julie Beck, called Joy in the Covenant; the second is Kent Richards’, Family of Faith, which reproduces excerpts from the journals of three Apostles in the same family–Willard Richards, Franklin D. Richards, and George F. Richards; finally, the third is the new history Saints.

I have a teenage granddaughter in Virginia who is a reader and recently we decided to read Saints together and discuss it. To help her appreciate the importance of reading the history of the Church in her youth, I shared with her a quotation from sister Beck’s book. The context for the quotation  is that sister Beck relates the background of the writing of the history of the Relief Society, Daughters of the Kingdom. When she became general Relief Society President, her presidency felt the need to get a clear vision of the purpose(s) of Relief Society. They engaged in a lengthy study of available sources about the history of Relief Society. It gave them the sense of purpose and vision they were looking for. That led to the notion that others could benefit from what they learned. About that time the First Presidency assigned the Beck presidency with the task of producing such a volume for the women of the Church. In the course of telling that story she wrote the following, which I shared with my granddaughter:

At one point we were given some research indicating that individuals who know and understand Church history are much more likely to be faithful in their spiritual observance and to have a greater sense of identity in the Church.(1)

This statement resonated with me, not only because I was trained as a historian in graduate school, but because it has been true in my life, both in the sense of identity I feel with the Church and it has contributed to my desire to be a faithful member of the Church.  

Meanwhile, I have also been typing notes and quotations from Family of Faith. Apostle Willard Richards, served as a scribe to Joseph Smith, and as a church historian. He was responsible to gather, preserve, and write the history of the Church. After the Martyrdom and during the Exodus from Nauvoo this was not an easy task. A number of entries in his journal pertain to this effort.  For example, on 15 November 1845 he dictated an “Epistle to the Saints” to be read the next day in the Sunday meeting in Nauvoo. In it he called upon missionaries and members to provide him with knowledge and documents in their possession pertaining to  events in Church history. He was looking for “Books, Maps, Charts, Papers, Documents, of every kind, name and nature, and all information that may relate to, or have a bearing in any wise upon the History of the Church....”(2) 

Apparently he received a lot and storage proved to be a problem. Just a year later at Winter Quarters he wrote in his journal that he called upon Bishop Whitney for some packing boxes for the records because he had no place to keep them but in the bottom of his wagon. Unfortunately the Bishop gave him no encouragement.(3) The matter came up again a month later. On 17 December, Richards journalized:

Dr. Richards [himself] spoke of the bushels of papers, now in his possession that are not now filed, & of the need of a place to gather them & arrange them for future history. A man must have his mind free, who writes a history that is to last for time & thro’ all Eternity, & not burthened with other cares. W. Woodruff says this is a subject that will benefit the whole Church & Kingdom of Go– [sic] when I heard Joseph speak I could not rest until I had written it down in black & white–I am now in one of the most important eras of the world–the people ought to keep a strict eye upon the historian–I feel deeply interested in the books out of which I am to be judged–it is the duty of High Counsel to let the Dr. have a box to put the papers in, to find wood, beef &c–this is to be a book of books–I rejoice that we have a ready writer–let the Dr. go to work & save the Church History.(4)

This gem has a lot packed in it.  In sum the following points are significant to me:

• It is admirable that Willard Richards is magnifying his calling and continues to seek help from others to do it. But think of it all in a greater sweep–the sweep of the history of mankind. There may be other refugee peoples of which I know nothing, who amidst all the trials of fleeing danger, concerned themselves with gathering and preserving records so a history could be written.  But generally those things come after the fact. Here, amazingly, Richards is doing it on the trail!  Richards’ vision?  He was to write a history that was to “last for time and through all eternity”!

• This, of course, was initiated by and consistent with a revelation given the day the Church was organized, in which the Lord said in the first verse, “Behold, there shall be a record kept among you....”(5) Oliver Cowdery was the first Church historian, but in March of 1831, John Whitmer was called when D&C 47 was received.  Later the job fell to Willard Richards.

• History matters in religion.  History matters for faith and commitment. The Lord knows all of this and therefore provided for a history to be kept from the first day of the Church’s existence in this the last dispensation. So, isn’t it logical that the Savior would have given similar instructions to the leaders of his Church in his generation? Perhaps that accounts for the alleged document “Q” that many scholars believe was the source for the canonical gospels. Be that as it may, history matters to Christianity.  It is a historical-based religion.

• Wilford Woodruff was and is an international treasure, because he had a magnificent vision of the importance of the early history of the Restored Church–it was to be a “book of books”!  But he also did so much to preserve our history, including at this moment in a refugee camp, to sustain Willard Richards and his work as Church historian.

• Woodruff knew he lived “in one of the most important eras of the world,” with one of the most important prophets who ever lived, and the Spirit put a fire of discontent in him so that he could not rest until Joseph’s teachings were preserved. In many ways we owe much more to him than to John Whitmer, who seemed to be not only uncertain, but almost indifferent about his calling as Church historian.

• Woodruff knew that the Book of Revelation teaches that we will be judged out of the “book(s) of life” which shall be kept; therefore, he took a “deep interest in the books out of which I am to be judged.” So much so, that he thought Willard Richards should have what he needed–boxes to preserve the records, time to work with them and write, and he thought we should be grateful to have a “ready writer.” What a refugee-pioneer!  What a vision!  Thank God for men like Willard Richards and Wilford Woodruff!

Well, this brings us to the new first volume of a projected four-volume history of the Church, entitled Saints. The presiding brethren are urging all members of the Church to obtain a copy and read it. So they can, the cost is kept to a bare minimum. But how can those non-English speakers in the international church follow this counsel? Ah, the book is to be translated into 25 languages.(6)  Think of that. There have been two previous multi-volume histories of the Church, but neither one of them were available on this scale. So, many, if not most in the international church have had almost nothing on the history of the Church available to them. Now for the first time people in the entire Church can learn of its amazing history. If sister Beck and Wilford Woodruff are correct, and I believe they are, that  translation effort is a most significant event, one consistent with the list of other things the Lord has recently done to strengthen the Church as mentioned by Elders Bednar and Ballard.(7)

Let's think together gain, soon.

Notes:  

1.  Julie B. Beck, Joy in the Covenant: Reflections by Julie B. Beck, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2018, 47.

2.  Willard Richards, journal, Saturday, 15 November 1845, cited in Kent F. Richards, ed., A Family of Faith: An Intimate View of Church History through the Journals of Three Generations of Apostles–Willard Richards, Franklin D. Richards, and George F. Richards, 1837-1950, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2013, 70-71.

3.  Ibid, under date of 7 November 1846, p. 101.

4.  Ibid, 17 December 1846, pp. 102-103.

5.  D&C 21;1.

6.  Interestingly, Sister Beck said that Daughters in My Kingdom, was being translated into 25 languages, including English Braille. See, Beck, Joy in the Covenant, 52.

7.  See, David A. Bednar, “Gather Together in One All Things in Christ,” Ensign (November 2018): 21-24. Elder Ballard gave a similar list when he spoke to a regional conference for stakes in northern Utah and southern Idaho, Sunday, 28 October 2018, which is available online at:

https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/utah-north-multi-stake-conference-broadcast?lang=eng.

A Living Philosophy: Character and Real Life©

In my reading this week I came across Marshall Field’s “Twelve Rules For Success.” Field knew something about the subject. He was one of the more successful businessmen of his time. He started the famous Marshall Field company in New York City. Here are his “Twelve Rules.”

1. The value of time.

2. The success of perseverance.

3. The pleasure of working.

4. The dignity of simplicity.

5. The worth of character.

6. The power of kindness.

7. The influence of example.

8. The obligation of duty.

9. The wisdom of economy.

10. The virtue of patience.

11. The improvement of talent.

12. The joy of originating.(1)

I like this list! There is a lot to think about and implement in one’s life that will help in making that life a success by most any definition of the word. 

But, I want to call your attention to something which I think is important. Note how many of the things in the list involve character traits:

Perseverance

Character

Kindness

Example

Duty

Thrift (economy)

Patience

Creativity (originating)

Eight of twelve, or three-fourths involve important character traits. The other four: valuing time; work; simplicity, and talent, grow out of elements of one’s character. However, Field’s list, as good as it is, is incomplete. There are other virtues such as those stressed in the Beatitudes in the Savior’s Sermon on the Mount, and in 2 Peter 1 which should be added to Field’s list.

Below are four quotations culled from a large file on the subject, that illuminate the importance of character in various ways; the last of which can be considered almost “prophetic”:

DAN COATES:

Character cannot be summoned at the moment of crisis if it has been squandered by years of compromise and rationalization. The only testing ground for the heroic is the mundane. The only preparation for that one profound decision which can change a life, or even a nation, is those hundreds of half-conscious, self-defining, seemingly insignificant decisions made in private. Habit is the daily battleground of character.(2)

BOOKER T. WASHINGTON:

... I am conscious of the fact that mere connection with what is known as a superior race will not permanently carry an individual forward unless he has individual worth, and mere connection with what is regarded as an inferior race will not finally hold an individual back if he possesses intrinsic, individual merit. Every persecuted individual and race should get much consolation out of the great human law, which is universal and eternal, that merit, no matter under what skin found, is in the long run, recognized and rewarded.(3)

THEODORE ROOSEVELT:

Every great nation owes to the men whose lives have formed part of its greatness not merely the material effect of what they did, not merely the laws they placed upon the statue books or the victories they won over armed foes, but also their immense but indefinable moral influence upon the national character. It is not only the country which these men helped to make and helped to save that is ours; we inherit also all that is best and highest in their characters and in their lives.(4)

JOHN LUTHER:

Good character is more to be praised than outstanding talent. Most talents are, to some extent, a gift.  Good character, by contrast, is not given to us. We have to build it piece by piece--by thought, choice, courage, and determination.(5)

SAMUEL SMILES:

[W]hen the time arrives in any country when wealth has so corrupted, or pleasure so depraved, or faction so infatuated the people, that honor, order, obedience, virtue, and loyalty have seemingly become things of the past; then, amidst the darkness, when honest men–if, haply, there be such left–are groping about and feeling for each other’s hands, their only remaining hope will be in the restoration and elevation of Individual Character; for by that alone can a nation be saved; and if character be irrecoverably lost, then indeed there will be nothing left worth saving.(6)

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:  

1. Earl Nightingale, This Is Earl Nightingale, Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1969, 56.

2. Dan Coates, "Points To Ponder," Reader's Digest, (June 1996):252. 

3. Booker T. Washington, Up From Slavery, New York: Bantam Books, 1963, 28.

4. Theodore Roosevelt in, Reader's Digest, (November 1993):146.

5. John Luther, in Arthur F. Lenehan, (ed.), Leadership, (April 1994):3.

6. Samuel Smiles, Happy Homes and the Hearts that Made Them, Chicago: U. S. Publishing House, 1889, 87.

Valuable Things that Get Lost in Modern Philosophy and Culture©

(Revised, 13 December 2019.)

There's a tendency to throw aside old values as belonging to an earlier generation. Don't discard those values that have proven, over the period of time, their value. Just believe in those values that made our nation great and keep them: faith, family, hard work, and, above all, freedom.  --Ronald Reagan.(1)

In earlier blogs I have expressed concern that many people today, almost without question, accept the modern world’s philosophies as superior to anything that has gone before. In my view this bodes ill for not only the immediate future, but for subsequent generations as well. Materialism, hedonism, and secularism with their attendant subsidiary doctrines dominate modern culture and much good is left behind and lost.

This concern surfaced again this week as I’m just finishing an interesting book about True Success: A New Philosophy of Excellence, where I encountered two examples of things that are being or are already lost, though this is not the author’s main point. The first draws a distinction between personality and character. Tom Morris wrote:

Character is the moral core of personhood.  It ought to be thought of as the foundation of personality. As Stephen Covey and others have begun to point out in recent years, too much of the success literature of our century has been personality-oriented when it should have been character-based. A beautiful house built on a bad foundation cannot provide for secure and stable long-term habitation. Nor can an attractive personality veneered over a bad character provide for any sustainable and fulfilling form of success.(2)

The evidence of this retrograde situation surrounds us. One example, a ubiquitous example–is the near worship of the “celebrity culture.”  It is one that emphasizes externals of personality and largely ignores the interior matter of character. In recent months the “Me too” movement has begun to expose the shallowness of the veneer and the emptiness of the soul of some considered to be celebrities. Alas, that is only one aspect of a much larger problem arising from the emphasis on personality at the expense of character.

The second example comes from the following observation about the culture of winning so prevalent today.

Everybody wants to be a winner. Nobody wants to be a loser. It was once the worst kind of insult and severest sort of condemnation to be called a scoundrel, a cad, a louse, a liar, untrustworthy, unscrupulous, unethical, immoral, or just plain evil. In more recent days, the most dreaded affront and reproach seems to be “loser.” A label to be avoided at all costs. The lowest of the low. The realm of outer darkness.(3)

Interestingly, both of these examples come from a chapter about character and its role in success.  

I am only an amateur and part-time sports fan and I prefer college to professional sports. My two-cheer commitment to sports is due in the main to the nearly total commitment to winning at all cost, including cheating if necessary. Consider how often one observes “holding” penalties in football.  The rules clearly make holding an opponent while blocking a violation. Every act of holding is intentional. There is no “inadvertent holding.” I know this is true because I have played the game. Every act of holding is cheating. Yet we frequently hear announcers, commentators–color and otherwise–as well as coaches and players ignore, dismiss, or rationalize this obvious cheating.

This is just one of many examples of cheating found in football. Another example, which some may consider petty, is that universally ball carriers after they are tackled push the ball out ahead of where they were tackled, hoping the refs will “spot” the ball there. It almost never works, but apparently it works enough so that virtually every ball carrier does it to add more yardage than actually achieved in the run. This is an obvious and very observable attempt to cheat.

“A little thing” the avid fan says. My response: it is cheating and that matters. This is my problem with what is happening today–the casual dismissal of “little” efforts to cheat. Cheating seems to be accepted in most sports if one can get away with it, because as the mantra goes “winning is the only thing.” The situation is exacerbated in  “big money” sports where an economic motive contributes to the “win at any cost” mentality.

Reading in August 2019 brought two additional things that modernity has taken from us, or is taking from us to my consciousness.  They are, 1) freedom of speech is gravely threatened, and 2) pornography has robbed the generations since 1960 of sexual purity, thought purity, speech purity, innocence of children exposed to it readily on the Internet and elsewhere, and a whole lot more. Laws, liberal philosophy, attempts to mold culture and society, and most contemporary religions have proved impotent before both of these losses. I believe Harry Emerson Fosdick has the right answer. Regarding free speech he wrote in the early 1950s,

Nothing that we call progress will reverse that trend--only the restoration in us of our father's love of independence and liberty, their belief in freedom to think, and their determination in a democracy to say what, by God's grace, they see fit to say about the public weal.

And about pornography:

Nothing that we call progress will get us out of that--only the re-emergence in us of something old: self-respect, decency, disgust at things contemptible and low, public revulsion against panderers who grow financially fat on the exploitation of vice.(4)

Catholic Bishop Fulton J. Sheen argued that such losses happen because we have forgotten “the purpose of life” and replaced it with the idea of progress. Here too, we are confused and mistaken, because much of what we call progress can simply be "change without purpose". Thus we can confuse “a step forward with a step in the right direction.” That is, progress is considered good regardless of it’s direction, or what may have been forgotten, left behind, or jettisoned in it’s pursuit.  Progress, in this case, is it’s own purpose and goal, but may be largely misdirected, with the result being unsatisfying, unfulfilling and ultimately unrewarding if not inimical.(4)

Character, honesty, integrity, and fairness are just a few of the abandoned casualties in today’s modern philosophies and culture. I urge you to take such examples seriously and to be skeptical in a healthy way about the contemporary notion that the old is passe and whatever is new is superior. This is especially true regarding today’s erroneous equation of personality and character. Be wary of the popular notion that progress is inevitably good.  It may be retrogression dressed in the flashy fashions of sloppy, untested, and uncontested philosophy, especially if it encourages or contributes to forsaking much good that is old, simply because it is old.

Let’s think again together, soon.

Notes:

1.  Ronald Reagan, in Elizabeth Dole, comp., Hearts Touched With Fire: My 500 Favorite Inspirational Quotations, New York: Carroll & Graff, 2004, 96.

2.  Tom Morris, True Success: A New Philosophy of Excellence, New York, NY: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1994, 218.

3. Ibid, 219.

4.  Both quotations come from: Harry Emerson Fosdick, What is Vital in Religion: Sermons on Contemporary Christian Problems, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1955, 164, bold emphasis added.  What makes Fosdick's arguments all the more interesting, is that he is a progressive liberal, but in these and other cases he is arguing for a conservative position--the return to earlier philosophies and values that have also been jettisoned by recent generations.

5.  See, Fulton J. Sheen, Freedom Under God.  Washington, D.C., Center for Economic and Social Justice, 2013, chapter 3, “True Liberty,” pp. 19-28.  This book was originally published  by the Bruce Publishing Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin in 1940.  I thank my friend Jim Smith for bringing it to my attention.

Why I Believe: Evidence Fifty-Seven: The Most Important Truths of the Universe Entrusted to a Lad–Along With the Charge to Disseminate Them to the World and He Pulled It Off©

101 Reasons Why I Believe Joseph Smith Was a Prophet of God:

Evidence Fifty-Seven:

The Most Important Truths of the Universe Entrusted to a Lad–Along With the Charge to Disseminate Them to the World and He Pulled It Off© 

Recently I quoted Neal A. Maxwell about a youthful blind spot–an “experience gap.”  (See “Living Philosophies” blog “Apostolic Counsel to the Young: Understand the "Experience Gap,” 2 September 2018.) But that is not the whole story, as most youth are almost universally aware. Elsewhere in his writings, Elder Maxwell writes about the other side of the newly minted coin. He observes the “frequency in history with which the young have done so much, so ably, so well, so soon,” and cites Benjamin Disraeli’s generalization that “Almost everything that is great has been done by youth.” Elder Maxwell continues:

While the lack of previous experience handicaps youth, previous experience can also hold hostage those who are older, preventing us from having or appreciating fresh experiences that could help us to restructure more correctly our understanding of the nature of the world and of life.(1)

Elder Maxwell cites the exquisite example of the youthful Joseph Smith. It is not uncommon for Church leaders to speak of young Joseph’s amazing spiritual contributions and ever expanding impact on the religious world. But, the insights which Elder Maxwell draws from Joseph’s earliest spiritual experiences–the First Vision and the recovery of the plates of the Book of Mormon–are at once thought provoking, articulate, and most importantly, they are evidentiary of Joseph's prophetic calling.  Elder Maxwell wrote:

God gave to mankind through a young man, Joseph Smith, the ultimate and immense truths of the gospel in this, the last dispensation. This young man who had no social status to protect, no private theology already worked out for God to endorse, and who had loving and listening parents, could report that theophany honestly and cling tenaciously to the truth of that first vision in the midst of great persecution. A sophisticated man who had community status to protect and his own ideas about what kind of religion the world needed–even though a good man–would have been sorely tempted to have traded off truth for the praise of the world. Paul reminded us that "the friendship of the world is enmity with God. . . ." (James 4:4.) Could any but a humble non-linguist have gone to the Hill Cumorah and, under the direction of an angel, be shown ancient records and be told, so boldly, that he, personally, would be the unlettered instrument in translating these for the benefit of all mankind, and still have believed all that–and helped such a marvel come to pass without wanting somehow to possess the plates rather than share their wisdom or to add his own mortal touches and flourishes to the manuscript?

In relation to his calling, Joseph Smith no doubt stood much like Enoch and Moses: overwhelmed that he had been chosen, but, nevertheless, humbly determined to do just what was asked of him. To the humble, the simpleness and the easiness of the way are glad realities; to the crowded, ego-filled minds of proud men, the sudden sunlight from a spiritual sunrise is irritating rather than awesome, and causes them to blink rather than to stare in reverent awe.(2)

The insight that the most important truths in the universe were entrusted to a 14-17-year-old New York farm boy with the responsibility to get them published and disseminated world-wide–along with acquiring the necessary economic resources, creating an organization, and initiating a long-term missionary effort implied by that initial responsibility to pull it off–boggles the thoughtful mind. That he accomplished that and so much, much more in the quarter century to follow, borders on the incredible.  I freely admit that I “stare in reverent awe.”  Thank you Elder Maxwell!

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:

1.  Neal A. Maxwell, That My Family Should Partake, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1974, 81-2.

2.  Ibid, 82.

Are We An “Age Beyond Wonder”?©

In 1977 a lightning bolt struck part of the electrical grid of the northeastern United States and New York City experienced a blackout. The fact that many New Yorkers took to looting, pillaging and burning out neighborhood merchants and complained that “mere nature” was allowed to disrupt technology was the occasion for an essay by one of America’s most brilliant pundits–George F. Will.  He considered that the  “extinguishing [of] street lights [was] enough to crack the thin crust of civilization in whole neighborhoods” as American barbarism. From the perspective of four decades, that perspective seems to have only deepened.

But the bulk of Will’s essay that week was devoted to the second issue–the irritation that “mere nature” inconveniently disrupted technology. Below are several excerpts which argue that this is evidence that a mature American society had lost its sense of awe and wonder. What do you think?  Has the computer age and the “age of Hubble” increased the sense of awe and wonder of Americans, or are they just more examples of Will’s argument?

*********

What most distinguishes modern people is that they have so slight a sense of awe about the world around them. ... [M]odern people should consider that, in a sense, they take more things on faith than did a thirteenth-century peasant tilling the fields in the shadow of Chartres.

When the peasant wanted light, he built a fire from wood he gathered. Modern people flip switches, trusting that someone, somewhere, has done something that will let there be light. How many switch-flippers can say what really happens, in the flux of electrons, when a generator generates?

The most advance form of travel for the peasant was a sailing ship or a wagon: the mechanisms were visible and understandable. This year forty-one million passengers will pass through Chicago’s O’Hare airport, obedient to disembodied voices, electronically amplified, telling them to get into cylindrical membranes of aluminum that will be hurled by strange engines through the upper atmosphere. The passengers will not understand, and will be content not to understand, how any of it really works. And we think the fourteenth century was an age of faith.

Perhaps ours is the strangest age.  It is an age without a sense of the strangeness of things.   ...

The human race has grown up and lost its capacity for wonder. This is not because people understand their everyday world better than people did in earlier ages. Today people understand less and less of the social and scientific systems on which they depend more and more. Alas, growing up usually means growing immune to astonishment.(1)

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:

1.  George F. Will, The Pursuit of Happiness, and Other Sobering Thoughts, New York: Harper & Row, 1978, 109-11, emphasis added.

Why I Believe: Evidence Fifty-Six: Joseph Smith Claims a Completely New Use for the Urim and Thummim©

101 Reasons Why I Believe Joseph Smith Was a Prophet of God:

Evidence Fifty-Six:

Joseph Smith Claims a Completely New Use for the Urim and Thummim© 

The Old Testament speaks of an interesting tool associated with revelation–the Urim and Thummim.  Its history is shrouded in mystery. Though there are a number of verses in the Bible which speak of this instrument, biblical scholars have a difficult time sorting out the details of both its purpose and how it worked.(1) Some passages make it sound like it was used to cast lots and gain information to “yes” and “no” questions. It seems to be largely a tool used by the High Priest rather than the prophets.

Interestingly a tool by the same name also appears in the Book of Mormon, but there it is the tool of prophets, and Aaronic High Priests play no significant role in the Book of Mormon narrative. Moreover, the Book of Mormon associates these instruments with interpreting and/or translating ancient records. Ammon called them interpreters (Mos. 8:13) as did Alma (Al. 37:21) and Moroni (Eth. 4:5). In the Book of Mormon they were originally given to the brother of Jared who sealed them up with his record as a means of translating it in the future. (Eth. 3:22-24) King Mosiah possessed a Urim and Thummim but its origin was not given in the text.(Mosiah 28:11-13).  Mormon described them and said they were “prepared from the beginning, and were handed down from generation to generation, for the purpose of interpreting languages....”(Mos. 28:13-15) Ammon taught that the individuals allowed to use them were called “seers.” (Mos. 8:13)

For my purposes today, the focus is on a much later period–the time of the Restoration. The angel Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith on the night of September 21-22, 1823, (195 yesrs ago) and in the course of instructing him about the plates of the Book of Mormon he also told him of the Urim and Thummim and commanded him that these items should not be shown to others. (JS-H 1:42) Later the next day when he went to the hill Cumorah and found the box where the plates were hidden, he also saw the Urim and Thummim for the first time. (JS-H 1:52) He obtained the plates and the Urim and Thummim four years later and they were used for a time to translate the sacred record. According to Joseph’s mother, Joseph also used them to receive visions. A number of the revelations in the early D&C were given through the Urim and Thummim.

What interests me about all of this relative to Joseph Smith is a brief passage I recently re-read from LeGrand Richards. I have learned many times over, the benefit of going back to re-read earlier documents and sources. With the perspective of more time and experience, they often have a way of calling attention to certain things that one has overlooked when he first read them, not appreciating the insight contained therein. That was the case with the following from Elder Richards’ Marvelous Work and a Wonder which I read during my first year of college just prior to my mission.  He wrote:

Would it be unfair to ask what the spiritual leaders of Joseph Smith’s day knew about the Urim and Thummim? Would Joseph Smith, of himself, have thought of claiming that he translated the Book of Mormon with the assistance of the Urim and Thummim?(2)

The question of Elder Richards is even more challenging when we remind ourselves that there is nothing in the Bible which even hints at using the Urim and Thummim to translate ancient documents! This was a whole new purpose for them. So, his question merits repeating “Would Joseph Smith, [under those circumstances] of himself, have thought of claiming that he translated the Book of Mormon with the assistance of the Urim and Thummim?” I guess it is possible if you are willing to attribute to him another example of creative genius–among a very large constellation of such examples–if he were to have written the book out of his own mind. But, don’t you also have to ask, wouldn’t he anticipate that students of the Bible would challenge this heretofore unknown use of the Urim and Thummim and laugh him out of town? How would he defend that? 

As much as I am willing to grant him religious genius, there are other factors that convince me that he did not make up either the Book of Mormon or the story of the Restoration of the gospel and the Church of Jesus Christ to the earth. I am grateful for this small, but important question. It is easy for me to answer in the negative. It becomes one more small bit of evidence that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, operating on a completely unexpected level and in a completely unexpected, but not illogical way.

Let’s think together again, soon

Notes:

1.  For a detailed overview of these issues up to that time, see James Hastings, A Dictionary of the Bible, 5 vols, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988, 4:838-41.  Originally published between 1898 and 1902.

2. LeGrand Richards, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, 72-73.

Why I Believe: Evidence Fifty-Five: The Book of Mormon and the Psychological Impact of Gross Immorality Upon Individuals and Society”©

101 Reasons Why I Believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet.

Evidence Fifty-Five:

The Book of Mormon and the Psychological Impact of 

Gross Immorality Upon Individuals and Society” 

Living in a sex-saturated society, I have often contemplated the wisdom of a passage in the Book of Mormon. The prophet Jacob, Nephi’s younger brother, in an attempt to magnify his office (Jac. 2:2), calls the people together to speak to them. Jacob is grieved, he tells them, because they “are beginning to labor in sin”(2:5), even a “very abominable” sin. He is further grieved because of “the wickedness of their hearts.”(2:6.) He knows his people have come to hear “the word which healeth the wounded soul”(2:8), but he is under “strict command” to speak of their wickedness.(2:10).  He begins with a discussion of the sins of pride, thinking they are better than others, and their serious misuse of their prosperity and wealth, which should be used with the “intent to do good–to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and afflicted.”(2:19)

But he has yet more on his mind– “grosser crimes” as he calls them.(2:22-23) They have justified and excused themselves of their “whoredoms”–including taking additional wives or concubines, by perverting scriptures written about David and Solomon. He went on to accuse them of being more wicked than the Lamanites, who kept the commandments concerning these things  given them by their father Lehi.(2:34) Then he utters this remarkable passage, of which there is no equal in the Bible:

Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you.  And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds. (Jac. 2:35)

This passage strikes me as not only extremely important for our day; it also raises an interesting question about the author of the passage, especially the last phrase, “many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.” It is common among Joseph’s critics to accuse him of possessing excessive sexual libido and a deficient character which led him into gross immorality. If he was so possessed, I ask where the sensitivity expressed in this passage came from? They would say it came from his own hypocritical heart. Having devoted myself for several years to produce an early study of his plural marriages, I do not believe it for a moment. Moreover, I have to ask, “What events may have transpired in his family life or near environment before he was the age of twenty-five, when this book was published, which may have so sensitized him? This, of course, is asked, from the critic’s view that Joseph Smith was the author of the Book of Mormon. But, I don’t believe that for a moment either. Nevertheless, I am not aware of any serious infidelity within Joseph’s immediate family which would have produced the understanding and deep feeling expressed in Jacob’s statement, and as far as I know we have no indication from him that any like event in his immediate society effected him deeply.

When one considers Jacob’s words without preconceptions and prejudice, the depth and poignancy of the psychological insight is staggering. Was Joseph Smith in and of himself, at age twenty-five, in possession of such wisdom?  I wonder, and as much as I respect him, I doubt. Here is what Neal A. Maxwell has written about the Jacob pericope:

Clearly there are psychological scars left in the wake of unchastity, however sophisticated the indulgent society may believe itself to be. Unchastity can cause a kind of inner death, resulting in bitterness, emptiness, or in equally disabling and profound passivity. Children also pay a price: witness what might be called the Sayonara syndrome—the resentment of thousands of young Japanese men and women now coming of age who were fathered by American serviceman and were abandoned, cruelly stranded between two cultures. At least the Lieutenant Pinkerton in Puccini's Madame Butterfly had to face the consequence of his abandonment of Cho-Cho San.(1)

I am sure much, much more could be said about the negative psychological as well as social and cultural impact gross immorality produces on the individual, family, and society. Personally, when I consider this brief but wonderfully profound episodic teaching, I stand in awe that the Book of Mormon which is literally filled with such gems, was produced by a relatively unlettered farm boy in back woods New York in 1830. To me it speaks of the greatness of the book and the divine inspiration which rested upon the boy-man who translated it by the gift and power of God. It is one more small evidence which encourages me to believe he was a prophet of God.

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:

1.  Neal A. Maxwell, A Time to Choose, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1975, 60.

Elder Maxwell on the Critical Importance of the Home and Family to the Individual and Society

Below is a wonderful outline of the vital and critical importance of the home and family to not only the individuals in the family, but to society as a whole.  Unfortunately, as he mentions below, this is not a subject which garners much attention in the public square.  Yet, it should, because, as he so persuasively points out, the home is the seat of the solution to most of the ills which plague modern society.  “The home,” he asserts, “lies at the headwaters of the stream of civilization,” and should receive receive the care and emphasis it merits.  There is much, much more, but it is best read in his own eloquent, thought provoking, and prophetic words.

*********

Our best opportunity to develop discipleship is in the home, including the skills needed for communication. The family is the institution about which few people talk, and about which little is done in America. Yet we continue to use compensatory educational, economic, governmental, and political programs to solve or treat problems that are actually rooted in the home. Even though these efforts are sincere and needed, they will never deal fully with the problem of an unloved child who has not learned discipline or work, and the resultant tragedy which so often occurs.

The American home needs help badly. The pressing need for effectiveness in solving human problems will turn our attention, finally, in America, to the home as an institution. It is there that we most often learn about love, trust, self-discipline, and work. Our society rests on "obedience to the unenforceable"—a special kind of self-discipline—and this is best taught in the home. In this sense, our roles as fathers and mothers are more crucial than our public roles, for "no other success can compensate for failure in the home." ...

Concentrating on the quality of life in the home is, ultimately, the best way to raise the quality of life in society. A concern for justice in the home—experienced and discussed—could do much to assure concern for the underprivileged. This could result in wise legislation or even make legislation unnecessary. One of the best ways to prepare to replicate love, trust, discipline, and concern is for children to experience them, to know their fruits, and to refuse to be satisfied with a world devoid of such qualities.

Failure in the home clearly calls for compensatory institutions, but the home lies at the headwaters of the stream of civilization, and we must keep it happy and pure. When the home fails or is polluted, we must, of course, support "treatment" efforts downstream. But we must not become so fascinated with the filtering operation that we ignore prevention and desert our post at the headwaters. Building a happy home may not seem to have the immediate human impact of counseling in a juvenile detention center. Both are necessary, but the emphasis should fall on the home if we wish to prevent massive misery.

So far as contemporary American society is concerned, it is difficult to conceive of any issues around which there could be such profound separation as that which now exists around the role and mission of the home and family. The current indifference toward the home includes such inaccurate assertions as:

—The family is no longer vital because it is not an effective economic unit.

—The family is irrelevant because one human being cannot really meet the needs of another. This is especially true in a situation in which authority is vested in imperfect individuals such as parents who often seek to meet their needs, not those of their children.

—The family and marriage are not so crucial because we must get used to ever-changing, temporary relationships with other humans, rather than those which make continuing demands of us, such as the family.

It seems peculiar that advocates of family change become upset with some of us because we are not enthralled with their new labels for old, and unwise, practices. The anti-family proponents have simply relabeled sexual freedom as a chance for meaningful relationships, which is just a cover for fornication or adultery. Rhetoric seems to cover the need for real reform.

It is also odd that a culture which has reached a plague level of alienation would have us cut away the final moorings of the family, and that a society in danger of anarchy should seek to depose one last source of authority—parents. Our society pleads for more outer controls to compensate for our unwillingness to discipline ourselves, yet attacks the home where there is still the best chance to learn self-control.

Where can one better develop his capacity to love while he is being loved unconditionally, than in family life?

The best place for procreation is still the family which can offer a child love and a sense of belonging. We have enough data to tell us about the extra perils of children born out of wedlock, who never know their father.

The home is still one of the best places to learn the importance of work. Gibran said that "work is love made visible," and the interplay of love and work learned in a family can affect one's whole lifestyle and the quality of his subsequent service to mankind.

The best place to struggle with our need to establish a balance between freedom and order is with those who can help us with our failures—the family. It is the best place to acquire beliefs and values with which to cope with life, just as a home is the best place for sanctuary and renewal.

A committed member of the Church must understand the implications of his beliefs with regard to the home. This different commitment will mean, among many things, knowing that—

—the home is so crucial that it will be the source of our greatest failures as well as our greatest joys.

—the home is one place that will press us to practice every major Gospel principle, not just a few as may be the case in some fleeting and temporary relationships.

—the pressures of life in a family will mean we shall be known as we are, that our frailties will be exposed and, hopefully, we shall then correct them.

—the affection and thoughtfulness required in the home is no abstract exercise in love. It is real. It is no mere rhetoric concerning some distant human cause. It is an encounter with raw selfishness, with the need for civility, of taking turns, of being hurt and yet forgiving, of being at the mercy of others' moods and yet understanding why we sometimes inflict pain on each other.

—family life is a constant challenge, not a periodic performance we can render on a stage and run for the privacy of a dressing room to be alone with ourselves. The home gives us a great chance to align our public and private behavior, to reduce the hypocrisy in our lives—to be more congruent with Christ.

Committing oneself to the unglamorous demands of discipleship in family life is not a task for those who wish to run away, nor for those whose human causes are chosen precisely because the cause is distant and makes no real demands of them. It is the same for all the basic teachings of Jesus which constitute that solitary path to salvation.(1)

Let's think together again, soon.

Notes:  

1.  Neal A. Maxwell, A Time to Choose, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1975, 84-88.

Apostolic Counsel to the Young: Understand the "Experience Gap”©

Most of you know that I like the thinking of Neal A. Maxwell. Sometimes each paragraph provokes thought to the point that it is difficult to move through much distance very rapidly. The statement below is important for several reasons. First, he identifies an additional modern dimension to the traditional “generation gap.” Most adults recognize it through experience, even if they have not verbalized it as a “experience gap.” My hope is that the younger generation–young marrieds down through high school–will give some thought to this problem, because though they know they have things different from their parents, the tendency is to think that anything modern is superior to what went before. Elder Maxwell suggests here that, that is not necessarily so. So, he kindly, almost imperceptibly, says, “The succeeding generations are counseled not to be too quick to condemn....” 

That is good advice, which my experience suggests is not often heard and is followed even less. But, he adds a reason for doing so which should give the young some pause. Though I fear that one blind spot in most youth is the lack of appreciation for the value of experience. I had it myself. As a young seminary teacher working with high school kids, I really wanted to be teaching on the college level. Our system had a tradition that institute teachers at the college level must pay their dues first and gain some important experience. I chafed at the tradition and ad hoc policy. Much later, after a lot more experience, I began to realize its importance. So, I won’t be surprised if my young readers may pass over this counsel fairly glibly–but I plead with them not to do so. Finally, Elder Maxwell urges us–old and young alike–to learn from the the experience and wisdom of the past, like the lessons we frequently encounter in the scripture, especially the Book of Mormon. Wise men such as Church leaders have great experience and much wisdom to share.  Their teachings, like the one below from Elder Maxwell, are worth some serious thought. I commend his counsel to all, especially my young friends.

********

Time and time again, the harsh consequences of such a heedless eat, drink, and be merry lifestyle are underscored by the Book of Mormon. It gives us a longitudinal look at real people under the real pressures of life. We must not lose our capacity for love, order, civilization, morality, or to earn the confidence of our children or our capacity to feel

For instance, all ages have probably had a generation gap, but in our time another dimension has been added: the experience gap. At one time, man’s way of life was so stable that the ordinary life experiences of young and old were very similar. Now events that once stretched over decades are compressed into months or even weeks; technology and the knowledge explosion have resulted in a condition in which parents and their children have grown up in very different worlds. 

The older generation, having learned some vital things at great pain and sacrifice, is understandably anxious to transmit these lessons without having, its imperfections obscure the very things it most wants the next generation to hear. The succeeding generations are counseled not to be too quick to condemn, for they have yet to wear the moccasins of responsibility. 

In the solemn stillness that he experienced, Moroni had reasons to rage at the failures of his ancestors, but instead he urged us to be glad and give thanks unto God for what we could learn from the past. 

So it should be in our homes, our politics, and our classrooms.The generations need not be adversaries. Instead, they can relate as friends who seek to read the past in order to fashion a better future; their evaluations are made as they touch each other intellectually and spiritually, even though they are on different levels of experience. Complete compatibility of experience is unlikely, but a flow of trust between the generations can compensate for it in large measure.(1)

Let's think together again, soon.

Notes:


1.  Neal A. Maxwell, A Time to Choose, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1975, 61-62.

Why I Believe: Evidence Fifty-Four: “Mighty Prayer”©

101 Reasons Why I Believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet.

Evidence Fifty-Four:

“Mighty Prayer”© 

Introduction:

This morning in my personal study time before Church I made what has to be one of the most remarkable spiritual discoveries in my almost seventy-five years of mortality. I am presently working on two projects.  First, I have been making a study of prayer. At the moment I am studying the prayers in the Old Testament.  Second, I am embarking upon what looks to be an intensive and long, perhaps three or more years long study of 3 Nephi. This morning the two projects converged.

As I worked on 3 Nephi 1:11-12, I decided to examine the idea of “mighty prayer” suggested by the statement in verse 12 that Nephi “cried mightily unto the Lord, all that day.” I brought up my trusty Bible search software WordCruncher and typed “mighty prayer” in the search line and hit enter. To my great surprise and shock, the phrase does not appear in the KJV of the Holy Bible! Really? If, I would have asked you how many times you thought the phrase “mighty prayer” existed in the Bible, my guess is that your response would be something like mine and that of my wife–“Oh, maybe a half dozen times.” But no.  It isn’t in there at all. Astonishing!

Almost nothing in the Bible: 

So I tried other phrases. “Pray mightily.” Nothing. “Prayed mightily.” Nothing.  “Cried mightily” is in Revelation 18:2, but not in reference to prayer. “Cry mightily unto the Lord.” Same result “Cry mightily unto God” shows up one time, in Jonah 3:8. This comes from the king of Nineveh when his people accepted Jonah’s warning, and the king said, “But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.” So the Bible is not without the concept, but it is hardly prominent. Many of the commentaries I checked for this verse said nothing about “cry mightily unto God.”  Most were concerned with the syntax of the verse and sought to make it clear that the king was not advocating that the beasts were crying mightily unto God. Thus, there is only one peaked reference in the Bible to this potent idea.

When I turned to the Internet I was confident that some preacher or minister or some other Bible believing soul would have given a sermon or written a blog about mighty prayer. But almost nothing here either! Moreover, anything I could find, did not use a Biblical passage as a text upon which to build the idea. Can you believe it? It is probably because the concept is not prominent in the Bible.Is it possible this is a new religious idea? I really doubt it.Surely in the 6,000 years plus history between Adam and 1830 when the Book of Mormon was published, someone somewhere has discussed “mighty prayer.” But if they have, there isn’t much indication of it on the Internet as of mid-July 2018.

Another side to the coin: 

There is, however, another side to this coin. The phrase “mighty prayer,” and similar phrases mentioned above, do appear in modern scripture. Surprisingly, most of them are in the Book of Mormon. Here is a breakdown. The phrase “mighty prayer” may be found six times in the Book of Mormon and twice in the Doctrine and Covenants.  It is in 2 Ne. 4:24; Enos. 1:4; Al. 6:6; 8:10; 3 Ne. 27:1; Moro. 2:2; D&C 5:24; and 29:2.  “Cried mightily” is found in Mos. 29:20 in reference to prayer; and 3 Ne. 1:11-12.  “Prayed mightily” is in Al. 2:28 and 46:13. “Cry mightily to God” is in Mosiah 21:14". Cry mightily to/ unto the Lord” is in Mosiah 9:17; 11:25; and Morm. 9:6 (see the variation here).

It is obvious that the Book of Mormon champions the idea of “mighty prayer” and those who engage in it. This is in stark contrast to the Holy Bible. It appears that the Lord wanted the concept of “mighty prayer” to be a significant element in the Restoration of the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

All of this, of course, leads to a rather obvious question. If the Book of Mormon is not a translation of an ancient sacred record; if it is a whole-cloth creation of Joseph Smith alone; if it comes from one whom many enemies characterize as a Satan-inspired religious knave, impostor and immoral megalomaniac, why does it contain the very specific, very righteous, and very important idea of “mighty prayer” which is only barely hinted at by a pagan king in the Bible? It is one more evidence to me of the divine nature of his call as a prophet/translator whom the Lord used as his instrument to begin the restoration of the fullness of the everlasting Gospel in the last days.

A follow-up question surfaces. Is it possible this is one of those “plain and precious” things that Nephi tells us was left out of the Bible?

Let’s think together again, soon.

Expanding My View of “Ministering”©

Frankly, I’ve been a little concerned about the way the new concept of “ministering” has been introduced and received in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Much of the discussion of moving from being a home or visiting teacher to a minister has stressed that ministers operate by the Spirit and show up when there is a great crisis, need, or problem of some sort. Frankly, a number of people, both ministers and those being ministered to, have sighed relief and said either, “Well, my people are active and don’t have big problems so they don’t need a regular visit and certainly not a regular lesson.” Or, “We are an active and very involved family in the Church; we have few problems and we are relieved, we don’t need to be bothered every month.”

Wanting to be faithful, wanting to magnify my calling, and most of all wanting to understand the real nature of my duty I went to work. Much of the discussion has revolved around the administrative natures of the changes, almost none of which helped me as an individual minister. I decided to see what the Lord has said about ministering in the church. I found half a dozen passages which were very helpful. They defined ministering in other terms, terms which surfaced again and again. They included, “watch over,” “be with,” “strengthen,” “nourish,” “shepherd,” “love,” “care for,”  and “remember.”

Below I reproduce those passages with some emphasis to highlight things I think expand our understanding of both the term “minister,” and those individual words themselves. Below that I will have an observation or two.

Mosiah 23:18   18)  Therefore they did watch over their people, and did nourish them with things pertaining to righteousness.

Alma 5: 59-61   59) For what shepherd is there among you having many sheep doth not watch over them, that the wolves enter not and devour his flock? And behold, if a wolf enter his flock doth he not drive him out? Yea, and at the last, if he can, he will destroy him. 60) And now I say unto you that the good shepherd doth call after you; and if you will hearken unto his voice he will bring you into his fold, and ye are his sheep; and he commandeth you that ye suffer no ravenous wolf to enter among you, that ye may not be destroyed.61) And now I, Alma, do command you in the language of him who hath commanded me, that ye observe to do the words which I have spoken unto you.   

Moroni 6:4   4) And after they had been received unto baptism, and were wrought upon and cleansed by the power of the Holy Ghost, they were numbered among the people of the church of Christ; and their names were taken, that they might be remembered and nourished by the good word of God, to keep them in the right way, to keep them continually watchful unto prayer, relying alone upon the merits of Christ, who was the author and the finisher of their faith.

D&C 20:38, 42  38) The duty of the elders, priests, teachers, deacons, and members of the church of Christ.... 42) And to teach, expound, exhort, baptize, and watch over the church;

D&C 20: 53-55  53) The teacher's duty is to watch over the church always, and be with and strengthen them;54) And see that there is no iniquity in the church, neither hardness with each other, neither lying, backbiting, nor evil speaking; 55 And see that the church meet together often, and also see that all the members do their duty.

Most impressive to me was a revelation given to Sidney Rigdon to watch over Joseph Smith:

D&C 35:18-19   18) And I have given unto him [Joseph Smith] the keys of the mystery of those things which have been sealed, even things which were from the foundation of the world, and the things which shall come from this time until the time of my coming, if he abide in me, and if not, another will I plant in his stead. 19) Wherefore, watch over him that his faith fail not, and it shall be given by the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, that knoweth all things.

And I liked this from Elder Holland:

Indeed, the report that matters most is how you have blessed and cared for those within your stewardship, which has virtually nothing to do with a specific calendar or a particular location.What matters is that you love your people and are fulfilling the commandment ‘to watch over the church always.(1)

Reflections upon the above passages:

It seems to me that the Lord has always been concerned for the spiritual welfare and progress of his people, from convert to someone like me with a foot and a knee in the grave. So he organized things so properly authorized people would be given stewardship over various groups to see that spirituality was developed, maintained, and increased and his children received attentive, loving ministrations throughout their lives. Those groups include every family and individual, as well as quorums, Relief Society, Young Men and Women, Primary, Wards, Stakes, and Regions.

When rightly understood, I believe, these and other passages suggest that everyone needs someone to regularly remember, be with, watch over, nourish, strengthen, love, and bless them. Watching over is not snupervising; it includes at least acting like a shepherd to watch for potential dangers and evils and help provide protection like a shepherd does for its flock. It is to “keep them in the right way ... continually watchful unto prayer, relying alone upon the merits of Christ.” It is to “see there is no iniquity in the church, neither hardness with each other, neither lying, backbiting, nor evil speaking.”  The word “always” also shows up in the context of watching over the church.  Ministers nourish the Saints. President Nelson said, “Just as the body requires daily food for survival, the spirit needs nourishment as well.  The spirit is nurtured by eternal truth.”(2) To nourish involves providing things pertaining to righteousness, and with the good word of God. The metaphor "nourish" implies at least necessity, regularity, consistency, and quality.

So I ask, “How can my ministers be with me, strengthen and nourish me, bless me, watch over and care for me, teach, exhort, and love me if they are not regularly in my home and my life? If they only show up when the Spirit prompts them that I have some emotional or physical crisis, problem, or need, how can they assist me in the ongoing sustaining of my spiritual life and testimony, my steady progress in things pertaining to righteousness, and protection from Satan’s doctrines, philosophies, and tactics, from his “ravening wolves?” How much care and love will I receive from infrequent visits or messages only when it is thought I’m in special need? These scriptures tell me I (and everyone else) am in constant need of strength, nourishment, encouragement, love, being cared about and watched over.  My goodness, if Joseph Smith needed Sidney Rigdon to be assigned to watch over him “that his faith fail not,” who am I to say to my “minister,” I’m doing well, I don’t need your visit? Who am I to say that my family does not need to be taught, exhorted, and even have the gospel expounded to them regularly by a caring friend? People who think these things can be passed over are self-deluded and in greater need than they know.  

BTW, happy Fathers Day!

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:  

1. Jeffrey R. Holland, “Emissaries to the Church,” Ensign (November 2016): 62.

2. Russell M. Nelson, Accomplishing the Impossible, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2015), p. 42. 

Give the First-fruits to God: An Amazingly Important Lesson for the Young ©

This morning I encountered one of the great lessons I have learned in life.  It comes just weeks before my seventy-fifth birthday. Given the lesson, my age makes it all the more poignant. I have been studying the prayers in the Old Testament and this morning I came to Deuteronomy 26.  It is a bit complicated, but let me see if I can simplify it for you, to make the lesson apparent.

The Lord delivered Israel from Egyptian bondage and brought them, after forty years of wandering to kill off the old disbelievers and unfaithful, to the Promised Land. Now he instructed Israel that on the day after the festival of the Passover a sheaf of the  “first-fruits” of the harvest should be offered to God as a thanksgiving offering on behalf of the people generally. (See Lev. 23:10-ff.) In the early verses of Deuteronomy 26 the Lord instructs individuals to gather a basket of the first-fruits at the end of the harvest season as a thank offering. They are to bring it to the designated spot, probably the tabernacle or later the temple.  Certain prayers of thanksgiving are to be offered.  Tithing is to be paid on the harvest and additional prayers to be offered. The question arises, “Why does the Lord want us to give him the first-fruits?”

As I read some commentary on this chapter the point was made that the first-fruit offering was intended to be the best. It was young, tender, tasty, and nourishing. It was the best of the harvest and the best was for God. We have heard this often–that the best is for God. And there are good reasons that the first-fruits are given as a thanksgiving offering. First, it acknowledges that God is the giver of all the good things which support and sustain life. Second, we are to learn to give the best to God, even of those very things which we have anticipated and looked forward to all season. We glorify God and serve him first. This requires discipline and self-denial. These are wonderful and powerful ideas when it comes to worshiping God and thanking him for his blessings.

But there is a third lesson–and this is the lesson that was new and powerful to me. It comes from a commentary by a man named Matthew Henry. He was a believer–a real believer, and he had an extraordinary sensitivity to the Gospel and its teachings. I have learned to love him and his writings. They always instruct and edify me. And significantly, they are always attended by a special tender and sweet spirit, something I have found to be unusual in many commentaries. Here is what he said:

To give God the first and best we have .... Those that consecrate the days of their youth, and the prime of their time, to the service and honour of God, bring him their first-fruits, and with such offerings he is well pleased.(1)

Note please the application this has for the young–teenagers, young adults, young marrieds. To “consecrate the days of their youth”–the first-fruits–to God. And to consecrate the” prime of their time”--the first-fruits of time to God. Such actions by the young are noble and righteous acts of gratitude, consecration and worship. They acknowledge that all they have, including youth, energy, gifts and talents, come from God and they are only returning to him what is rightfully his.(1 Chron. 29:14; Ps. 24:1; D&C 104:17) The truth of this idea struck me as both self-evident and powerful. Unlike ninety-three-year-old Russell M. Nelson, as a seventy-five year old man my contributions are minimal. Recently I was released from serving as a sealer in the Logan Temple. Health issues were one of the main reasons.  From such a perspective I have a greater sense of the necessity of consecrating one’s youth to God, his church and kingdom.  

It would be a great blessing for the young of the Church to have this perspective. In late evening talks with the missionaries of my office staff in the California Roseville Mission we often discussed the “wasted youth” syndrome. Young men often spent great amounts of time practicing sports–I used to tell of boys in the parking lot of our church behind our house practicing skate boarding moves hours on end. Contrast that with the amount of time any of them spent preparing for a mission by reading and memorizing scripture. The comparison is stark and scary. Today similar problems arise with young men and some young women who are addicted to their personal devices and waste huge amounts of time surfing, socializing, and playing games on the Net.

I have also noticed in most wards I have lived in the past fifty years that the older High Priests do the family history and attend the temple. Many young couples argue that they are “too busy” to do those things–that will have to come later. So, when we have “ward temple days” the younger set are often conspicuously absent. But they can get to the basketball and football games, the latest movies, put prodigious amounts of time into careers, and make time for regular vacations. Remember the “Rich young ruler”? He had lots of money and authority and wanted to know what “good thing” he needed to do to be saved? (Mt. 19:16) His question was nearly perfect–except there is not just one thing one can do. The Lord took him seriously, in fact Mark says that Jesus “beholding him loved him.” (Mk. 10:21) The young man was told to sell all that he had, give it to the poor and follow Jesus. He had the opportunity to give the first-fruits–the best he had in resources, leadership, influence, time, energy, dedication, thought, and commitment, but he went away sorrowing because “he had great possessions.” Because of other priorities he squandered the opportunity to give the first-fruits.

Think about the energy, enthusiasm, strength, and quick minds of the young. No wonder the Lord want’s the first-fruits. Many have given them. Jesus is the prime and divine example. The most important life and act in the cosmos was completed by age thirty-three! Joseph Smith finished his mission at age thirty-eight. Remember young David, Samuel, and Mormon. All givers of the first-fruits par excellence. Alma taught his son Helaman to “learn wisdom in thy youth.”(Al. 37:35.) What greater wisdom can one learn than to give God the best and do it when you are young, healthy, energetic, and all your brain cells hitting on all six? What greater wisdom than to give God the first-fruits?

I urge the youth–most of my grand children fit here–high school and college age kids, young adults, returned missionaries and young marrieds (especially those from the CRM), to get a testimony that the Lord wants your “first-fruits” offering and then redouble your commitment to see that he gets it.

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:  

1.  Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, new modern edition in six volumes, (n. p.: Hendrickson’s Publishers, Inc., 1991), 1:647, emphasis added.

America's Award For Youth-Look Into It©

If you have highly motivated children or grandchildren they may be interested in "The Congressional Award" styled as "America's Award For Youth."  It has some similarities to the personal progress programs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and may be of special interest to young Mormons.  The promotional literature about the program says:

"The Congressional Award is the United States Congress’ award for young Americans. ...  Participants earn Bronze, Silver, and Gold Congressional Award Certificates and Bronze, Silver, and Gold Congressional Award Medals. Each level involves setting goals in four program areas: Voluntary Public Service, Personal Development, Physical Fitness, and Expedition/Exploration. Earning The Congressional Award is a fun and interesting way to get more involved in something you already enjoy or something you’d like to try for the first time. You move at your own pace – on your own or with your friends. This is not an award for past accomplishments. Instead, you are honored for achieving your own challenging goals after registering for the program.

Regardless of your situation, you can earn The Congressional Award. The Congressional Award has no minimum grade point average requirements. It accommodates young people with special needs or disabilities who are willing to take the challenge."

I urge parents and young people to check this out, here:

http://congressionalaward.org/program/

Lets think together again, soon.