WHAT DO YOU THINK OF DONALD TRUMP NOW?

 Well, Kevin McCarthy, Lindsey Graham, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Mike Lee, and scores more of blind followers of the blind, what do you think of your boy now?

Donald Trump on Truth Social: “Do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”

Holy smoke!

More than two years ago I told my wife, Donald Trump is a despot, a wannbe dictator, and I believe they will have to throw him out of the White House when he loses the election. It came mighty close to that and the more we learn it may have been even closer than we first thought.

He still believes he is the president. He goes by that title and has the presidential seal both on Truth Social.  

Today, he revealed exactly what I felt about him even before his election, during the end of his term, and even more since January 6. I’m crowing just a tad, because today vindicates every negative thought and feeling I have ever had about the man, though largely unspoken to anyone but my wife. 

However, today I’m happy! The leopard has at last shown his true spots–and one can only imagine how the above list, many other die-hard supporters, and my fellow Republicans are scrambling–some for the exits and others who will try to put a spin on it. What spin can they possibly put on it?  Only, that the man is a lunatic, completely out of touch with reality. He has sealed his fate as the Republican nominee as President in 2024, and to that I shout Hallelujah!!!  He is the true RINO!

Lets think together again, soon.

“Watch Ye and Pray, Lest Ye Enter Into Temptation”: A Neglected Form of Prayer©

In trying to improve my personal prayer life, I’ve been studying the teachings of Jesus about prayer in the New Testament. It has been very rewarding, enlightening, edifying, motivating, and at times troubling. This morning’s session was one of the latter. I’ve been working on the passage in Mark 14:36-39 about the Savior’s prayer in Gethsemane. Parallel versions are in Matthew 26:36-46 and Luke 22:39-46.  

Jesus has the disciples who are with him sit while he goes to pray. In Mark 13:34 he tells them to “tarry ye here, and watch.” In his prayer, he asks the Father if this “hour” might pass from him.  Inverse 39 of Matthew 26 he prays that “this cup may pass from me.” It seems evident that he is asking if he may be relieved from the suffering he is experiencing in Gethsemane. Yet, he tells his Father, “Nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.”(Mk. 14:36) He returned to find the disciples sleeping and gives this instruction in verse 38:“Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.” A similar injunction is in Mt. 26:41, but it is not in the Luke account. However, in Luke 21:36 there is something similar: “Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man.” It is the “watch and pray, lest ye enter into temptation” that upon closer examination has come to trouble me a bit.

The same Greek word is translated watch in Mark and Matthew, and it basically means to “keep guard,” or be “vigilant” or to “watch,” according to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. There are other Greek words translated watch in the New Testament and it is used 29 times there.  Interestingly, another Greek word that is translated watch is accompanied by the injunction to be sober. (See 2 Tim. 4:5; and especially1 Peter 4:7.) This is because the Greek word means to abstain from wine or avoid intoxication.

A watch can refer to a sentry or a group of guards, who are on guard or watch at a military instillation, or in a community at night. In both Jewish and Roman culture the nights were divided up into watches, when a watch was on guard for a certain period of time during the night. So the question arises what are we to understand by the phrase be on guard, vigilant, and watchful and prayerful so that you will not enter into temptation? 

Some commentaries are helpful here, but I was particularly struck by several who note that the idea of the watch is often associated with the military and it is worthwhile to consider the implications of this “military figure.”  W. H. Aitken said no soldier likes watch duty. They prefer the excitement and danger of the battlefield to the “long weeks of patient vigilance” required of watch duty.  Another point he makes is that the military analogy is about war, and “it is just so in the spiritual war” we are engaged in. He goes on to say that the guards have to be vigilant against the double dangers of the night and of intoxication.

But intoxication is not my worry or the point of this blog. The point is that to watch implies that we are to expect the approach of an enemy. That includes an examination of possible points of attack. That is what you prepare for, and where you prepare. Aitken continues: 

We need to remember that we are in an enemy's land, and that unless we are constantly breathing the atmosphere of heaven, the atmosphere of earth, which is all that we have left, soon becomes poisonous, and must produce a sort of moral intoxication.(1) 

The famous early American preacher, Henry Ward Beecher agrees with Aitken:

It is here taken for granted that we are making a [military] campaign through life. The assumption all the way through is, that we are upon an enemy's ground, and that we are surrounded, or liable to be surrounded, with adversaries who will rush in upon us, and take us captive at unawares. We are commanded, therefore, to do as soldiers do, whether in fort or in camp — to be always vigilant, always prepared.”(2)

In 2018, President Dallin H. Oaks taught:

Opposition is part of the plan, and Satan’s most strenuous opposition is directed at whatever is most important to God’s plan. He seeks to destroy God’s work. His prime methods are to discredit the Savior and His divine authority, to erase the effects of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, to discourage repentance, to counterfeit revelation, and to contradict individual accountability. He also seeks to confuse gender, to distort marriage, and to discourage childbearing—especially by parents who will raise children in truth.(3)

Vigilance and watchfulness requires that we must make a thorough assessment of our present situation in life and of our weaknesses–the places we are vulnerable to attack from the Adversary. This is where the discomfort begins for me. I have tried to be vigilant about many things through my life, but I honestly have to admit there have been very few times when I have seriously sat down and conducted an introspective review of my weaknesses and then prayed for guidance to set in place a plan to deal with them and for the strength to follow the plan through to completion. Beecher said, 

Watchfulness requires that a man should be honest, and should know where he is, and where his danger is. Let others set their watch where they need it, and you set yours where you need it. Each man's watchfulness should be according to his temperament and constitution.”(4)

He added another helpful reminder:

Your excess of disposition, your strength of passion, and your temptableness are not the same as your neighbour's. Therefore it is quite foolish for you to watch as your neighbour watches. Every man must set his watch according to his own disposition, and know his own disposition better than anybody else knows it.(5)

My resolve is to be awake, alert, and vigilant, and to make such an assessment and consult God to give me the vision to see the dangers, to honestly see my most serious weaknesses, and in creating a strategy to deal with those that he wants me to bolster and fix now. Consider joining me in this endeavor to step to a higher and holier way.

Let’s think together again, soon.

Endnotes:

1.  W. H. Aitken, “Watchfulness,” in Biblical Illustrator, at Mark 14:38.  Biblical Illustrator is a multi-volume compilation of “illustrations” which are generally helpful quotations which  illuminate a particular Biblical passage. All citations from this source are available online at Biblehub.com, at Mark 14:38.  It is located in the list of commentaries under the acronym BI.

2.  Henry Ward Beecher, “Watching–A Military Figure,” in Biblical Illustrator, at Mark 14:38.

3.  Dallin H. Oaks, “Truth and the Plan,” Ensign (November 2018): 27.

4.  Beecher, “Advantage In Knowing One’s Weak Point,” in Biblical Illustrator, at Mark 14:38.

5.  Beecher, “Each to Guard Against His Temptations,” in Biblical Illustrator, at Mark 14:38.

Bigotry and Prejudice Against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint Is Alive and Well in American Society and Its Colleges and Universities©

This will be brief, but I must speak out. Twice in the last year the supporters of teams in the PAC- 12 have given over to chanting the bigoted obscenity “F _ _ _  the Mormons” during football games against BYU. The history of persecution of the Latter-day Saints goes clear back to the beginnings of the Church in the early Nineteenth Century.  We have had two centuries to decide how to respond–mostly non-response, or taking it like a joke as with the play “The Book of Mormon.” These days we are often praised for our restraint. But the few articles I’ve read about these incidents, most of which call for an apology and even stricter measures, have all missed hitting directly a couple of important points to which I wish to call attention.

First, lets call a spade a spade. This is religious bigotry pure and simple. The academy prides itself upon leading the way through instruction and example of inclusion, diversity, and tolerance–except apparently for the Latter-day Saints. We seem to be one of the few groups in the U.S. against whom it is acceptable to publicly express religious prejudice and bigotry. It is not racism because we are not a race; it is not sexism either, though for certain reasons it may involve a near relative,(1) but it is religious prejudice and bigotry pure and simple. Freedom of expression sure, even blatantly offensive free expression for sure–all protected by our Constitution. I’m not calling for restrictions on such free expression–I am asking that we be clear about the nature of that expression. It is not reasoned debate or difference of opinion only. It is one of the most virulent types of free expression–castigating a minority group for its religious beliefs. It is expressed by the religiously prejudiced and bigoted in chants at a public sports event–where it nearly takes on a mob mentality.

Second, again lets call a spade a spade. This is a clear double standard in the academy and in our larger society. Imagine the outcry if this was shouted at the Catholics of Notre Dame, the Methodists of SMU, or Baylor Baptists. Doubtless it would be branded in the strongest terms as anti-Semitic if it was aimed at  “the Jews,” of Yeshiva University in New York.  (Do they even have a football team?  Probably not.)  It is difficult to imagine the outcry that would result if a PAC-12 crowd chanted this epithet at blacks, or gays, lesbians, bisexuals, queers, and transvestites. Such talk would not only be soundly and repeatedly condemned,  but very likely there would be calls for resignations and sanctions, maybe even reparations, and surely reformations of all types. Certainly such religious prejudice and bigotry should also be roundly condemned when aimed at the Latter-day Saints. I denounce this double standard and the religious bigotry it condones.

A significant segment of American society, including some of its colleges and universities, quietly harbor deep prejudice, bigotry and double standards toward The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  It is a minority that is often considered a societal pariah in private speech and discussions. So it shouldn’t surprise us when it sometimes surfaces publicly in the classrooms and at sports events. If tolerated and not resisted, it will only grow and eventually turn really ugly.  It always does.

Let’s think together again, soon. 

Notes:

1.  An approach in this direction was made by Elder Russell M. Nelson as quoted by Neil L. Andersen: "President Russell M. Nelson has said: “There are those who label us [as] bigots, but the bigots are those who don’t allow us to feel as we feel but want us to allow them to feel as they feel. Our stand ultimately boils down to the law of chastity. The Ten Commandments are still valid. They’ve never been revoked. … It is not our prerogative to change laws that God has decreed” (in Dew, Insights from a Prophet’s Life, 212)

Neil L. Andersen, “The Eye of Faith,” Ensign (May 2019): 37, n. 17.

Evidence Sixty-Eight: “Joseph Smith and One More Look at the Baptismal Covenant in Mosiah 18:8-10”©

 101 Reasons why I Believe Joseph Smith Was a Prophet of God

Evidence Sixty-eight

Joseph Smith and One More Look at the Baptismal Covenant in Mosiah 18:8-10©

It interests me how reading one thing on one subject often stimulates thinking about another aspect of the same subject according to one’s interests and projects. It happened to me again today.  The subject is the baptismal covenant as it is given to us from Alma in Mosiah 18.  The text reads:

8)  And it came to pass that he said unto them: Behold, here are the waters of Mormon (for thus were they called) and now, as ye are desirous to come into the fold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another's burdens, that they may be light;  9)  Yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God, and be numbered with those of the first resurrection, that ye may have eternal life—10) Now I say unto you, if this be the desire of your hearts, what have you against being baptized in the name of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a covenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you?

A covenant is typically defined as a mutual promise between two people. Indeed, Joseph Smith said, “it requires two parties to make a covenant, and those two parties must be agreed, or no covenant can be made.”(1) When Latter-day Saints speak of covenants with God, the traditional view is that it is a mutually agreed upon “two-way” promise between God and man.” Several brethren have taught that the stipulations of the covenant are determined by God and we exercise our agency to agree to those stipulations.

What interests me about this version of the baptismal covenant is that it goes beyond this traditional view of a covenant. Most covenants are “bilateral,” that is, they are between an individual and God.  However, my reading early this morning suggested that this iteration expands the covenant beyond the commitments between God and man, to impose obligations on those accepting God’s stipulations, to the wider covenant community. That is to say the individual member takes on the obligation to “bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light ... and ...mourn with those that mourn ... and comfort those that stand in need of comfort.”(2)

The distinction between a simple bilateral covenant and this more complex community compact is stunning when you think about it.(3) First of all, there is neither a clearly delineated bilateral or community compact version of the baptismal covenant in the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible is baptism designated as a covenant! It is considered so by some by inference only. This is interesting because in Nephi’s great visions early in the Book of Mormon he sees the Bible come forth in the Americas and it is missing some important “plain and precious things” which have been “taken away” from it. One specific he mentions is that “many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.”(4) But, back to my point. I suggest this community compact is not only more complex than the traditional bilateral covenant, but it is also more sophisticated, indeed more expansive and elevated in terms of the obligations it imposes on the recipient and the impact it is intended to have on the covenant community. God does not just want us to be a witness of him, serve him, and keep his commandments; he also obligates us to care for the community of Saints.

It is evident that Joseph Smith understood well the importance of the communal nature of this covenant.  Two years later he told the Church,

On the 27th [April 1832] ... It was my endeavor to so organize the Church, that the brethren might eventually be independent of every incumbrance beneath the celestial kingdom, by bond and covenants of mutual friendship, and mutual love.(5)

Seven years later he contrasted two types of principles which maintain human relations. First, he spoke of the gospel principle of love and contrasted it with the principles of government which maintain relationships by law and eventually coercion, when necessary:

There is a love from God that should be exercised toward those of our faith, who walk uprightly, which is peculiar to itself, but it is without prejudice; it also gives scope to the mind, which enables us to conduct ourselves with greater liberality towards all that are not of our faith, than what they exercise towards one another. These principles approximate nearer to the mind of God, because it is like God, or Godlike. 

Here is a principle also, which we are bound to be exercised with, that is, in common with all men, such as governments, and laws, and regulations in the civil concerns of life. This principle guarantees to all parties, sects, and denominations, and classes of religion, equal, coherent, and indefeasible rights; they are things that pertain to this life; therefore all are alike interested; they make our responsibilities one towards another in matters of corruptible things, while the former principles do not destroy the latter, but bind us stronger, and make our responsibilities not only one to another, but unto God also.(6)

Where is any of this to be found in the experience and environment of a New England and New York farm boy whom many accuse of only being interested at this time of his life in “money digging,” that is, searching for treasure with his psuedo-spiritual gift of seership? He was twenty-four years old when the Book of Mormon came off the press in March 1830. If he were making up this book to palm off on an unsuspecting world, what in that world would have impelled him to concoct Alma’s baptismal covenant?  What would be his motive? It is righteous and good, and noble, and elevated.  Where did a twenty-four-year-old of his time get this?(7) If it was genuinely in his heart as it is in Alma’s, that certainly contradicts the generally held anti-Mormon notion that he was a ne’er-do-well black heart, a corrupt fraud and deceiver.

And there is more. Noel Reynolds a retired BYU professor, in a recent article, shows how this passage, as are many others in the Book of Mormon, is expressive of the Biblical concept of hesed.  Hesed is a Hebrew term regarding God and his interaction with his children, the meaning of which is so broad that it is difficult to find an adequate synonym, or even a collection of synonyms to express it. Indeed, according to Reynolds, it calls “to mind the entire complex of moral qualities associated with God and his righteous people in covenant Israel.”(8) Regarding Alma’s statement in Mosiah 18 and the Biblical concept of hesed, Reynolds wrote:

[W]e do see the divinely sanctioned covenant structuring a community that expects each to help others as their means and abilities would allow, including the redemption of captives–in this case, the redemption of fallen people from the captivity of the devil....  In every respect, Alma’s description of the moral implications of the covenant reflects the classical Old Testament notion of hesed that was expected of Israelites under the covenant of Abraham....(9)

So, Reynolds adds one more example of The Book of Mormon as truly one “marvelous work and a wonder,” among many that continue to accompany the Restoration of the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But, even without Reynolds’s persuasive arguments about hesed in the Book of Mormon, Alma’s description of the baptismal covenant stands as a witness of the complex, elevated and deeply spiritual nature of the book in which it is found. Reason compels us to ask if young Joseph Smith was capable of imagining, let alone articulating such a covenant; one that is entirely consistent with both ancient covenants and concepts. In my opinion, the likelihood that he knew of these things in his farmland homes of the northeast approaches zero.

Thank God for Joseph Smith, The Book of Mormon, and faithful scholars.

Let’s think together again, soon.

Notes:  

1.  Joseph Smith, in B. H. Roberts, History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 Vols., Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1963, 1:313, hereafter cited HC.

2.  Mosiah 8:8-10. There are more stipulations that fit the traditional mold of a bilateral covenant between the individual and God, where one promises to “stand as a witness of God at all times and in all things, and in all places, and to “serve him and keep his commandments.”  

3.  This distinction was encountered in today’s early morning reading in Noel B. Reynolds, “Biblical hesed and Nephite Covenant Culture,”  BYU Studies Quarterly 60, no 4 (2021):167-69.

4.  1 Nephi 13:26.  Equally interesting is the motive attributed to those who took those things out of the Bible.  “And all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men.” (1 Ne. 13:27.)

5.  Joseph Smith, HC 1:269, emphasis added.

6.  Joseph Smith, HC 3:304, March 1839, emphasis added.

7.  And this is only one of many such like things, not only in the Book of Mormon, but also in the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price.  It brings to mind D&C 67:9 where the Lord is taking on critics of Joseph Smith’s revelations and asserts “For ye know that there is no unrighteousness in them, and that which is righteous cometh down from above, from the Father of lights.”

8.  Reynolds, “Biblical hesed,” 152.

9.  Reynolds, “Biblical hesed,”168-69.