Excommunication: Is it such a bad thing?

While my mother was watching "The Mormons," a woman was being interviewed about her excommunication. The documentary discussed, at length, excommunication, or the practice of removing an individual from membership. The slant in the documentary at this part is that excommunication is a horrid practice that splits families into fractures and that the LDS Church is awful for such a practice. This woman, Margaret Toscano, told the story of the Church Disciplinary Council that was held for her. After being told she was excommunicated, she related how the stake presidency and high priests offered to shake her hand: to quote directly, with niceness referring to the handshakes, she said, "the niceness covered over the violence of what was being done, because, in fact, excommunication is a violent action."

I watched momentarily as she spoke, and as my mother seemed relatively captured by the woman's words, I spoke up, saying, "If that's what she has to say about excommunication, she has no idea of it's purpose." My statement is truth. Fact.

The purpose of excommunication has nothing to do with shaming an individual, despite the fact that I guarantee more than one individual would argue this point with me. Just because you think it's about shaming, someone for doing something against the Church's doctrines, doesn't make it so. As much as I may want to float up to the stars, believing I'll suddenly be able to doesn't bring me any closer to those stars. For those who view it as shameful don't understand it's purpose.

It is viewed, undeniably, as a punishment for not keeping the commandments; no, for breaking the commandments to such an extent that simple repentance can't answer the ends of the law. When we break a law, there is a due that must be paid: justice demands it. However, I will argue with any who contend with me, that it's both a punishment and a blessing. And you'll see how and why by the end of this post.

When Jesus Christ was ministering to the peoples on the American continent after he showed himself to his disciples in Jerusalem and then ascended into heaven, he taught the doctrine of the sacrament. After administering the sacrament to the people, he turned to the disciples he had chosen there, and said this: "And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it; For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him." Whoa! That's some harsh doctrine, no? We can get into semantics about what it means to be unworthy, but I'll just point out one of the footnotes on "unworthily," and that says, "Go thy way unto thy brother, and first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I will receive you."

OK, so if we're unworthy, we don't want to be taking the sacrament, 'cause that's where the whole "eateth and drinketh damnation to [our souls]" comes in, and that just isn't something we want to be doing. So the Lord explained that "Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out from among you, but ye shall minister unto him and shall pray for him unto the Father, in my name; and if it so be that he repenteth and is baptized in my name, then shall ye receive him, and shall minister unto him of my flesh and blood." All right then, to be able to partake of the sacrament and not damn our souls, we need to repent, because that's the only way we can return to our Heavenly Father (to clarify for any Episcopalians who may be reading and think that last statement was blasphemous, I'll reword it: "we need to repent, utilizing the great Atonement performed by Jesus Christ, because that's the only way we can return to our Heavenly Father.")

On that note, have you ever noticed how often Heavenly Father is recorded as speaking to man? Not very often at all. Given this scarcity, one can assume that whenever God does speak, it's important and we 'ought to be listening, we 'ought to be doing what He tells us. In a vision, received by a prophet in the Book of Mormon, we're told that "...the Father said: Repent ye, repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son." So it's important we do whatever it is God tells us. Now, how important would something be if He repeats it? He said, "Repent ye, repent ye," think about that.

All right, let's say we're unworthy to take the sacrament, and we've decided for whatever reason, not to repent. What do the scriptures say about that? Well, Jesus Christ continued, saying, "But if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people, for behold I know my sheep, and they are numbered." What does it mean to not be numbered among the people of Christ? The aforementioned scripture completely explains it. Christ said, "I know my sheep, and they are numbered," and therefore, those who are not Christ's are not numbered, and those who reject Christ after knowing him "shall not be numbered."

In an article by M. Russell Ballard, we're told in the first few lines that "When members need to have certain blessings withheld, the Lord’s object is to teach as well as to discipline. So probation, disfellowshipment, and excommunication, when they become necessary, are ideally accompanied by eventual reinstatement and restoration of blessings" (italics added). Justice demands the dues be paid, but if we repent and turn back to Christ, he will pay those dues for us: he's promised he will, and he's bound by those promises. Elder Ballard speaks of excommunication (probation, and disfellowship) as a way to start over, indeed, the main part of the title of his article is "A Chance to Start Over," and so to again quote Elder Ballard, "[The Lord] is pleased to extend the chance [to us] to start over."

Excommunication is a form of protection. If I break one of God's laws after having made the most sacred of covenants with Him that I wouldn't, I come under grievous condemnation. If I continue on with breaking those laws and don't repent, I have guaranteed my condemnation. However, if I'm called to sit before a Church Disciplinary Council, I should have much gratitude for those men! Let's say they excommunicate me - what does that mean? It means the consequences for the laws I break after excommunication will not be as severe as they would be had I remained a member of the Church. That's what it means, period, despite any emotions I may have at losing my membership because of poor decisions I made, and sins I committed.

In a Q&A in a Church distributed magazine for youth called the New Era, Elder Robert L. Simpson answered the question: "What are the reasons for and the process of excommunication?" In this article, he states, "It is usually those who are so far removed from the spirit of truth as to be imperceptive to the love of Christ and the need for proper priesthood reprimand who leave the Church court with belligerence and ill feeling toward their priesthood leaders. These people are seldom sorry for what they have done but only sorry they have been caught."

To relate this back to Ms Margaret Toscano, interviewed for The Mormons, I believe this statement applies, unquestionably to her. She questioned the divine nature of the church with regard to the First Vision of the Prophet Joseph Smith, contended that women should hold the Priesthood and that it was something Joseph Smith actually taught, and also that he even bestowed the Priesthood upon women during temple ordinances. She also taught about Heavenly Father and the concept of a Heavenly Mother, which isn't alien to most members of the church (see Hymn 292, verse 3); the only twist she added was that Heavenly Father was both man and woman, the Father and the Mother in one. She believed in the false doctrine she was spreading, and as the Saviour himself stated, "...if [s]he repent not [s]he shall not be numbered among my people, that [s]he may not destroy my people..." Although this statement is harsh, such is the nature of truth. And why do I feel it's acceptable for me to analyze her this way? Because she's the perfect example, she spreads false doctrine that could unhinge the faithful, and she went on national television and spoke against the truth.

Excommunication is a saving grace. It is not meant to split up families, although families may choose to distance themselves from those who have been excommunicated - this is their right, just as it's their right to disagree with the beliefs or actions of one of their family members. I understand the distancing of oneself from a family member who has been excommunicated and refuses to repent and work towards having their ordinances, sealing, or priesthood restored to them. It is a practice that places a greater distance between God and the excommunicated, for the protection of the sinner. There can, and should be a happy ending for excommunicated members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

"Joseph Smith/Jesus Christ": Part II

All right, feeling gross and ill has kept me away, so I apologize for that, but let's get back into it. This is a... Review, I suppose, for the film, "Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith," produced by "Search for the Truth." From what I can tell, this is meant to be an unbiased analysis of Mormonism and how it compares to Christianity. This I find funny. Are Christians not defined as people who believe in, and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ? Apparently not. Let's dive in, shall we?

In my post entitled, ""Joseph Smith/Jesus Christ": Poignant or Pointless?", I listed two flaws in the film. One was the use of a quote by Elder Orson Pratt, taken from the periodical known as The Seer, which in 1865, received this damning statement from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. With regard to Elder Pratt's teachings they said, "The Seer [and other writings by Pratt] contain doctrines which we cannot sanction, and which we have felt impressed to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works, or parts of works, are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed." Now, the quote is a pretty good one, where Elder Pratt wrote, "Convince us of our errors of doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the Word of God, and we will be ever grateful for the information." Some context for this quote would have been nice, especially since someone searching for that quote would run across the fact that in that article, Elder Pratt was addressing his defenses of polygamy. Without knowing of the existence of the statement made by the leaders of the Church, that could perhaps cause some degree of damage someone's faith. Although, that's the job of the people at "Search for the Truth."

I haven't looked into any more of the video yet than I had watched as of Sunday, April 18th, so I can only presume that the way in which they quote scripture will continue throughout the rest of the video. What I'm referring to is the fact that they'll summarize the part of the scripture they aren't interested in, and then quote whatever part of the scripture they consider the focus. This is not only misleading but has a tendency to pervert the scriptures, and places on that scripture the restrictions of whatever interpretation they have made in their summary.

Let's continue. I'd say, "onward and upward," but something tells me that's not somewhere this DVD is heading, specifically in terms of how it's probably going to present the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So this is obviously where I think this DVD is headed, and after my analysis is done, I'll write a much shorter review of their DVD, just to sum things up.



OK, instantly, by their dividing of Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ to "determine which one holds the truth," we're presented with a dichotomy, as though Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ cannot be accepted together. I feel somewhat deceived, because the form of Christianity we're being presented with is the version of it that is riddled with Catholic believes, such as the Trinity. We're asked, "did he become a god through the faithful keeping of his ordinances, or has he always been the only true God?" This we're told, despite references in the Bible to Jesus Christ and his Father, such as the statement made by Christ at Golgotha, recorded in Matthew and Mark (with slight differences), "...Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Why would Christ ask this? If he is God and Christ, could he really forsake himself? How do they explain this scripture? Food for thought, and no doubt something to keep in mind while we venture through this DVD.

Another dichotomy is the presentation of scriptures: the Bible, or the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is claimed by the Latter-day Saints to be the most correct book on earth. Indeed, the Prophet Joseph Smith said, "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." (Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 volumes, edited by Brigham H. Roberts, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 4:461) This does not mean that the Book of Mormon is without errors, nor does it mean that we disbelieve the Bible. Our 8th Article of Faith states, "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God" (italics added). We believe in, and revere the Bible, but believe it was a book for the people of old. The Book of Mormon is likewise believed in and revered, the difference being that we believe it has come forth by the gift and power of God for the generations of people on the earth right now.


OK, now around 2:30 minutes into it, we're presented with the claims, or dichotomies, of Mormonism and Christianity: "both claim Jesus is the Christ, both refer to the teachings of the Old Testament, both claim to be the truth." Am I the only one seeing a problem here? Then, "lets now examine these two men and their teachings." A 10 second backtrack will reveal something interesting. She says, "both claim Jesus is the Christ." A look through Merriam Webster's dictionary tells us that a Christian is " one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ." So what's with this splitting of "Christianity," and "Mormonism," when Mormons are, in fact, and by definition, Christians?

Can you tell I'm having fun? Now, at just under 3 minutes into this, we're examining the person of Jesus according to "Search for the Truth." This is where I'm going to stop this post. And in explaining why, it's due to the fact that, although it may sound silly, or funny or ridiculous, I'm feeling too contentious. At this point I'd rather have a post that's as unbiased as it can possibly be, and when people become emotionally involved in their subject, bias is more prone.

Since the introduction has been covered though, I think it'll be relatively easy to go through the rest, especially since the groundwork has been set about which kind of Christianity is being compared here, and we've established that it's somewhat backwards in it's analysis of there being a dichotomy of either Christianity or Mormonism.

"Joseph Smith/Jesus Christ": Poignant or Pointless?

So, I had the opportunity to go to the temple on Saturday with some out-of-country friends: a former Sister missionary and her husband, their daughter and mother-in-law. As soon as we got over the crest of the hill, I saw a lone protester and was instantly giddy. I don't know what it is, but ever since I went to Salt Lake for the October 2008 General Conference, I find protesters to be.. well, a form of entertainment I guess.

Here's a photo I took from atop the Conference Centre of the protesters along the Square. My favourite is the guy left of centre, yeah, the one in the Satan outfit.

When I first joined the Church I had never heard of the "Mormons," and a few months into the year 2004 I went online and began looking at anti-Mormon material. I got wound up in this particular LiveJournal that claimed to be a place for "recovering Mormons," meaning LDS members who had left the faith. I forget the subject matter, but something caught my attention and I experienced a trial of faith. I posted a few times on the LJ and although a few of the people there claimed I was a "troll," someone else seemed keen on helping me through my difficulty, no matter which direction I chose: to continue with the Church, or to leave it. They believed I was actually experiencing a trial of faith, and I'll always be grateful to that mystery person for not pushing their own agenda but for helping me figure out what I wanted and believed.

Anyway, since then I've always been drawn to anti-Mormons, and though I stayed away from it for a couple years after that, I've gone through two stages with regard to my reactions to them: first I felt anger towards them, and now I react with a bit of humour. Yes, I find anti-Mormons funny. Well, for the most part, that is until I actually meet one who knows what they're talking about and have done their own research - then my response is a kind of searching interest.

So when we were leaving the temple, we pulled out into the street and saw a man handing out newspapers and little DVDs. I was intrigued because there was a picture of the Saviour and a picture of Joseph Smith on the cover. It's called "Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith," and is produced (as far as I can tell) by an organization called "Search for the Truth." In other words, this wolf in sheep's clothing was handing out DVD's to let people visiting the temple know the differences between Mormonism and Christianity. I'll edit that I think: the differences between Mormonism and Mainstream Christianity. As far as I'm concerned, there is a difference between the Christianity of today and the Christianity from Biblical times. A big difference.

So this is just an introduction to that video, which I'll watch within the week, and then post on. It's not looking good though; I'm only three and a half minutes in and I've found two errors. The first is within a quote by Orson Pratt, which is shown onscreen and states, "Convince us of our errors of doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the Word of God, and we will be ever gratefull for the information." As I'm an English major, I can't ignore the spelling mistake in the word "grateful." As for this quote, it's from a periodical Elder Pratt published in called The Seer (careful, that's a large PDF file), and that particular quote comes from an article he wrote defending polygamy. In 1865, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve released this statement with regard to Elder Pratt's teachings, "The Seer [and other writings by Pratt] contain doctrines which we cannot sanction, and which we have felt impressed to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works, or parts of works, are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed."

The next error seems to just be a part of what mainstream Christianity likes to do, that is, "simplify" the scriptures. On screen we're shown a supposed quote from the Book of Abraham, found within the LDS' Pearl of Great Price. Now, if you just read what it says, it seems like they're actually quoting the scripture, but instead they quote part of it and "simplify" the rest. Here's what they show: "Our Father said, 'Whom shall I send?' Two of our brothers offered to help. Our oldest brother, Jesus Christ, who was then called Jehovah, said, 'Here am I, send me." The way I first read it made me think the way most people would, that they were quoting, word for word, from the scriptures. I picked up my scriptures and thumbed through it until I found Abraham 3:27, curious about what they "simplified." The scripture reads: "And the Lord said" Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first." Now, I understand that mainstream Christianity uses different terms for the Saviour and for God, but is it really so difficult to understand? My real upset comes from the way they format this, making it appear as a quote when it isn't. Format, people, format.

All right, so this has been, like I said, the introduction. Yes, three and a half minutes has been stretched into two large paragraphs. Using simple math, this hour and twenty minute long video will probably be turned into about 23 paragraphs. Not only am I working on this video now, but I've got a commentary/review on current Quorum of the Twelve President, Boyd K. Packer's "The Holy Temple," (synopsis found here) in the works, as well as the previously mentioned posts on excommunication, the documentary known as "The Mormons," prayer regarding the Book of Mormon, and one on the purpose of temples. In other words, make sure you check back weekly for new posts!

Gifts! Gifts for Everyone!!

All right, so I clearly failed my vision of a post a day. But there's a very good reason! Which is that I received a last-second invitation to go on a 1200 mile road trip with a couple of friends. See? It's a good reason. Aside from that, I believe if you're going to fail, fail big. Well, not really, but for this post-a-day nonsense I do. More realistically, I think I'll be able to manage a post once a week.

So, what's the topic of this post going to be? I got into some friendly banter with a sibling, which was started by my asking, "What's the point of Easter, why do we celebrate it?" The response was "why don't you tell us?" Naturally, my response was, "It's a celebration of Christ's resurrection, of his power over death, and through him, our ability to be resurrected." It makes me giggle, but the conversation took a negative turn: "What's the definition of ignorance?", I was asked. Well, that's easy: "Lacking knowledge or training, being unaware or uninformed." And I posed a question to them, which was "What's the definition of undiscerning?" This ties into the topic of this post because the gift of discernment is, to me, a highly treasured gift. It gives one the ability to know right from wrong. There are degrees of all gifts, of course, but according to the scripture I've hyperlinked, we have all received the gift of discernment.

I like the idea of gifts from God. How amazing is the fact that God has given us all gifts? Some modern-day scripture tells us the following about gifts:

8 And again, I exhort you, my brethren, that ye deny not the gifts of God, for they are many; and they come from the same God. And there are different ways that these gifts are administered; but it is the same God who worketh all in all; and they are given by the manifestations of the Spirit of God unto men, to profit them.
• • •
17 And all these gifts come by the Spirit of Christ; and they come unto every man severally, according as he will.
18 And I would exhort you, my beloved brethren, that ye remember that every good gift cometh of Christ.
19 And I would exhort you, my beloved brethren, that ye remember that he is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and that all these gifts of which I have spoken, which are spiritual, never will be done away, even as long as the world shall stand, only according to the unbelief of the children of men.
• • •
24 And now I speak unto all the ends of the earth—that if the day cometh that the power and gifts of God shall be done away among you, it shall be because of unbelief.
25 And wo be unto the children of men if this be the case; for there shall be none that doeth good among you, no not one. For if there be one among you that doeth good, he shall work by the power and gifts of God.
• • •
30 And again I would exhort you that ye would come unto Christ, and lay hold upon every good gift, and touch not the evil gift, nor the unclean thing.

So, in short: All gifts are from God, although we may receive them in different ways. We have these gifts to "profit" us, although we can lose them through unbelief. Lastly, to truly embrace our gifts, those that we have and those which God is wanting to give to us, we need to turn to Christ.

Simple enough, right? All right, so now that we've got that out there, let's get deeper into it.

There are a vast number of gifts out there! Although as humans we tend to like to classify things, this isn't something I like to do that with. But I'll try, anyway. I think it would work best to do this by the outward manifestations of our gifts. The above scripture tells us that "there are different ways that these gifts are administered." This can apply in two different ways. The first is that God gives us these gifts in different ways ("to give," or "to mete out"), and the second is that we can use them in different ways ("to use"). My focus is on the first.

So the greatest of all the spiritual gifts we can receive (I dare you to dispute) is the gift of learning. If you're reading my words right now, you've received that gift - amazing! There are some people out there who are just really good at something, "naturally." These are the gifts that are given to us right off the bat. For example, when I was 9 I realized I had a knack for drawing (my focus was on Angora rabbits back then), but after awhile I noticed I could really only draw the things in front of me - if I can see it, I can draw it, and usually exceptionally well. This isn't meant to be a pat on the back, I'm just using myself to illustrate the point. Naturally, I was good at drawing. 11 years later, I don't think as highly of my drawings. This is because I haven't kept up with it as much as I should have. As such, I've begun drawing portraits whenever I have the opportunity. This is the second way in which we receive gifts - through learning.

If I want to learn a language, I can't just pray and hope I know it when the day is out. I actually have to go out, take classes, learn the basics of the language and if I can, go where it is they speak the language I'm learning. And if I've learned a language I need to keep using it or else I'll lose it.

As for classifying gifts into categories of their types, we can sort of do it: two categories being the temporal and the spiritual. Both of these types interact with each other, as well as a third type: intellectual. I think what I'm getting at is classification by the type of manifestation shown by each type of gift. For example, a close friend of mine is amazing with his guitar; this is an extrinsic manifestation, although of course it can interact with the spiritual (if he were to pray for increased talent) and the intellectual (learning theory, notes, chords,etc.). It isn't hard to think of extrinsic, or temporal gifts, although it may be more difficult to recognize spiritual gifts.

Some spiritual examples are listed in the scriptures: (these are found here) great faith, healing, being healed, performing miracles, prophesying, and seeing (either with their physical eyes or spiritually being able to "feel" their presence) angels and other spirits.

Now, if you actually clicked on that hyperlink up there and read the scriptures I sent you to, you'll notice I only used certain of the gifts it lists. This is because although all gifts can fall into all three categories (spiritual, physical, and intellectual), some do so more than others. In my opinion, speaking in tongues (or other languages; something I'll post on soon), being able to understand languages, being ridiculously intelligent, those things tend to more intellectual (understanding the complexities of a language, conjugation, word placement) and physical (taking classes, listening to CDs).

Through this reasoning then, when I say I'm the only thing standing in the way of me being as good a guitarist as my friend, I'm right. If I put in the hours, I can be as good as those people that I admire, and if I embrace Christ and accept the help from him and God, then my previous statement is even more true. To sum it up with a quote by Eleanor Powell, "What we are is God's gift to us. What we become is our gift to God."

The Poison We Call "Sin"

So this morning I've had a few moments to think about the depth to sin. I don't say that meaning "oh, yes, sin is sooo deep, so cool," in the sense that is often used these days when we compliment someone by telling them how deep and mysterious they are. I'll argue the complete opposite for sin, it isn't mysterious at all. By depth, I mean it in the sense that it can pull us in so tightly, to the point that our lips are barely gracing the surface of the water to give us breath.

Anyway, so as I was dreaming away I was awoken by a fist pounding on a door. I thought to myself, "Oh no, I've slept in," because I figured it was my mom banging on my little brother's door to wake him up for one of his classes. So I stared up at my ceiling wondering and listening: I knew I'd learn the truth of the situation given a little time. Yes, it was my mom pounding on the door, and yes, she was trying to wake him up.. But for a reason I didn't expect.

I confess myself gullible. I've been told by a few people I'm not really that close to that they've noticed I tend to "look for the good in people." I work hard at developing that because it's such a rarity in our times. I suppose it means something when someone shouts at another to wake up, bangs on their door and I don't automatically jump to the conclusion that one of them must have done something wrong. Well, that's what I did this morning. Which is why my thoughts on sin seem so revelatory.

As the situation progressed I learned that my mom had had some money in her jacket pocket and that in the course of the early morning, it had gone missing. My mom's main reason for believing my brother had taken the money was due to the fact that the kid keeps such strange hours! It seems to me that he's awake during all hours of the night and early morning, but I won't see him at all during the day until around supper-time. Anyway, the conversation they were having turned to undertones after she demanded he give her the money. It's all the same to me: it left me to my thoughts.

And the collection of those thoughts can be summed up relatively nicely in a single, short sentence: sin is poison. Afterward, before hearing my mom walk down the stairs, I heard her explain why that money had been in her pocket: she needed to pay for parking at the hospital. I don't know if I should given my previous admission, but I assume that if my brother had known that he wouldn't have touched the money, not because he'd eventually get caught, but because innately he is a good person.

No one is perfect, and I'm not posting this experience to show how flawed my sibling is. I could never make the claim that I've never stolen anything, money or possessions; that I've never lied about stealing something or to cover up some stupid thing I had chosen to do. That's a beautiful truth though: we choose.

So as I lay there I wondered something: when do you get to the point where although your initial sin was the width of a string, the sins you commit now are thicker than bound thread (think friendship bracelet width). Why don't we recognize we've fallen down a path that leads to greater sin?

To borrow a metaphor that I've often heard within (but also outside of) the Church, sin is like a frog in a pot. We're taught that Satan, mankind's adversary operates much in this way: when you put a frog in a pot of hot water, it jumps out. However, when you place that frog in a pot of cold water and turn up the heat, it will sit in that water until it boils to death. Gruesome, no? The adversary is similar in that he would never try to prompt me, an active Church member (saying prayers, reading scriptures daily, attending sacrament and other Sunday meetings, youth meetings weekly, etc.), to break the Law of Chastity. That's just a silly thing to suggest to someone in my position. A much better temptation, to get me down that road would be something like this: when I encounter an unclaimed bus ticket for the month, tell me I should pick it up and use it - it would save me money on fares, plus, I could still ask people for bus fare without actually needing it so I could save it for my mission.
Strange, no? Well, remembering what my goals are and what covenants I've made, although it may be a little difficult to say "no," it's do-able. That was an actual experience I had earlier this month, and I puzzled about it for awhile: steal so I could put the funds towards a mission? Such is how the adversary works. He's a walking contradiction.

Back to the topic at hand. The depth of sin: how do you take a child who is innocent and honest, and within a handful of years turn them into a thieving liar. Harsh words that I don't direct at anyone, but how is it done? The frog in the pot idea.

During the 179th General Conference, a talk was given by President Dieter F. Uchtdorf (I don't understand why it's so hard for some people to say his surname!) in which he said this: "...what we love determines what we seek. What we seek determines what we think and do. What we think and do determines who we are—and who we will become."

During a poster sale held in the concourse of my college, I was tempted to buy a poster that reminded me of President Uchtdorf's words: "Watch your thoughts, for they become words. Watch your words, for they become actions. Watch your actions, for they become habits. Watch your habits, for they become character. Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny."

So it doesn't seem too far-fetched that I've come to this conclusion, but you can't take a little kid and turn them into anything. That kid can however, through poor choices, turn themselves into a thieving liar. Whether you're religious or not, I'm sure it's no stretch to accept the fact that there are things which should not be done.

If we use the logic that things which aren't good for people or the society we're in then they shouldn't be done. Simple logic. If it's bad for you, don't do it: For example, drugs have negative effects on people: they should not be used. If you believe marijuana has no adverse effects, but is illegal in your country, you shouldn't smoke it. Stealing has a negative effect on the person being stolen from, it shouldn't be done.

In addition, I'm grateful that we don't just have to rely on societal laws to determine what's good for us and what isn't.

So the next time someone says, "I stole that because I had to," or, "you made me do it," just gently remind them that you can't make them do anything (or I'm sure you'd have made them not do whatever thing was objectionable), and that they're in charge of who they are, what they become.

I can't just finish here. I can't just say, "if you're a failure it's your own fault." There is some kind of solution, isn't there?

Knowing someone who is in the 12-step program for Alcoholics Anonymous, I know that there are several steps that require the person in the program to make amends. Step 8 requires the person to make a list of all the people they've harmed and be willing to make amends. Step 9 requires that they then make amends.

So how do you fix the negative things you've done? If you believe in the Atonement of Christ then you ask him for forgiveness in full sincerity of heart, and be resolved to not repeat that mistake or transgression. If you don't believe in Christ, then just follow what those in the AA-program do. Make your list, apologize and acknowledge to those you've hurt what you've done to harm them, and then make restitution if possible (pay them back the money you stole, buy them a new stereo to replace the one you busted, whatever). The AA-program is designed in such a way that once someone commits to it, they aren't allowed to drink again. Ever. I think the final secular step in restitution is the same as the one that involves the Atonement: resolve yourself to not repeat those base choices again. If you get back into the cycle that brought you to where you were before you sought forgiveness, you really haven't "quit" that habit, and therefore through your misdeeds have lost the forgiveness you had had before.

Grim topic.

Why all the fuss?

When I first had contact with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it was from the missionaries - I had never heard any of the anti-Mormon arguments or discussion. Personally, I don't think it would have mattered. A persons religious worship should be between them and God, and when I prayed about the Book of Mormon I really began that relationship with God.
When I did start hearing the anti-Mormon banter, I didn't understand why so many people would be trying to "disprove," or "destroy" the Church! It just didn't make sense to me! It does now.
Those questions, "why are they always hating on us?" ("us" referring to other LDS), "what do they have against the Church?" are naive. Naivety isn't bad, and I'm not trying to insult people who wonder these things. It's all part of our progression. But it seems to me that those questions are not dissimilar from the "why me?" questions.

So why all the hate? Of course there are also other reasons, but it's really no wonder. If you claim to have the fullness of Christ's restored gospel, a claim which if true would mean that all other churches don't have the full gospel, you're gonna end up stepping on some toes. And toe-stepping typically isn't appreciated.

For now, I'm going to step on some toes and sum up every single reason anyone has ever had for leaving or "hating on" the Church. And, I'll do it in one word. So what's today's word of the day?
Pride.

Christ's Atonement

I just had a quick thought while I was getting ready for school this morning, and it's this: How much more does it mean that God offered his Son as a sacrifice, than if he - as most of Christendom believes - was really also Jesus and was just offering himself as a sacrifice? Would it actually mean less if he was his own sacrifice? It's a big deal, saying you'll be sacrificed for mankind.. But why do Latter-day Saints not believe in the trinity? Aside from all the scriptures and restored doctrine... But that's not the point of my early-morning thought.
My thought is this: It does mean more that God would offer his son as a sacrifice for all mankind, and I made a comparison to Abraham and Isaac. How much would it mean if it were Abraham who was asked to sacrifice himself, and how much less would it mean when the angel came and stopped him?

Just a thought.

Joseph Smith and false prophecies

All right, so my YouTube friend asked me "if Joseph Smith spoke a false prophecy in the name of the Lord, would you still uphold him as a true prophet?" I'm going to attempt to draw you into the process my thoughts went through as I worked with the question.

I didn't instantly jump to one answer or the other, and I think doing so, to either answer, would be wrong. I try my best to think through things, weigh the arguments on both sides and then work with what I know to come up with an answer.

I'm really big into criminology, and the brain and how people think fascinates me; working off the interest I listed first there, I drew a comparison to this guy's question: If a man told me, honestly, that he had killed someone, could I support him if he was pleading innocent? This may very well be an extreme example, but I think they're beneficial for really bringing out the true thoughts of a person. My answer, and yours, I hope, is no, I could not. Now, while Joseph Smith was no murderer, if I somehow was privy to information that proved - not through argument or such - that he was truly a false prophet, then no, of course I couldn't stand behind a statement to the contrary.

When I read this question, I assumed (because I do that a lot) that this information I was being privy to was from the Lord, not from a man. This would require that I have some kind of intense authority, even over that which Joseph Smith claimed to possess, and which our Prophet, Thomas Monson holds claim to.

I think I'm getting a little bit too deep here, so let's back out for a bit. Three things come to mind when I think about people claiming Joseph Smith was a false prophet based on some of his prophecies which didn't "come true." First I think about how limited I am by my mortal mind, then about how limiting the human definition of the word "prophecy/prophesy" is, and finally I think of my understanding of how the human measurement of time is not God's time. Let's go through these three, then go on from there.

Firstly, the limitations of my brain. My siblings would love to see me write exclusively on this subject, so for now I'll humour them. To demonstrate this, I'm going to ask you to think about eternity. Do it. Now. How's that working for you? Can you actually imagine an infinite amount of time? Something that neither begins, nor ends? Can you imagine what the edge of space looks like? Does space have an edge? It doesn't actually take much until we feel like our brains are on the frying pan. I think sitting through an advanced physics class would push my brain to the edge. In that case I'd just be diving into the pool without testing the waters first, but the questions before that, about space and eternity, those questions are, thus far, unanswerable, inconceivable.

Next, to explain my second point. When I think of the word, "prophecy/prophesy," I think of it's definition. Some may think of various prophets (Adam, Abraham, Moses) but not me, and this is because I'm an English major. So what I think, is of how limited the definition of the word is, and how it's defined by the average person. To prophesy today is, some people think, equivocal to prediction. If someone is prophesying, then it's thought that they're predicting the future. I don't know about you, but I contend that this is a pathetic definition of that word. Prophesying is so much more than that, and because of my major, I looked up the origins of the word. Prophecy is the action of prophets, and "prophet" comes from the Greek word "prophetes," which means an interpreter or spokesperson, especially with the gods, or God. This in turn comes from "pro", meaning "before" and the root of "phanai," which is "to speak." I like it. One could turn around and say, "this shows that prophets are predictors, because they are 'before-speakers,' speaking before something happens." I'll still disagree. They're getting their "before-speak" from God, who knows and understands all, is the same before, now and forever, so I argue that "before" is a synonym for God. Under that context, prophets are God-speakers. The only definition of prophecy that I truly accept as being full, is "to speak as a mediator between God and humankind, or in God's stead." This includes any "predictions," as well as other guidance the Lord gives his people, without being so narrow as the typical definition as to exclude anything other than predictions of the future.

OK, and now to show that God's time is not our time. I think the best way this is illustrated is through the use of countless predictions of Christ's coming in the Old Testament, as well as in the Book of Mormon. How long did Jews wait for their Redeemer? I think a better question is how long did humanity wait for their Redeemer? Genesis 4 talks about Cain and Abel offering sacrifices to the Lord; Abraham was to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice, and Moses even demanded of Pharaoh that he let them offer sacrifices - they're even commanded to and build a tabernacle, or temple, in the desert so they could perform those sacrifices! So, why all the sacrifices? Why did the Lord want all these burnt animals? There has to be a good reason, especially if Moses was commanded to build one. Scripture provided by the Latter-day Saints explains that because Jesus Christ hadn't come and performed the Atonement, the sins of the people had to be cleansed some other way. This other way was through burnt offerings, and in some cases through the use of a scapegoat, or Yom Kippur, as the ceremony is called. To answer my own question, how long has humanity waited for their Savior? Since the Creation, since the time of Adam. Moses and Adam, they knew a Savior would come, but they didn't know when. God had appointed a certain time for Jesus Christ to come to earth, despite the fact that I'm sure these prophets of old prayed mightily for the Savior to come, what was to them, soon. Another perfect example is the Second Coming. When is it? No one but God knows.

And to think, these were just some of the things that went through my mind, but this man asked me to take a full day, so instead I've turned it into a (so far...) three-part blog-posting blitz!

If I want to emphasize anything here, it's that in this hypothetical situation the information I was receiving of Joseph Smith being a false prophet was from the Lord, not from man.

All right! Whoo, we've come a long way! And this is where we'll stay for now. In my next post I think I'll go over some scriptures that "define" a prophet. One scripture I'll spend some time on is used by loads of anti-Mormons to "prove" that Joseph Smith is a false prophet. I'll also demonstrate that although God doesn't change, man does, and therefore the prophecies given by prophets can, and as we'll see, do change.

More on Baptism for the Dead

So, unbelievably, I haven't posted anything for a couple months shy of a year. This, I think, is unfortunate. Why? Well, silly folk, because I've actually looked in depth at many anti-Mormon arguments, several temple topics and have listened to loads of talks and done quite a bit of reading (with topics surrounding controversies in the early church, onto the Mountain Meadows massacre, and over to the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith).

Well, all that matters is I'm back, and you, my adoring fans need wait no longer!

All right, so with my assumed fame securely in place, let's move on. I re-read my article, "Baptism for the Dead?" and was somewhat troubled by some conclusions I failed to draw.

1 Cor 15:29 asks, "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" I've recently learned to love the way Paul speaks, just like I've learned to love how confusing Isaiah seems to be. But really, I love how Paul words his epistles.


I suggest you read all of 1 Corinthians 15, just as I hope I can convey that which will compel you to understand: reason.

Up until verse 19, Paul is talking about the resurrection, and specifically the resurrection of Christ. I find verse 19 to actually be the most powerful thus far: "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." (In other words, the believers are up a creek without a paddle if Christ wasn't resurrected, because if He wasn't, then He wasn't the Savior, and their belief would then be blasphemous against God.)

In verse 23 Paul is referring to the order that we'll be resurrected. First Christ, and then Christ's followers (and by "followers," I do not mean the members of a particular religion) at his Second Coming: "But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming." Conceivably afterward will follow the resurrection of the unrighteous. Why? Simply because of the fact that Christ died for all of mankind, promising us all immortality, not just a select elite.

Verse 24: "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power." So, after Christ is finished resurrecting everyone (which here is referred to as "delivering up the kingdom,") He, Jesus Christ, will remove the governments in each country and establish His rule over the whole Earth. In simple terms, a perfect rule, or government, I suppose, with a perfect ruler.

Verse 25 refers to "enemies," being put "under his feet," and this of course refers to Jesus' wrath upon the wicked of the earth.

Plain and simple, in the words of Paul in verse 26: "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." After being judged, those worthy of it will receive eternal life. That is, will be put back in the presence of God, we having lost that at the time of the Fall, when Adam and Eve were literally sent out of God's presence. This continues on through verse 28, which actually says "And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." This refers to when Christ has perfected all of His work among us, and God will finally judge us.

This is everything I can conclude with my own, obviously vast, knowledge on the subject, and a straight-through reading of the chapter up until verse 29, which is the subject of so much debate.


OK, time to backtrack. I've recently delved into the volumes of The History of the Church, as written by Joseph Smith and subsequently edited and then approved for release by the First Presidency. In the introduction of the first volume, it says that Joseph Smith, when writing, would often go on long narrations of the character of various people he met, and these were, in the editing process, taken out and moved. Why? Simply because Joseph wrote in a manner called Stream of Consciousness. In this method of writing, one writes as one thinks. It makes for an often convoluted, difficult reading. Add the subject of religious doctrine not heard since Christs' Church in early times and you've got a very difficult read ahead of you.

Now, you may ask, am I digressing, as I often do? No, I'm just letting you know where my brain has been and where yours now is.


Back to Paul and the Corinthians.
Let's look at the entire chapter and it's sections, because oh! how there are sections.

From verses 1 through 20 Paul is talking about the resurrection. From 21 to 28 he's talking about the consequences of the resurrection as they will be. Sweet, sweet consequences.
And then in verse 29, he's back to talking about the resurrection!

Look at it like this, verse 12 is his chastening of the people who deny the resurrection of Christ. After that, he's telling of the consequences of there not being a resurrection of Christ. Check out the verses:

13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

He, unknown to those who haven't taken a Philosophy 101 course, is employing a brilliant form of argument.

If you're where my brain is at, then way to be! If not, let's look at it in terms of the words Paul is using. We're going to only notice the words relating to being "asleep." I'll add some italicization for you. This will be fun, I promise!

18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

Paul, our most beloved letter-writer, is obviously using euphemisms here. Basically, if there is no resurrection (following his reasoning given to those who were denying the resurrection), then those Christian followers aren't just physically dead, but also spiritually dead (spiritually dead here meaning that they cannot return to God's presence) therein referred to as having "perished." Verse 20 is where Paul is giving the Corinthians the good news: Christ was resurrected, and not only that but He was the first, and *key point* not the last to be resurrected.

And now we return to our favourite verse of all verses, verse 29:

29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

Paul's wording is essential to understand to know what he's saying. When I first read this, ages before I wrote my last article, I really had no idea what was going on, and I confess that I was relatively all right with not going to the trouble of trying to understand it. However, and thankfully, people can, and do change.
But I digress.
So, Paul, in typical Tephrochr translation, is quintessentially saying, "If there is no resurrection, what are the people who are performing baptism for the dead doing? Why are they being baptized for people who've died and who aren't going to be resurrected?" Notice my first phrase, "if there is no resurrection," because I'll be using that again, referring to his previous argument.

And it goes on, in verse 30, "And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?" Jeopardy meaning peril, danger, or risking loss. More Teph translations: "If there is no resurrection, why do we put ourselves in danger by falsely believing there is?" Of course I use the word "falsely," because Paul is talking to the Corinthians under the pretense that there is no resurrection, that they have indeed been "found false witnesses of God" (verse 15), risking damnation.

Because there's controversy surrounding verse 31, I'll not touch on it here, simply because it doesn't detract from my explanation.

Here's verse 32, which is quite like verse 30, elaborating more on "standing in jeopardy."
32 If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die." Here he's being ironic, while maintaining his seriousness. In my previous article, I elaborated on what he meant when he said he "fought with beasts at Ephesus," which is that he spoke, by reason and persuasion, with the men at Ephesus. With the knowledge I have about Judaism and how they receive greater and greater understanding of scripture, etc, I conclude that he wasn't just talking with men, but most likely with learned men, like Jesus had. Although, I think since Paul uses the word "fought," it probably wasn't a pleasant experience like Jesus seems to have had. It also would have been done as a missionary would, because Paul was an amazing missionary, and he does those kinds of things. But I digress. Teph's translation? I think so: "If there is no resurrection, why have I reasoned and persuaded learned men at Ephesus of the resurrection?" As for the latter part of that scripture, I think it's obvious. Isaiah mentions something along those lines, talking about how the people at Jerusalem at to be taken captive. The alternative? Eat, drink, and get with the merry-making.

Verse 33 and 34, our final two verses of the night I think, are good ones to conclude on. He returns to chastening those who were denying the resurrection of the Lord.

33 Be not deceived: evil ^acommunications corrupt good manners.

34 Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your ^ashame.

Verse 33 in a nutshell? Don't let people trick you into believing lies.
In verse 34 he teaches one my most favourite of doctrines. That which involves ignorance: "some have not the knowledge of God," but because of the epistle which I've just sent you, which you are now reading, "I speak this to your shame." Let me illuminate his words.

Jesus taught in parables so that those who were ready to receive His instruction would be able to, and so that those who weren't quite as ready just got to listen to a nice story. Paul doesn't speak that way. It's easy to understand why. He's building Christ's Church and needs the members to be strong, valiant, and righteous.

In the simplest of terms, he doesn't want them to dilly-dally, he wants them to understand. Indeed, they need to understand. And so do we.

Baptism for the Dead?

That must be one crazy notion if you aren't a Latter-day Saint. Or maybe it's not, if you understand the scriptures. Ouch, that might have hurt, and I know that I am no scholar, but a look in 1 Corinthians clears it right up. Or does it? I, personally, think it’s as clear as mud, and that it brings up a lot of questions for our consideration.I began my scripture study this morning and actually happened to turn to 1 Cor 15:29. Which asks, "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" Now, this is a very interesting verse, no?

Before I get into v. 29, I am going to allow myself to digress into a discussion of 1 Cor 15:29-32. Why? Because context is very important, vital even. First, let’s read the scriptures:

29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
30 And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?
31 I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.
(JST 1 Cor. 15: 31 I protest unto you the resurrection of the dead; and this is my rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord daily, though I die.)
32 If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.

So, one can ask, what was Paul talking about before he got into all this talk of baptism for the dead? He was talking about the resurrection. Why? Because that is a vital piece of Christianity no matter what sect, or denomination you attach yourselves to. Why? Because if Christ was killed and wasn't resurrected, then he was just a man and he wouldn't have been able to redeem us and eventually "save" us. I don't like using the word "save," gives off a bad vibe (especially if you've ever been yelled at by a preacher that you were a sinner and needed to be saved). But I digress.
Paul writes v 29 to emphasize his point on the resurrection. The fact of the matter is that the people of Corinth were practicing baptism for the dead, and if they weren't, then they were supposed to be practicing it.
V 30 is a question meant to make the people think; Paul's reasoning: If the dead do not rise, then why do we put ourselves in harm's way to believe in Christ?
V 31 is the fun one. “Protest” is an interesting word, and when we think of it, it’s safe to say that most of us would imagine signs and disagreement and anger. Not so in this case, obviously. Another definition of “protest” is to affirm, or avow formally or solemnly. I think it would be appropriate for us to say that Paul was affirming something. Something. That isn’t so clear, which is why you’ll humor me as I turn to the Joseph Smith Translation (me being a Latter-day Saint and everything), so that I don’t drown. The JST of v 31 is Paul expressing his joy, because thanks to the resurrection, he can expect more after he dies, we all can. One note about me not liking the non-JST of v 31; with this many different versions and interpretations of it, can you really blame me? Maybe I’ll write an article later, just on that one verse?
V 32 is pretty neat, also. Who, or what, are the beasts at Ephesus? I believe that since he never physically fought any animals at Ephesus, he must be speaking of the people in Ephesus. And what does he mean when by fighting after the manner of men? Here, Paul speaks of reason and persuasion. Since we’ve cleared that up, this is basically a re-cap of what he has said in v 30. What is there for Paul to gain by reasoning with the “beasts” if there is no resurrection? I say again, if there is no resurrection, then there is no Savior, and there is no redemption to be had.

Long-winded, that.
So we see that Paul was speaking of the resurrection before and after mentioning baptism for the dead.

Let’s move on into some other interpretations of v 29, those are always fun.

I read somewhere that the Bible was incorrectly translated; according to this source, it is supposed to say, "Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the hope of the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they then baptized for the hope of the dead?" A very intriguing idea, based upon our own understanding I might add, as well as the New American Standard edition of the Bible (not the King James Version, which they claim they're quoting scripture from). Who are we to say that Paul wasn't actually referring to baptism for the dead? This source cites the "incorrect" translation of the Greek word, "huper" which they say means: above, over, instead of, for the realization of, or for the hope of. And they also say that since it is used in another scripture as meaning, "for the hope of" (Philippians 2:13) then it clearly also must be being used in the same context in 1 Corinthians.

An interesting article is this one, written by a man in response (kind of) to a letter he received from a man in California. Unfortunately he goes into a long paragraph about how Paul suffers. Paul isn’t suffering; at least in the sense that this guy, Leon Odom, is suggesting. Paul is preaching the Gospel. He taught the Gospel and the people of the early Church for countless years, and made numerous journeys. Why? Because he loves God, he loves Jesus Christ, and he loves the people he taught (notice the present tense of “love.” If there is a resurrection, then he’s waiting for it, and is only dead to us, mortals).

Another interesting interpretation on the aforementioned scriptures, it is suggested that “the dead” is a reference to those who have physically died, and that those who rise are those who join the Church; in other words, as members are persecuted and die, new members take their place.


Yet another interpretation, and the last that I will touch on, is given by the Russian Orthodox Church. It states that Paul is speaking to the Corinthians in a mocking tone. It was explained on this website that he is actually chastising, making a mockery of, or straight up pointing and laughing at them for this practice. And why were they practicing it? It is because they’re silly pagans.

Fortunately for us, we have the scriptures that we can read for ourselves and make up our own mind about it instead of listening to what someone else has - or even what I have - to say. This bit about mocking the Corinthians wasn’t agreeable to me. Paul clearly loved the people of Corinth, and he surely would have taught them in a loving manner. I know from personal experience that if I’m trying to explain something to a person, or people, they are more willing to listen to me if I don’t mock them. Correction, not mockery, then, is the better way.

I pulled up a quote, which I will verify when I make the time to, stated by Joseph Smith. He said, that “the greatest responsibility in this world that God has laid upon us is to seek after our dead … This doctrine was the burden of the scriptures. Those saints who neglect it in behalf of their deceased relatives, do it at the peril of their own salvation." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 1976, by Joseph Fielding Smith, p. 356-357, 193)

I altered the quote from the source I got it from, which originally read "the greatest responsibility in this world that God has laid upon us [Mormons] is to seek after our dead…” I did so because I think it is very important, even just as a matter of interest, to know where we came from and who our ancestors are. We are who they are, in a tiny way, and our children will have pieces of us in them, and so on. We owe it to our family to recognize them as having existed. I believe that if my descendants completely forgot about me, if there was no record of me at all, then I would truly feel as though I didn’t ever exist, and that it would be just as well for me to lie in the dirt and be dead.