I've got an amazing roommate, and we have really intense conversations on topics that seem to find us; often coming out of no where. Due to this, we've discussed some very controversial topics and I've realized how my opinion differs from hers, and therefore, from the majority of traditional conservative Christendom. I won't get into some of the more scandalous of my views, but I did want to touch on the topic of abuse. Of the first three definitions, implying misuse, mistreatment, and speaking harshly or unjustly to or about, it's the fourth definition that speaks of what I want to address: to commit sexual assault upon.
Firstly, I have to express my bias on this subject, as a victim, as well as a sibling, niece, aunt, daughter, and friend to victims. I do not like abusers, of any variety, but especially these kinds of abusers. They exercise their will over another human being, subjecting them not only to the sexual abuse, but to emotional and physical abuse, and not just at the moment of the offence, but every day of that person's existence thereafter. I have, literally, not gone a single day without thinking of it, or it's effects on me.
Several months ago I was on a public chat client which pairs you, randomly, with a stranger. Most frequently I talk to them as though I'm a alien (that's the easiest sentient and intelligent creature I can think of who could be asexual, which allows me to avoid the "asl" question with some humour), but I was frank (although dishonest regarding age and circumstance) with one individual who identified himself as an 18 year-old male from Wales. He admitted that when he and his friend were both six years-old, they performed fellatio on each other, at the request of the other boy. This individual viewed it as a case of "boys being boys", and claimed to be heterosexual, and told me he didn't abuse drugs or alcohol, nor was he promiscuous. Deviance of these varieties is a noted effect of sexual abuse, and while I expected very different answers from him, it follows the line of reasoning I developed from the conversation: perception of one's role is more important than popular opinion or the law, to the individual.
After I had this conversation, my roommate came into our living area and I discussed it with her. I respect my roommate and her opinions, but I also disagree with what she says on occasion, and this was one of those occasions. She said, regardless of what that young man felt, he was a victim. With all due respect to her, from what I know of her, she can't ever empathize with a victim of abuse. She can absolutely sympathize with me and people like me, but empathy is a vastly different thing. The law would disregard this young man's experience, as neither participant was mentally superior to the other, and as the young man claimed in our discussion, he was curious. "Boys being boys", would be the response. While his experience and mine are extremely different, he viewed his experience in, almost, a positive light; it was just him and his friend being silly little kids. He experienced no heightened levels of deviance and felt he was mentally and emotionally sound.
As far as abuses go, I consider myself lucky. Yes, lucky. "Gasp! But how?!" The only way to answer that is to explain a bit: I was abused as a very young child by an individual very close to me. I don't remember the actual abuse, which I am thankful for, but I recall the before, and after. What followed was my period of repression (and unexplained behaviour, the "acting out" stage of my childhood), remembrance of the event, and then acceptance. I won't go into detail regarding the event, but I will address the repression, remembrance and acceptance.
Repression: in psychoanalytic theory, the basic defence mechanism that banishes anxiety-arousing thoughts, feelings, and memories from consciousness. This was one of Freud's theories, and while I typically dismiss Freud (by way of example, Freud later explained that our lust for our other-sex parent isn't remembered due to repression), this is one I do accept, having experienced it myself. Most people believe repression does occur, but a load of memory researches disbelieve in the regular happening of repression. Given the population of our planet, however, "rarely" becomes less rare. Back to it, Freud did say that with patience and effort, the repression could be broken into and the memory retrieved later, either by a cue or during therapy. While I did undergo therapy, it was not while in a session with some brain-picker that my repression was breached. When I remember it, I often think of the repression as being something like a wall, concealing the memory from my consciousness. Remembrance occurred when that wall, for whatever reason, was removed.
After having the event repression, I knew, without knowing what had happened, that something was wrong. Something happened to me that wasn't right, and in my confusion I acted out: I hid under my bed, almost daily, before being awoken for school; I refused to participate in class, to write tests; I became disinterested in spending time with previously close friends and would get into fights. After my parents separated, I began attending a new school, but I continued to act out. While I was deviant in the traditional ways, it was only in minor degrees. I figured at the time that the way I was acting was just a reflection of what people did. It wasn't until my remembrance of the abuse that I realized it was the cause of my deviance.
I am not a traditional survivor of abuse, but I don't hold myself up as some kind of beacon that all other victims and survivors 'ought to look to for guidance. I believe, were it not for my introduction to and acceptance of my faith, I would have ended up as a traditional statistic of child abuse.
You may have noticed that I started using the word "survivor", as well as "victim". Our perceptions are important, they enable us to define ourselves, which I believe is more important than how others would define us. Victims are acted upon, while survivors act. Victims are defined by what others have done to them, while a survivor has taken that experience and added into their chronicle of events that have helped shape who they are.
There's a scripture in the New Testament that says that "... God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." Let's take the word tempt and look at it with its obsolete meaning: to try, or to test. So, like a good math professor who wouldn't give an AP calculus test to his eighth grade students, God is not going to laden us with a test that is beyond our capabilities. To be able to deal with the test, to handle it, God supplies us with a way. This scripture has always meant a great deal to me for this reason. Yes, I was abused, and it was horrible and awful and shouldn't have happened, but it did. It, along with many, many other experiences, have shaped who I am. While I don't see myself speaking to my abuser again in the future, I wouldn't change the past even if I could.
Showing posts with label god. Show all posts
Showing posts with label god. Show all posts
Friday, August 10, 2012
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
So many things, so little time...
I keep saying I have all these things in the works, and I do, but when am I going to make time for them? I just don't know. Each of them are relatively large projects, so when will I make time for them? When I have some.
I suppose this is just a heads-up to say my life for the next four days will be completely full, and so no posts should be expected of me.
I finally sent my YouTube friend a response (actually, I did that about a week and a half ago), which covered the prophecies of those prophets from the Bible which went unfulfilled. I don't think he expected what I sent, but I'm checking daily for a response, so we'll see.
The Vancouver Temple open-house has finished, and here are the stats:
39,500 people through
100,000 cookies eaten
I think we were hoping for around 50,000 people to go through, but 40,000 is quite a formidable host. Anyway, the Temple Youth Celebration is very ready to go forward. The youth are pumped, and so are the counselors! I'll post photos, news, etc., on Monday. The actual youth performance is on Saturday, and the prophet, for whom the youth will be performing (as well as thousands of locals), will be in attendance. The dedication of our Temple is on Sunday, which makes May 2, my new favourite day of the year.
As I walked into my room, I heard President Monson's voice through my computer. So it turns out I had left iTunes on, and it was playing a CES fireside from last year. I walked in on it where there was about 10 minutes left, and he was saying, "Beware the flashy start, and the fade-out finish." This was especially profound since I've made a commitment to listen closely to, and follow specific promptings. One which comes to mind occurred this past Saturday: I was watching TV with my friend, and when he left I searched through the listings and found that Dexter was on. Now, unfortunately this wasn't the Dexter from Dexter's Laboratory, this was Dexter the blood-spatter analyst by day, homicidal maniac by night. I love crime shows, and when I do actually watch TV, I tend to tune into shows like Cold Case Files, or American Justice. Anyway, so my first urge is to turn Dexter on, and so I change the channel and it goes through the warning, "coarse language," OK, "mature content," yeah, "violence," understandable, "nudity and sexuality," huh, not so cool. Well, the only thing I hear in my brain is, "change the channel." I try for about, 2 seconds, to rationalize my way out of it, but I give in and change the channel.
My thoughts are a little scattered, but I was doing some chores today and something I thought was, "if it was hard for me growing up, I can't imagine what it'll be like for my kids." And I can't. But if I'm doing what God wants me to do, then I'll be in a place to help them through the difficulties that their day will bring.
Anyway, there's a great need to listen to the prophet, because he is after all, God's mouthpiece to the world. By listening to him, we'll become more able to tune into what God wants for us, and what He wants us to do. The sooner we make the necessary changes in our life to allow ourselves to be influenced by the Holy Spirit, the sooner we can experience the joy that comes with those changes. I can vouch for that - and the fact that these are lifelong opportunities we're given to change.
I suppose this is just a heads-up to say my life for the next four days will be completely full, and so no posts should be expected of me.
I finally sent my YouTube friend a response (actually, I did that about a week and a half ago), which covered the prophecies of those prophets from the Bible which went unfulfilled. I don't think he expected what I sent, but I'm checking daily for a response, so we'll see.
The Vancouver Temple open-house has finished, and here are the stats:
39,500 people through
100,000 cookies eaten
I think we were hoping for around 50,000 people to go through, but 40,000 is quite a formidable host. Anyway, the Temple Youth Celebration is very ready to go forward. The youth are pumped, and so are the counselors! I'll post photos, news, etc., on Monday. The actual youth performance is on Saturday, and the prophet, for whom the youth will be performing (as well as thousands of locals), will be in attendance. The dedication of our Temple is on Sunday, which makes May 2, my new favourite day of the year.
As I walked into my room, I heard President Monson's voice through my computer. So it turns out I had left iTunes on, and it was playing a CES fireside from last year. I walked in on it where there was about 10 minutes left, and he was saying, "Beware the flashy start, and the fade-out finish." This was especially profound since I've made a commitment to listen closely to, and follow specific promptings. One which comes to mind occurred this past Saturday: I was watching TV with my friend, and when he left I searched through the listings and found that Dexter was on. Now, unfortunately this wasn't the Dexter from Dexter's Laboratory, this was Dexter the blood-spatter analyst by day, homicidal maniac by night. I love crime shows, and when I do actually watch TV, I tend to tune into shows like Cold Case Files, or American Justice. Anyway, so my first urge is to turn Dexter on, and so I change the channel and it goes through the warning, "coarse language," OK, "mature content," yeah, "violence," understandable, "nudity and sexuality," huh, not so cool. Well, the only thing I hear in my brain is, "change the channel." I try for about, 2 seconds, to rationalize my way out of it, but I give in and change the channel.
My thoughts are a little scattered, but I was doing some chores today and something I thought was, "if it was hard for me growing up, I can't imagine what it'll be like for my kids." And I can't. But if I'm doing what God wants me to do, then I'll be in a place to help them through the difficulties that their day will bring.
Anyway, there's a great need to listen to the prophet, because he is after all, God's mouthpiece to the world. By listening to him, we'll become more able to tune into what God wants for us, and what He wants us to do. The sooner we make the necessary changes in our life to allow ourselves to be influenced by the Holy Spirit, the sooner we can experience the joy that comes with those changes. I can vouch for that - and the fact that these are lifelong opportunities we're given to change.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
"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.
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.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Just some milk before meat
So this last week has been absurdly busy, and I guarantee this next week will be even more so. Ahh, such is the last week of class and the following exam week. Today's question: What should this post be about?
I've considered a few topics, like my thoughts and feelings on the new Vancouver temple, the Prophet Joseph Smith's martyrdom, and.. well, mostly temple-related topics. I have several posts in the works, they just require some citations and clean-up before I'm ready to post them. The topics? The purposes of temples, excommunication, the PBS documentary "The Mormons," and receiving answers to our prayers!
So with my assurances that there are some intense posts coming up, I'll go ahead and write up a bit on my thoughts about the temple.
Last week I had the opportunity to go through the temple on a tour with my mother, younger brother and friend. Since then I've been working hard at getting some of my friends from high school to come along. Turns out it's harder than I thought! I've discovered that if you invite five friends to do something, odds are you'll get just two to come along. Such was the case tonight, as I actually got back from the temple a couple of hours ago.
So, last week was my first time going through any of the Lord's temples, although it was just a tour. It's interesting when I consider how it felt.. I heard someone saying on Sunday how intensely they felt the Spirit. After hearing that I felt, ashamed? Something along those lines, because when I went through the temple I recognized the Spirit was there, but to me it felt, compared to how a dedicated temple feels when I'm in one, like it was just another building - maybe along the lines of another chapel or even the Conference Center in Salt Lake. So I kept thinking through the tour, "This is just like any other building.. for now." In hindsight, I'll say I'm both right and wrong on this. I'm right in that it's really just a shell of what it will be as soon as the May dedication rolls around. I'm wrong in that it is the House of the Lord, dedicated or not, and therefore is unlike any other building on the Earth.
Now, mostly I was concerned about how the experience was for my mother and brother, especially since the purpose of temples is to bind families together, and both of those members of my family are in a position where they may not want to, or cannot be bound to someone for eternity in a temple. My mother is also of the opinion (last I talked to her about it) that if she were to receive her endowments in the temple, she'd have to be a "Molly Mormon."
It seems reasonable and silly to me that I'd be going through the temple my first time and worrying about how someone else' experience is going, rather than concerning myself with my relationship with my Heavenly Father. Silly in that it was my first time, after all, so shouldn't I trouble myself with my own relationship with the eternal? Reasonable in that they're my family and I love them and I want us all to be in a place where we can be tied together for eternity, and also that I'm not too worried about my own spirituality (not meaning I'm allowing myself to be lulled into a false sense of security) and more concerned about theirs. To illustrate this point, I've often wondered over the question, "Would you die for so-and-so?" My answer, at least in theory, has always been "Yes," no matter who "so-and-so" happens to be. This is because I feel it's important to be as prepared as possible for that time when we meet our Maker. If the option was to allow someone who hasn't received the Gospel to die, or allow myself to take their place, that gives them all the more time to prepare, so I'm OK with that.
OK, so aside from worrying about whether the tour-guide was explaining things well, or clearly enough, so that my mother didn't think I was nutty for wanting to receive my endowments/get sealed in the temple, I had a pretty good experience. The temple is, of course, gorgeous and breathtaking - that sort of goes without saying. I loved looking for symbolism while I was wandering through, and I took particular interest in the artwork, it being in the area I specialize in (realism). I enjoyed taking in the serenity in the waiting room, walking through the baptistery, and then going through the rooms upstairs; it has actually made me more excited for when I go through the temple for myself. Of course walking through the bride's room and then later into the sealing room cracked open a part of my mind reserved for "The Future," but I most enjoyed the Celestial Room.
So, why did I think this room was my all-time favorite? Well, Celestial rooms in LDS temples are meant to reflect heaven. As they do on these tours, before leading their group into the Celestial room, tour guides will explain the room and then invite the group to remain in silence to contemplate their relationship with God, and things eternal in nature. Going through the first time, the day was quite slow and as such we weren't being herded through the temple with other groups at our heels. For this reason we stayed in the Celestial room for quite a chunk of time - or maybe it just seemed that way. After I took in as much of the room as I could, I found myself staring out at the patterns in one of the windows. During this time it occurred to me that since I had been introduced to sealings I've been excited about the prospect of seeing my family after I'm dead. But I had always really just pictured some form of future family. This might have something to do with the fact that I think my family is demented and like most people, there are times when I'd rather not be related to some of them. But these things aside, I found myself really wanting to be with them forever. It felt revelatory.
So, if you've ever got the chance, go to a temple open-house. I dare you.
I've considered a few topics, like my thoughts and feelings on the new Vancouver temple, the Prophet Joseph Smith's martyrdom, and.. well, mostly temple-related topics. I have several posts in the works, they just require some citations and clean-up before I'm ready to post them. The topics? The purposes of temples, excommunication, the PBS documentary "The Mormons," and receiving answers to our prayers!
So with my assurances that there are some intense posts coming up, I'll go ahead and write up a bit on my thoughts about the temple.
Last week I had the opportunity to go through the temple on a tour with my mother, younger brother and friend. Since then I've been working hard at getting some of my friends from high school to come along. Turns out it's harder than I thought! I've discovered that if you invite five friends to do something, odds are you'll get just two to come along. Such was the case tonight, as I actually got back from the temple a couple of hours ago.
So, last week was my first time going through any of the Lord's temples, although it was just a tour. It's interesting when I consider how it felt.. I heard someone saying on Sunday how intensely they felt the Spirit. After hearing that I felt, ashamed? Something along those lines, because when I went through the temple I recognized the Spirit was there, but to me it felt, compared to how a dedicated temple feels when I'm in one, like it was just another building - maybe along the lines of another chapel or even the Conference Center in Salt Lake. So I kept thinking through the tour, "This is just like any other building.. for now." In hindsight, I'll say I'm both right and wrong on this. I'm right in that it's really just a shell of what it will be as soon as the May dedication rolls around. I'm wrong in that it is the House of the Lord, dedicated or not, and therefore is unlike any other building on the Earth.
Now, mostly I was concerned about how the experience was for my mother and brother, especially since the purpose of temples is to bind families together, and both of those members of my family are in a position where they may not want to, or cannot be bound to someone for eternity in a temple. My mother is also of the opinion (last I talked to her about it) that if she were to receive her endowments in the temple, she'd have to be a "Molly Mormon."
It seems reasonable and silly to me that I'd be going through the temple my first time and worrying about how someone else' experience is going, rather than concerning myself with my relationship with my Heavenly Father. Silly in that it was my first time, after all, so shouldn't I trouble myself with my own relationship with the eternal? Reasonable in that they're my family and I love them and I want us all to be in a place where we can be tied together for eternity, and also that I'm not too worried about my own spirituality (not meaning I'm allowing myself to be lulled into a false sense of security) and more concerned about theirs. To illustrate this point, I've often wondered over the question, "Would you die for so-and-so?" My answer, at least in theory, has always been "Yes," no matter who "so-and-so" happens to be. This is because I feel it's important to be as prepared as possible for that time when we meet our Maker. If the option was to allow someone who hasn't received the Gospel to die, or allow myself to take their place, that gives them all the more time to prepare, so I'm OK with that.
OK, so aside from worrying about whether the tour-guide was explaining things well, or clearly enough, so that my mother didn't think I was nutty for wanting to receive my endowments/get sealed in the temple, I had a pretty good experience. The temple is, of course, gorgeous and breathtaking - that sort of goes without saying. I loved looking for symbolism while I was wandering through, and I took particular interest in the artwork, it being in the area I specialize in (realism). I enjoyed taking in the serenity in the waiting room, walking through the baptistery, and then going through the rooms upstairs; it has actually made me more excited for when I go through the temple for myself. Of course walking through the bride's room and then later into the sealing room cracked open a part of my mind reserved for "The Future," but I most enjoyed the Celestial Room.So, why did I think this room was my all-time favorite? Well, Celestial rooms in LDS temples are meant to reflect heaven. As they do on these tours, before leading their group into the Celestial room, tour guides will explain the room and then invite the group to remain in silence to contemplate their relationship with God, and things eternal in nature. Going through the first time, the day was quite slow and as such we weren't being herded through the temple with other groups at our heels. For this reason we stayed in the Celestial room for quite a chunk of time - or maybe it just seemed that way. After I took in as much of the room as I could, I found myself staring out at the patterns in one of the windows. During this time it occurred to me that since I had been introduced to sealings I've been excited about the prospect of seeing my family after I'm dead. But I had always really just pictured some form of future family. This might have something to do with the fact that I think my family is demented and like most people, there are times when I'd rather not be related to some of them. But these things aside, I found myself really wanting to be with them forever. It felt revelatory.
So, if you've ever got the chance, go to a temple open-house. I dare you.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
To Uphold or Not to Uphold: Prophets and Their Unfulfilled Prophecies
So I'm a little frustrated. I got it in my head that I'd try to do a post a day, and despite it's absurdity I'm ridiculously stubborn, so I probably won't settle for twice a week or something until I utterly fail at my newly adopted once-a-day policy. In any case, I feel like I've somewhat left my Joseph Smith prophecy posts hanging. They were started because of an individual on YouTube who had asked me questions about the nature of a prophet. He has since sent a rather lengthy response which I intend to address, unfortunately I'm relatively erratic when it comes to the subjects of my posts, and I've just moved on to other things since my prophet series.
I had thought to write little bits on a post made on a LiveJournal I read years and years ago, but since then the account has been deleted, and subsequently, so was the post. Because the post was just a re-post of something someone else posted, I thought I'd find the source post, but I haven't been able to find it. The LJ post I had read was entitled, "A Faith of Lies." The writer was upset because some of their family had joined the LDS Church.
But, I think I'll post little bits of my response to what this YouTube person had to say to me recently...
He thanked me for my response and promptly asked: "If a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord and that thing does not come to pass, should I uphold him as a true prophet? Do you think that's OK?"
This is very much an individual matter. I would never presume to have any kind of power over other people's choices, nor would I ever try to force someone to "obey" me.
Now I defer to the scriptural history of a prophet. A prophet was not originally a man who could "predict" the future, rather they were seers. Now you must be thinking, "Hey, I read the post you wrote about the term 'prophet' and 'seer' and you said they were..." blah, blah, blah. According to scripture though, this seer/prophet was one who the Lord chose to show himself to in a vision, who he chose to speak with. It's only relatively later that the scriptures show a change in the prophet's role: to that of the Lord's mouthpiece (see also: Jer. 1:9 and Isa. 51:16). If you've really read through the Old Testament (and I confess I've not read it cover-to-cover) you know the real task of the prophets was to foretell of the Messiah, and re-align the people to God, to remind them of His commandments. However, the prophets would, on occasion, foretell of events to come in the near future to enhance their abilities in the eyes of the people. However, these predictions were always secondary to the prophet's purpose.
And onto the meat of my response, turning this into a personal matter, yes, I would uphold the man as a prophet. For those of you who are thinking, "how silly, how misled," I ask this: Do you uphold Jonah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Nathan and/or Samson as prophets? If so, what about Jonah's prophecy to the people of Nineveh that they'd be destroyed in 40 days? They weren't destroyed. And what about Ezekiel and his prediction of the complete destruction of Tyre by the Babylonians? It wasn't completely destroyed, King Nebuchadrezzar didn't receive the riches of Tyre. And Jeremiah prophesied that King Zedekiah would die in peace. Sure, he died of natural causes, but only after the Babylonians conquered his land, killed his sons, and blinded him. Even then, he died while he was imprisoned. Hardly peaceful. Samuel promised that through Solomon, the Davidic empire would be established permanently; that the children of Israel would live in the promised land, stay there, and no longer be afflicted by the wicked. Well, that's is, thus far, not the case. As for Samson, and angel told his mother he would deliver Israel from the Philistines. This didn't come close to happening. Period. No conditions were placed on these prophecies; it wasn't a question of obedience, the prophecy was simply stated and expected to come to pass.
So, do I uphold the previously listed men as prophets? Even knowing about these prophecies of theirs that never transpired? Yes. Do I think it's OK to uphold a prophet who makes a prophecy that doesn't emerge as a recorded event, in scripture or otherwise? Yes.
I had thought to write little bits on a post made on a LiveJournal I read years and years ago, but since then the account has been deleted, and subsequently, so was the post. Because the post was just a re-post of something someone else posted, I thought I'd find the source post, but I haven't been able to find it. The LJ post I had read was entitled, "A Faith of Lies." The writer was upset because some of their family had joined the LDS Church.
But, I think I'll post little bits of my response to what this YouTube person had to say to me recently...
He thanked me for my response and promptly asked: "If a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord and that thing does not come to pass, should I uphold him as a true prophet? Do you think that's OK?"
This is very much an individual matter. I would never presume to have any kind of power over other people's choices, nor would I ever try to force someone to "obey" me.
Now I defer to the scriptural history of a prophet. A prophet was not originally a man who could "predict" the future, rather they were seers. Now you must be thinking, "Hey, I read the post you wrote about the term 'prophet' and 'seer' and you said they were..." blah, blah, blah. According to scripture though, this seer/prophet was one who the Lord chose to show himself to in a vision, who he chose to speak with. It's only relatively later that the scriptures show a change in the prophet's role: to that of the Lord's mouthpiece (see also: Jer. 1:9 and Isa. 51:16). If you've really read through the Old Testament (and I confess I've not read it cover-to-cover) you know the real task of the prophets was to foretell of the Messiah, and re-align the people to God, to remind them of His commandments. However, the prophets would, on occasion, foretell of events to come in the near future to enhance their abilities in the eyes of the people. However, these predictions were always secondary to the prophet's purpose.
And onto the meat of my response, turning this into a personal matter, yes, I would uphold the man as a prophet. For those of you who are thinking, "how silly, how misled," I ask this: Do you uphold Jonah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Nathan and/or Samson as prophets? If so, what about Jonah's prophecy to the people of Nineveh that they'd be destroyed in 40 days? They weren't destroyed. And what about Ezekiel and his prediction of the complete destruction of Tyre by the Babylonians? It wasn't completely destroyed, King Nebuchadrezzar didn't receive the riches of Tyre. And Jeremiah prophesied that King Zedekiah would die in peace. Sure, he died of natural causes, but only after the Babylonians conquered his land, killed his sons, and blinded him. Even then, he died while he was imprisoned. Hardly peaceful. Samuel promised that through Solomon, the Davidic empire would be established permanently; that the children of Israel would live in the promised land, stay there, and no longer be afflicted by the wicked. Well, that's is, thus far, not the case. As for Samson, and angel told his mother he would deliver Israel from the Philistines. This didn't come close to happening. Period. No conditions were placed on these prophecies; it wasn't a question of obedience, the prophecy was simply stated and expected to come to pass.
So, do I uphold the previously listed men as prophets? Even knowing about these prophecies of theirs that never transpired? Yes. Do I think it's OK to uphold a prophet who makes a prophecy that doesn't emerge as a recorded event, in scripture or otherwise? Yes.
Monday, March 1, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, December 7, 2009
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.
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!
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:
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.
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.
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.
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:
He, unknown to those who haven't taken a Philosophy 101 course, is employing a brilliant form of argument.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:
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.
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. 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.
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.
Monday, February 16, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)