Comparative Paper: Are Mormons Christian? A Comparison of Essential Doctrines Between the Latter-day Saints and Catholics

I'm taking a short intermission from posting because school has started up again since the Olympics ended (although the Paralympics have begun). This post is a paper I wrote for my western religions class. I'm not going to bother adding hyperlinks in the paper part of it because the sources are all listed at the end.

So, just a note: I realize there's a lot of fractures in my discussion. I had a difficult time consolidating information and staying away from deep doctrines. When I talked to my older brother about the paper topic, he asked if I was going to write something in there about polygamy. While this was a doctrine in the early years of the Church, as I told him, the point of this paper wasn't to discuss the "absurdities of Mormonism," (Farkas & Reed, see sources) as some have put it, or the controversies. Again, while I've no doubt it would interesting, this is not a paper on controversies.

Also, ignore the formatting issues, I don't feel compelled to fix it up. Oh yeah, and it's absurdly long.

And aside from all that, enjoy, and let me know what you think.

In Christendom, there are an overwhelming number of individual churches, almost all of which branch from early Christianity. After the martyrdom of Jesus Christ, it becomes difficult to trace what happens, not necessarily to Christ’s disciples, but to the church that Jesus Christ organized while he yet lived. Most of present-day Christian churches have their origins from the Ecumenical councils called by the Roman emperor Constantine (most of which were organized after the Great Schism). There are however, a few denominations within Christianity which claim some form of restoration, like Protestantism, but there appears to only be one which claims to be a full restoration of Christ’s early church. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (hereafter referred to as the LDS), commonly called Mormons, has its roots in New York where founder Joseph Smith asserts his visitation by God and Jesus Christ, and the eventual re-establishment, or restoration of Christ’s early church (Nelson 3, 17-18). The purpose of this paper is not to examine the validity of the LDS church, but to determine the major doctrines which set it apart from what are currently the accepted doctrines of Catholicism (as Catholicism and Mormonism are the second and third largest branches of Christianity, respectively)(Pew) and most non-denominational Christian faiths.

Seemingly vital to any Christian faith or religion is the belief that the Bible is the word of God, the men leading you have some kind of authority to do so (sic not just men with good ideas), and that God has revealed Himself through scriptures and His prophets and is somehow guiding the affairs of men. Catholics and the rest of Christendom accept the Bible to be the word of God, some believe in its inerrancy (Gerstner), and others take it literally. Catholicism holds that scriptures are documents received from God, and are the property of their church, although only appointed teachers may officially instruct from them (Maas). LDS have declared that they “believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly” (Articles of Faith 1:8). Those of the LDS faith not only utilize their Bibles as scripture, but believe in a very open canon and a constant and continuing flow of revelation from God, both on a personal and on a church-wide level (Church of Jesus Christ 128-129); these doctrines carry back to the days when the church was organized in 1930 [edit: 1830]. LDS believe that God will answer their prayers, and directs their church through men (sic prophets) who have received Christ’s priesthood (Nelson 15-16), which is authority given to man to act in the name of God (Ballard 39). Not only this, but LDS claim additional scripture to the Bible, known as the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price (Bushman, 44-45). These are three major distinctions between the LDS and the Catholics. Put into perspective, and with no disrespect, one might venture to say that the LDS one has the opportunity to be a progressive faith, whereas the Catholic one is a relatively static faith. Although the Bible states that “Jesus Christ [is] the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever” (Hebrews 13:8), mankind is constantly changing and needing, in layman’s terms, advice from God as they, and as the world continually changes.

Despite the changes facing mankind, what defines a Christian is based on the doctrines established by the early Ecumenical councils, something which has not seen much change. One such doctrine established involves the godhead, or the relationship between God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. Catholics and some traditional Christians hold that these three members of the godhead are three individuals, who are of one substance (Joyce). What this means, in an overly simplistic explanation, is that although they are distinct from each other, they are indeed one in the same and that God is the Holy Spirit, and is Christ. This doctrine also supports the accepted doctrine that Mary is not just the mother of Christ, but through extension of the Trinity, is also the mother of God. There are two examples in scripture used to establish the doctrine of the Trinity, the first is used to establish the divinity of Christ and their “oneness,” and the second is used to show that Christ is on the same level, and is indeed also God.

2 Corinthians 13:13 (2 Cor. 13:14 in the King James Bible follows)

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the charity of God and the communication of the Holy Ghost be with you all. Amen

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.

This scripture is used to illustrate the divinity of Christ, being mentioned in the same sentence with God and the Holy Ghost, as well as the idea of their being three distinct persons. Additionally, in Psalms, another scripture is used to illustrate that when David praised the Lord, he was doing so in such a way that was reserved for God alone.

Psalms 104:31

May the glory of the Lord endure for ever: the Lord shall rejoice in his works.

The glory of the Lord shall endure for ever: the Lord shall rejoice in his works.

It is widely accepted by Catholicism and most of Christendom that the godhead is three persons in one being, that the Trinitarian God does not have a body, that Christ has a physical body, and is the Son of God (and is the second member of the Trinity), and that the Holy Spirit is also God, as well as the third member of the Trinity.

The LDS on the other hand, view the godhead as having three individual and distinct members who play different roles (Talmage 8, 31-33). In this version of the godhead, God is the Heavenly Father of all the spirits of mankind, who has a physical body. Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world but is not only the Son of God; he is God’s first spiritual and literal child. The Holy Spirit is the third member of this godhead, much like within the Trinitarian godhead, but is separate from God and Christ, is a “personage of spirit” (D&C 133:22) and also ministers to men in place of Christ.

Doctrine and Covenants 93:21

And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am

the Firstborn;

This scripture illustrates the LDS doctrine that not only is Christ the Son of God, but also that mankind existed in a spiritual state prior to being born on Earth known as the pre-existence (which will be discussed later). The following scriptures are explanations of the Holy Spirit, the first from Christ, explaining that his disciples will be given guidance after he left (sic was crucified), and the second demonstrates that although the Holy Ghost as an individual can only be in one place at a time, his influence can be everywhere at the same time:

John 14:26

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my

name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance,

whatsoever I have said unto you.

Moses 5:14

And the Lord God called upon men by the Holy Ghost everywhere and

commanded them that they should repent;

With regard to Mary, LDS believe she was an honourable and chosen woman, and that she was the mother of Christ (Talmage 77-79). They do not accept the doctrine of Immaculate Conception or that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ. The latter doctrine is evidenced by the following scripture:

Matthew 1:25

And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

As is understood, and as a brief look at a dictionary will show, the archaic and Biblical understanding and definition of the term “to know,” is to have sexual intercourse. Therefore, this scripture teaches that Joseph did not just stay in a celibate relationship with his wife, but consummated their marriage sometime after the birth of Christ.

It is difficult to fully grasp the concept of the Trinity because God is typically viewed as unknowable and incomprehensible (Joyce). Scriptures have been searched a great deal in order to support the notion of the Trinity because the alternative is not possible; the Trinity needs scriptural basis because Catholicism denies the doctrine of continued revelation, or the idea that God still speaks to man, as well as that of an open canon. While both Catholicism and the LDS share the similar dogma that Christ is the Son of God, there are severe differences in the relationships between the three persons, the roles they play, and the relationship between God, Christ and Mary.

As mentioned earlier, there are several beliefs held by LDS about a pre-existence which is not shared by Catholics, let alone by the rest of Christendom. It may very well be safe to say that unless one has had exposure to this particular LDS belief, one may never have heard of it before. Although in the Catholic faith the only eternal entities are God and Christ (Joyce), the LDS belief is that all members of the human race are children of God, and that before being born on Earth, they lived with God in a state known as the pre-existence (sic pre-Earth life) (Talmage 7, Ballard 70-73). In this state, mankind was presented with a plan in which they would go to Earth with no memories of their pre-life to be tested. This test involved sin, which would separate mankind from ever returning to God post-Earth life, so a Mediator was needed. Christ then, during this council offered to be such a Savior, while Lucifer (who is explained as being Christ’s brother because all of mankind are spirit-children of God) desired only the power of God, and in return would force all mankind to choose to be righteous (Talmage 7-10). God cast Lucifer from heaven and he became Satan, who has only the goal to make mankind miserable (Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 2:27).

This doctrine leads directly into the next, which is in regard to the Fall of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. In Catholicism, the Fall is a mar on humanity, an event for all mankind to be utterly ashamed of. In this view, Eve yields to temptation, breaks God’s commandment to not eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and then seduces Adam into eating the fruit as well (Driscoll). In this, the doctrine of Original Sin has its roots. According to Catholicism, because Adam and Eve disobeyed God, every human being ever born has inherited that sin and has been damned to never be able to return to heaven because of it (although this is where Christ and sacraments step in) (Driscoll).

The LDS view of the Fall is quite different and is viewed as a blessing instead of a shame. The view held by LDS is considerably clearer because of their open canon:

Genesis 2: 16-17

And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou

mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Pearl of Great Price, Moses 2:28

Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion

over... every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Using these scriptures, LDS illustrate that God gave two commandments to Adam and Eve, to replenish the earth and have children, and to not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It is reasoned that since they had yet to partake of the fruit, Adam and Eve did not know good, and not knowing good, they knew no evil; the logic being that without experiencing joy, one cannot experience sorrow, so it is with good and evil. These two commandments were contradictory in nature because if they stayed in the Garden of Eden and not eaten the fruit, then they would not have been able to have children. The greater of these two commandments was the latter one, which expected they have children and subdue the earth. Although Adam and Eve were removed from the presence of God, they were then able to experience joy and pain, good and evil, and were able to have children (since they were the equivalent of children when they were in the Garden). Another LDS scripture further supports the LDS doctrine of viewing the Fall as a blessing, as well as illustrates Eve’s view on their decision:

Pearl of Great Price, Moses 5:11

Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed [children], and

never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the

eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient”.

Catholic doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin are two which are basically embraced by most of Christendom, difficult as it is to find scriptures to back the concept of inherited sin. But having an open canon, the doctrine of continued revelation from God, and the authority of God for men to act in His name allow members of the LDS faith to experience a dynamic relationship with the stories in the scriptures, as well as with their Savior and God. This is not meant to detract from any relationship experienced between Catholics and their God, but with room for interpretation and clarification from heaven (as through the doctrine of continued revelation), LDS experience a much more progressive religion.

What seems often to be said about the LDS is that they do not believe in the same Christ who the rest of Christendom believes in (Farkas & Reed 24, 39-41).Their antagonists have apparently not had the opportunity to read the following quote by LDS founder, Joseph Smith: "The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it." Despite the fact that LDS fail to conform to the “norm” of Christianity, they are by all accounts, Christians nonetheless. This author argues that what is needed is a broader definition of what it means to be Christian; just because a faith does not accept all the tenets of the norm does not make them un-Christian, especially considering what Christ preached seemed vastly different from what was accepted during his ministry. For Catholics and the like who worship an individual believed to be able to redeem all of mankind, there sure are a lot of restrictions on what it means to be a Christian. But then again, if the rest of Christianity refuses to accept members of the LDS faith, at least they feel accepted by an individual with more authority than the mobs of the norm.

Ballard, M. Russell. Our Search for Happiness. Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1993.

Bushman, Richard Lyman. Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005.

Driscoll, James F. "Eve." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 5. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909.

12 Mar. 2010

Farkas, John R., and Reed David A.. Mormonism: Changes, Contradictions and Errors. Grand Rapids,

Michigan: Baker Books, 1995.

Gerstner, John H.. "Biblical Inerrancy". The Highway Ministry. March 11, 2010

highway.com/inerrancy1_Gerstner.html#1>.

Joyce, George. "The Blessed Trinity." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 15. New York: Robert Appleton

Company, 1912. 11 Mar. 2010 .

Kohut, Andrew. "American's Struggle with Religion's Role at Home and Abroad". The Pew Research

Center for the People and the Press. March 11, 2010.

Maas, Anthony. "Scripture." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 13. New York: Robert Appleton Company,

1912. 12 Mar. 2010

Nelson, Lee. A Prophet's Journal. Mapleton, Utah: Council Press, 1979.

Talmage, James E.. Jesus the Christ. American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications, Inc., 2006.

Christ's Atonement

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

Just a thought.

Joseph Smith and false prophecies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you a Mormon, or a Christian?

I have a way of drawing people to me that I can't explain, so I just embrace it. Since I love discussion and in particular, discussions on religious topics, I took up the opportunity when it was presented to me. Lemme explain, shall I?

I love YouTube. Why? Because of the sheer number of nutty people! Granted, there are some really cool people on there - in fact, many of them are cool, and just happen to be insane - but I tend to float towards the anti-Mormon material.

Now, the sleeves get rolled up, the eyebrows are raised and you ask, "But Katie! Are you as insane as the people you just mentioned?? Why would you go anywhere near that stuff!" In short: So I know what's out there and how to respond to it. There's a brilliant talk that Hugh Nibley gave called, "How to Write an Anti-Mormon Book," and although we (referring to members of the LDS Church) can just repeat what he says and dismiss the arguments made by anti-Mormons as being old and ridiculous, we 'ought not to. Again, why? Because the sad truth is that these arguments aren't limited to the past, they're still being parroted today. Not everyone who repeats these arguments are doing so maliciously; a lot of people just repeat what they hear. A common example of this is the practice of polygamy. And although the Church stopped that practice in 1890, I'm still asked if I'm going to have to share my husband, what I think it'll be like to be wife #2, etc. In high school, there was even a rumour started that I had entered into an arranged and polygamous engagement!

This isn't the LDS Church playing victim - having to "defend" itself from these falsities - but this is evident in everyday life. I'll list a some of these myths from various facets of life...
One I like is the idea that gum (or some other food) takes 7 years to digest. I've heard this about gum and I've also heard it about Bits & Bites Snack Mix.
Another one, that giving kids sugar makes them nuts! Or rather, hyperactive. Have you ever heard that humans only use 10% of their brains? What a waste! Thankfully it's false. How about shaving your legs causes the hair to grow back thicker and darker? It doesn't, period. I could literally go on and on with these examples. My point? Not everything that's "common knowledge" is true, often thankfully.

OK, so let me get back on topic here. Why do I view anti-Mormon materials? So I know what silly arguments my friend's atheist boyfriend is going to pull up the next time I see him. Understanding what twisted things people are saying about my beliefs help me understand those beliefs better. Easy explanation: research has a tendency to make one learn, especially when it's focused research. Crazy, I know, but that's how it goes - a fact, I assure you.

So I had posted a response to this anti-Mormon video (which I won't link to because it can definitely be a stumbling block) on YouTube, and when I checked my e-mail the other day I had a message. The message went a little like this: Are you Mormon?
So I sent a message back saying that I was, and he responded with this, which I find intriguing in and of itself:
Being a Christian I'm finding it increasingly more difficult to determine if the person I'm speaking to is Christian or a Mormon.

He explained that he figured it was a new trend among members of the Church and said he was attempting to figure it out. You see, he likes to learn, so he does research. For that I can give him props. Our messages went back and forth and what seemed like a challenge to me was when he said if I wanted to have a conversation with him, I'd have to have thick skin. I'm a big fan of challenges (goes back to my investigator days), and when he said that I was reminded of that atheist boyfriend my friend has. This friend's boyfriend was saying how he was doing his best to really get under my skin. At this point one of the other guys we were with, who is a long-time friend of mine said, "Even I haven't been able to offend Katie yet." Instead of accepting defeat though, this spirited atheist just said something about re-doubling his efforts to get to me. Don't get me wrong though, I love spending time with these guys because they're fantastic people.

So that comment really peaked my interest, and I said I was open to a conversation if he was. He agreed, and then asked the question. I can only assume he thought it would trip me up.

The question is this: If Joseph Smith spoke a false prophecy in the name of the Lord, would you still uphold him as a true prophet?

I don't know what your answer would be, but inside of 5 minutes I had an answer, and within 20 minutes I had a coherent response to explain my position.

And my position will be explained in further detail on Sunday, because I'm exhausted! And with that, to tie my exhaustion into the scriptures, and for your reading pleasure:

D&C 88:124
"Cease to be idle; cease to be unclean; cease to find fault one with another; cease to sleep longer than is needful; retire to thy bed early, that ye may not be weary; arise early, that your bodies and your minds may be invigorated."

Perfect Parents...

...Just don't exist. No matter how hard a person tries, they'll never be capable on their own of being perfect, let alone being a perfect parent. This post has been incited by watching my siblings parent their own children.

It's an awful thing to say, but one of the best things about being one of the younger siblings in a family is that you get to learn from the mistakes your older siblings make. Going by this, one might assume that the more mistakes your siblings make, the fewer you're apt to make. Sometimes though, we're just so hands-on in our own lives we can't help but make decisions that wind up being "mistakes."

In my opinion, we should only classify something as a mistake if we've learned nothing from it. I disagree with the idea that a mistake is something wrong, or a decision made in error. Perhaps a decision leads to adverse consequences, but even good decisions can have those kinds of consequences. Since Valentine's Day is two days from now, let's use a semi-related example. A woman marries the man she loves. Unfortunately the woman's father, let's say, doesn't approve of this young man. If the emotions involved are extreme enough, the father may choose to cut himself off from his daughter and her developing family. It's a perfectly legitimate decision made by the woman, but at least one consequence in this scenario isn't so good.

Anyway, as I do, I've gotten off-topic. Sort of.

Just as "good" decisions can have adverse consequences, "bad" decisions can, conceivably, have positive consequences. To clarify: I'm not advising that we go out and make a bunch of bad decisions to determine which have positive or negative consequences. I am of the belief that although "mistakes" are made, there can be consequences that are blessings in disguise. I've felt the reverberations of such a decision. When my niece was conceived there were doubts about the abilities of my brother and his later, wife, in raising a child. But we need something to set us off to begin the process of growth and development.

Anyway, I'm not advocating that a couple who wants some change in their routine should have a baby, especially if they aren't in a financially, or an emotionally stable position.

But who am I? I'm single and happy (not saying that people who aren't single are unhappy), and as my mother would point out, I'm in no place to give advice on parenting. But, as I hope one day to be in such a position, I don't think there's anything wrong with seeking out information posted by the experts: parents. The points that follow also have a deep meaning for me, as I've been raised with and without some of the following, and I'm watching the children around me being raised with and, more often, without.

One comment I've come across repeatedly is to put your children first. Yes, you need to spend time with your partner, but it's also vital to remind yourself that everything you do has an effect on your child(ren). Don't be a parent whose motto is "Do as I say, not as I do."

I've seen and experienced far too much of parents not showing love and affection to their children. A line I often heard when I was around 15 was, "Why can't you be more like (insert name here)?" which did not seem, to my mother, to have the desired result. I guess I was expected to, through this line, somehow emulate that person who, for whatever reason, fit the moment. Parents can never be too loving. And loving here means a show of affection and warmth. Spoiled children result when something is given to them in place of love, like material objects, or leniency.

Children need discipline. Children crave discipline. I know I did. Without discipline, rules, guidelines, children don't know what is expected of them. Physical discipline is the worst kind a parent can use. It leads to physical fighting amongst siblings, as well as to physical fighting with other children. As children, my siblings and I experienced physical discipline, and it's easy to trace our old problem-solving "skills" back to the kind of discipline we experienced as children. Consistency goes along with discipline. It's vital. They need it. Without it, as without rules and guidance, children don't know where the line has been drawn.

I've seen, for a long time, children being left to watch TV while their sitters or parents do something else, like playing games on the computer or Xbox or something. Not only has it not been shown that children, especially young ones, actually understand the concept of a television and understand that they're just images projected onto a screen, but it hinders development. As our brains are constantly making connections, restricting a child to simply watch something deprives them of the opportunity to even make those connections. Children need to use their hands, to experience things around them. The more ways in which a child learns, the more connections their brains make, and the more accomplished they tend to be in the future.

Children shouldn't have to bear their parents burdens. I find it inappropriate whenever I hear someone talking to their child like they're talking to a friend. Let your child be a kid! They should only ever have to worry about kid things: which colours mixed together make orange, or how they can capture the family cat so they can have a make-believe zoo.

Finally, on a note that touches close to home with me, children 'ought not to be left to their own devices. They need supervision, they need activities and games to occupy their time. They need to develop their relationship with their parents, and parents need to develop their relationships with their children. What better way to do this than to play with them? To see the world from a child's point of view, in my eyes, is a blessing that shouldn't be squandered so you can have an hour or two online to check on your Facebook updates or games. Children aren't children forever. From what I've been told, it's not uncommon to wake up and realize your children are grown up, despite the fact that it "seems like only yesterday," we lament, that children were crawling around, being given baths and playing "House."

The Sabbath

I gave this talk in my home ward on April 26, 2009. It had been 16 months since I had given a talk.


What is the Sabbath? What do we do on the Sabbath? We honour the Sabbath day as a way of commemorating God's seventh day of rest, as well as the redemption from Egyptian bondage. Even more, it's a weekly commemoration of Christ's resurrection. Although the actual day is insignificant (that is, whether it's on Saturday, Thursday, or Monday), in our world, our Sabbath day - our holy day - is Sunday. And what are we supposed to do on days like today? What is the purpose of today?

Doctrine and Covenants 59:9-10
"And that thou mayest more fully keep thyself unspotted from the world, thou shalt go to the house of prayer and offer up they sacraments upon my holy day. For verily this is a day appointed unto you to rest from your labours, and to pay thy devotions unto the Most High;"

The scripture goes on to say that, "Nevertheless, they vows shall be offered up in righteousness on all days and at all times." In other words, just attending sacrament meeting and our classes today is the very least that we're to do. This isn't to say that us going home, switching on the TV to watch a popular program or going out to play sports, is condoned. Rather, our minimal requirement on worship is that we simply protect our Sundays and use them to think about spiritual things, about our Saviour, and our Heavenly Father.


The purpose of today, the reason that we're all here, is to partake of the sacrament. And why do we partake of the sacrament?

Doctrine and Covenants 59:9
"And that thou mayest more fully keep thyself unspotted from the world, thou shalt go to the house of prayer and offer up thy sacraments upon my holy day."

The answer to my question then is that we may "more fully keep [ourselves] unspotted from the world." We're all aware of what the sacrament is a symbol of. It says exactly what the bread and water represent in the prayer: the flesh and blood of Christ.

Jesus instituted the sacrament during the First Supper, when we walked on this earth, and he did so again on the American continent after he was resurrected.
3 Nephi 18:5-7
"...[Ye] shall break bread and bless it and give it unto the people of my church, unto all those who shall believe and be baptized in my name. And this shall ye always observe to do, even as I have done. ...And this shall ye do in remembrance of my body, which I have shown unto you. And it shall be a testimony unto the Father that ye do always remember me. And if ye do always remember me ye shall have my Spirit to be with you."

So we partake of the sacrament to remember of Saviour's sacrifice. This isn't the only reason we take the sacrament though.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks, quoted by Elder Jay E. Jensen:
"The sacrament of the Lord's Supper is a renewal of the covenants and blessings of baptism. We are commanded to repent of our sins and come to the Lord with a broken heart and a contrite spirit and partake of the sacrament. In the partaking of the bread, we witness that we are willing to take upon us the name of Jesus Christ and always remember Him and keep His commandments. When we comply with this covenant, the Lord renews the cleansing effect of our baptism. We are made clean and can always have His Spirit to be with us."

The invitation to be baptized and receive the sacrament is one that is open to all.

3 Nephi 18:25
"And ye see that I have commanded that none of you should go away, but rather have commanded that ye should come unto me..."

There can be restrictions on those who can partake of the sacrament though, but these restrictions are only put in place by ourselves; when we commit certain sins, the blessing of partaking of the sacrament can be taken from us.

I know how it is to go into a temple recommend interview, answer all of the questions in the best way possible, and yet feel unworthy, to answer that last question something along the lines of, "No, I don't feel worthy to enter such a holy place, though I know that I answered those other questions 'right," for lack of a better word.

There have been times when the sacrament tray has been passed to me and I've wondered if I'm really worthy. I read a scripture before one of these times:
3 Nephi 18:29
"For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul..."

Scary, huh? I found comfort in the words of Elder John Groberg:
"If we desire to improve (which is to repent) and are not under priesthood restriction, then, in my opinion, we are worthy. If, however, we have no desire to improve, if we have no intention of following the guidance of the Spirit, we must ask: Are we worthy to partake, or are we making a mockery of the very purpose of the sacrament, which is to act as a catalyst for personal repentance and improvement? If we remember the Saviour and all he has done and will do for us, we will improve our actions and thus come closer to him, which keeps us on the road to eternal life."

An important part of prayer is that we not only have faith that our prayers will be answered, but that we are willing to act on whatever guidance we are given. Like prayer, we must be willing to listen to the Spirit when he tells us what we need to do to improve in our lives.

I am a professional procrastinator, I'm great at it. There is not a soul I have ever met that can procrastinate like I can, but I have only recently realized how destructive this habit has been in my life, and after having this realization, I've been working hard at eradicating it. It's been difficult, especially since I've gotten so used to preparing for exams last minute, and writing papers the night before they're due, but change does not come easily.

The sacrament enables us to change, to make ourselves better. We have a wonderful and amazing opportunity each week when we come here to commit ourselves to be something more than what we are: to be better. I am grateful that the Lord extends this opportunity to each of us, especially when sometimes we may feel inclined to think, or to say about someone: "They can't change, there's no way, they've been doing it wrong for so long that there's no chance they'll be able to figure it out." When we do this, we're denying that person the opportunity to change. We're saying, in essence, that the Saviour's Atonement isn't good enough, that it can't reach that person. I am grateful to know that the Atonement stretches out to everyone, despite our judgments.

It is so vital in a world like ours that each of us feel the power and strength of the Holy Ghost. There are some weeks where I lament, and wonder why we can't have two sacrament meetings - which is sad, but which is a reality that each and every single one of us has to face.

It is essential that we do everything in our power to be worthy, and then to stay worthy to partake of the sacrament.

After the Prophet Joseph Smith helped administer the sacrament in the Kirtland Temple, he and Oliver Cowdery received a vision in which the Saviour appeared to them. It's recorded in:
Doctrine and Covenants 110:5
The Saviour said, "Behold, your sins are forgiven you; you are clean before me; therefore, lift up your heads and rejoice."

As we partake of the sacrament, knowing that we are worthy to do so, we should imagine the Lord saying those same words to each of us and we can say, "I am clean, and I WILL lift up my head and rejoice."

I've heard many times in my life that we can't really appreciate something until it's gone, and I can testify that although it applies to many other things, it doesn't have to apply to the sacrament.

I hope that we can learn to appreciate the sacrament while we have it - that hopefully it won't take a priesthood restriction on us partaking of it, that makes us realize how marvelous it truly is.

Elder L. Tom Perry:
"Partaking of the sacrament provides us with a sacred moment in a holy place."

This is true, whether we hear babies screaming or youth snoring. As Zion is the pure in heart, if our hearts are pure, then we will feel the holiness of those sacred moments during our sacrament meetings.

More on Baptism for the Dead

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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