A Trial in My Hometown

In the community where I currently reside an LDS man is on trial for horrific crimes against his family. If the charges are true, they are of the worst kind - the kind that even hardened criminals find repulsive. Given his status as a member of the Church, how does this reflect on us?

As Latter-day Saints we like to tell others to judge us by our fruits. What are the fruits of the gospel as we teach it? Generally those fruits are quite good, but in this instance, the fruit appears to be rotten to the core.

Out of a sense of loyalty to the Church many members like to only reflect on the positive fruits of Church membership. If we are honest, and consistent, we must look at ALL OF THE FRUITS of our church. Honesty is not a lack of loyalty. It is the only position consistent with integrity.

Warning signs existed with this family and bishops were notified many years ago that something was very wrong in this home. Nevertheless the father (the accused) still held a responsible position in the Church (ward clerk) and as far as I know, he was never disciplined by a church council. Did we fail this family? Did the hometeachers fail this wife and children? How about the visiting teachers, Relief Society Presidencies, Elders Quorum Presidencies? Did they all fail?

I don't know who failed, but certainly this man failed to live the gospel as taught. Had he obeyed the counsel we are given and kept the commandments he would never had committed the crimes he is charged with. But it isn't enough to say it is all his fault, he didn't obey the commandments. ALL OF US ARE IMPERFECT to some degree. For some of us it is more obvious because maybe we smoke, or drink, or don't go to church on Sunday. But we all fall short in following the counsel we are given, as did this man. And to some degree yet unknown, we the Latter-day Saints in this area, failed this family. Our influence in homes is only as much as we are allowed. Apparently we weren't allowed to do very much of good or this would never have happened.

Generally the fruits of the gospel as taught by this Church are wonderful. But occasionally they are rotten. The same tree that brought us Gordon B. Hinckley and Thomas S. Monson also brought us this man who is now on trial. It is tempting to dismiss this case as an anomaly; and it is an anomaly, but we also need to acknowledge that we probably failed this family to some degree and to that degree we as a people need to repent.

The Book of Mormon

I find it interesting that critics of the Church tend to avoid deep discussion of the Book of Mormon. They will take cheap shots at it, but avoid any in-depth discussion. I have my suspicions as to why. The Book of Mormon is tangible, it isn't some spiritual concept. Concepts are easier to argue than something real. So critics stay in the safer arena of arguing scriptures and concepts instead of addressing the reality of the Book of Mormon.

There also is the problem of the growing set of evidences that support hundreds of things in the Book of Mormon. It is simply too large to ignore. While none of those evidences "proves" the Book of Mormon to be true, they are troubling to an honest critic, thus it is easier to simply avoid.

Book of Mormon critics have created a deafening silence regarding the Three Witnesses: Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer. It is harder for people to recognize what "isn't being said" than what is being said. Therefore it takes more effort to notice that our critics don't want to touch the Three Witnesses. Their collective testimonies are compelling evidence to the honest at heart and therefore are best ignored by our critics.

The Eight Witnesses are often overlooked but they effectively counter the few arguments against the Three Witnesses that they experienced some form of "group delusion". There is nothing supernatural about handling a bunch of metal plates. The allegation of some form of tomfoolery regarding the Three Witnesses is effectively neutered by the testimony of the Eight Witnesses. Again, it is easier to ignore these 8 men whose collective testimony is the perfect compliment to the Three Witnesses.

The fact that most of these eleven men fell away from the Church, yet never denied their testimony is somehow even more compelling testimony. It probably shouldn't, but it nonetheless seems to lend greater credibility to their prior testimony.

I understand how some might find it hard to believe that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon. But the honest at heart have to answer the questions I've listed before they can reject the Book of Mormon as our enemies have done. I was once an non-member and I remember how strange that sounded to me at first.

I have yet to hear a rational argument that effectively challenges these three things: the growing collection of evidences supporting the Book of Mormon; the Three Witnesses; and the Eight Witnesses. Until some rational argument can be made against these very compelling evidences I suggest that the honest at heart will eventually come to realize that as strange as the Joseph Smith story sounds when it is first heard, it is still the best explanation for the presence of the Book of Mormon. And once one reaches that logical conclusion the Spirit can bear witness that they are correct - the Book of Mormon truly is the Word of God.

Is this the beginning?

The U.S. Census Department has decided that Utah citizens serving missions in foreign lands will NOT BE COUNTED in the upcoming census next year. Military personnel serving overseas are counted. Federal employees serving overseas are counted but LDS missionaries are not going to be counted.

Normally that wouldn't matter but the last time the census was done in the year 2000, Utah came up less than 1000 votes short of gaining another U.S. Representative in Congress. There are probably 1000 Utah missionaries in Brazil alone! A really bad guesstimate of missionaries would have put them over the top.

That year the Clinton administration wouldn't count them. This time its the Obama administration that won't count them. Do you think it might have something to do with the fact that Utah is the most reliable Republican state in the Union? Is this the beginning of the U.S. Government starting a new round of denial of civil rights to LDS Church members as was done in the late 1800's allegedly over polygamy? We'll have to wait and see.

This will be cross-posted at my political blog Rookie Political Commentator.

This Morning's Devotional

When I wake up earlier in the morning than is needed to start the day, I like to fill in the time with a private, morning devotional. It is quite simple. I read a few verses of scripture, ponder them, and pray. Then I make sure and wait for an answer. In the rush of a typical day I often skip the pondering and waiting parts. Today I didn't.

I read only a few verses of the Book of Mormon, Moroni 7:39-44. This section simply talks about the esential interweaving, mutually dependent nature of faith and hope. It then comments on the essential nature of being meek and lowly of heart; concluding with the importance of charity. As I was pondering these principles I suddenly realized something very important (at least to me it was important).

Every former member of the Church, or member who has slipped away, has a weakness in this area. In saying that, I am not claiming that all active Latter-day Saints are strong in these areas - for I do not believe it. I know many active LDS who are not meek and lowly of heart; nor are they charitable. But they are not the purpose for this post.

Those who fall away almost universally lose their faith, meekness, and lowliness of heart. They often replace their faith with another one - evangelical Christianity, Catholicism, traditional Protestanism, secular humanism, etc... Many of these people are wonderful people, lovely to know, and they do wonderful things. But I have never met a meek and lowly of heart former member. I have never heard of a meek and lowly of heart member who has fallen away. Perhaps they exist, but I have never met them.

I suspect this is at the root of people who fall; and may serve as a predictor of those who might be vulnerable to falling away - are they meek and lowly of heart? Having lost faith in the source of that meekness and lowliness of heart, it isn't surprising that they would lose the fruits of it. In fact, the universal absence of it seems to be a back-handing form of proof that the fruits of Mormonism (when lived correctly) lead to such things - faith, hope, meekness, lowliness of heart, and charity. May we all strive to become such people. I am working on it.

Mormon History

One of the more common charges against the Church is that the Church "hides its history". In this post, and future posts I will take on one controversial issue at a time and address whether the Church is dishonest (because that's what the subtle charge is in reality) or not.

Lets start with the charge that Joseph Smith was a money digger. This was found in the Ensign of February 2001, on page 42.

An enterprising farmer by the name of Josiah Stowell came 30 miles from his farm in Bainbridge Township, Chenango County, New York, carrying a purported treasure map and accompanied by a digging crew. The company took their room and board with the Hale family. On the crew were Joseph Smith Jr. and his father. Lucy Mack Smith records that Josiah “came for Joseph on account of having heard that he possessed certain keys, by which he could discern things invisible to the natural eye.” The Smiths had initially refused Josiah’s invitation in October 1825. However, the reality of the family’s difficulty in meeting the $100 annual mortgage payment on their farm and Stowell’s promise of “high wages to those who would dig for him” finally persuaded them both to join in the venture.

This arguably unflattering charge is hardly hidden if it is published in the #1 LDS Church magazine, a magazine sponsored by the Church, and whose First Presidency and Council of Twelve Apostles endorse. A true charge would be that Joseph Smith worked for awhile as a "money digger". That is true. But we have not hidden it.

Mormons Are Racist?

One of the common accusations against Latter-day Saints is that we are racist. That word is thrown around so much that it's meaning has become perverted. I'm sure that this perversion is beneficial to some groups, but for my purposes I will restrict the definition of racism to a form of bigotry that has race as the sole reason for that bigotry.

I know that bigots exist. Certainly one of the reasons Mitt Romney lost the South Carolina was the result of religious bigots - people who refused to vote for him simply because of his religion. If they didn't vote for him because of his political views, they are not bigots. But many South Carolinians actually agreed with his views; they simply hated his religion. That makes them religious bigots.

Lets examine the question of LDS bigotry in regards to race. This matter often comes up in connection with men of African descent being denied the priesthood for so many years. This is arguably racial bigotry. But was race the sole reason for this denial? I don't think so.

Harold B. Lee probably said it best when answering the question of a member of the press upon being named President of the Church. He said essentially the following "For those who understand revelation, there is no problem. For those who do not, there is no answer." Was Joseph Smith a bigot for teaching that black men were ineligible for the priesthood or did he have some other reason. Was he, or the Church by extension, racist? It all depends on the reason(s) for doing so. If race was the only factor, then yes he was a racist. If there were other reasons, then the answer is no.

The position of the Church from the 1830's thru the present is that God rules in the heavens and guides the leaders of this Church through revelation. We have scripture in the Pearl of Great Price that explains this doctrine. If the Pearl of Great Price is true, then the issue is God's. Ultimately this issue has always been one of belief. Is that bigotry? Racist? I don't think so.

I believe that God had his own reasons for this restriction; reasons that He has never shared with his children. If He doesn't guide us, if we are deceived in that way, then we are no different than the rest of Christendom and it doesn't matter. Enemies of the Church have never been able to provide any evidence of personal anomous based on race by any Church leader, or the Church as an institution. They always complain about what is in the end, a religious belief, extrapolating from it racial intent that simply is not there. The problem with race is theirs, not ours. We simply accepted it on faith because we were not given any reason.

At worst, we were misguided by uninspired leaders (which would also be true today). At best we were following divine counsel without ever getting an explanation why. Bigotry (or racism) was never the issue.

Evidences of a True Prophet

Prelimary to examining the prophecies of Joseph Smith I would like to examine the scriptural requirements for a prophet. The first requirement for a true prophet is found in Numbers 12:6-8:

If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?

In this scripture we learn that in order to be a prophet, the Lord must speak to him, he must receive revelations. This is not the only scripture that makes this point. Exodus 24:10, Exodus 33:11, Genesis 17:1, Genesis 48:3, Isaiah 6:1, Acts 7:55-56, 2 Peter 1:16, 1 Corinthians 9:1, 1 Samuel 3, Matthew 7:1-16, and Ezekiel 40:2-3 all teach this same principle.

No seeker after truth can reject such evidence as found in the Bible that prophets have revelations. At least no one who claims to be a Christian can reject it. Does Joseph Smith meet this requirement of a prophet? The answer is unequivically yes.

It will not do to simply say "I don't believe Joseph Smith is a prophet! I don't believe he had those revelations he claimed." Such a claim is not rooted in truth seeking. It is what logicians call a cognitive bias, specifically a bias in probability and belief. The point is that the scriptures teach that prophets have revelations. Joseph Smith claimed to have revelations. Therefore he passes the test. Whether he truly had revelations is another question that we can examine at another time. Logical tests of this nature always require a willingness to concede that the other party is telling the truth. To do otherwise makes all arguments exercises in futility and therefore fruitless.

Joseph Smith passes the first test of being a prophet; he had revelations.

March 1839

Sections 121, 122, and 123 of the Doctrine & Covenants we all given while the prophet was a prisoner in Liberty Jail in March of 1839. The closing verses of Section 122 read as follows:

Thy days are known, and thy years shall not be numbered less; therefore, fear not what man can do, for God shall be with you forever and ever.

All of this is common knowlege but what is less well-known is that in The Life and Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Truman Madsen showed that what Joseph was really told was that he had "about 5 years". This information he shared with his mother and a few other close associates. We suppose that it is also the reason behind his rolling off the kingdom onto the shoulders of the Twelve in March of 1944, exactly 5 years from the day he received the revelation that he had "about 5 years". Wilford Woodruff records that event as follows in the Millenial Star in November of 1887:

I, Wilford Woodruff, being the last man living in the flesh who was present upon that occasion, feel it a duty I owe to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to the House of Israel, and to the whole world, to bear this my last testimony to all nations, that in the winter of 1843–4, Joseph Smith, the Prophet of God, called the Twelve Apostles together in the City of Nauvoo, and spent many days with us in giving us our endowments, and teaching us those glorious principles which God had revealed to him. And upon one occasion he stood upon his feet in our midst for nearly three hours, declaring unto us the great and last dispensation which God had set His hand to perform upon the earth in these last days. The room was filled as if with consuming fire; the Prophet was clothed upon with much of the power of God, and his face shone and was transparently clear, and he closed that speech, never-to-be-forgotten in time or in eternity, with the following language:

“Brethren, I have had great sorrow of heart for fear that I might be taken from the earth with the keys of the kingdom of God upon me, without sealing them upon the heads of other men. God has sealed upon my head all the keys of the kingdom of God necessary for organizing and building up of the Church, Zion, and kingdom of God upon the earth, and to prepare the Saints for the coming of the Son of Man. Now, brethren, I thank God I have lived to see the day that I have been enabled to give you your endowments, and I have now sealed upon your heads all the powers of the Aaronic and Melchizedec priesthoods and apostleship, with all the keys and powers thereof, which God has sealed upon me; and I now roll off all the labor, burden and care of this Church and kingdom of God upon your shoulders, and I now command you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ to round up your shoulders, and bear off this Church and kingdom of God before heaven and earth, and before God, angels and men; and if you don’t do it you will be damned.”

And the same Spirit that filled the room at that time burns in my bosom while I record this testimony.

Five years from March of 1839 was March of 1944. Joseph Smith died 3 months later. Even little words like "about" apparently have meaning.

Prophecy

One of the signs of divine investiture of authority has always been the gift of prophecy. Joseph Smith had this gift in abundance as did Heber C. Kimball. The reason this is so significant is that only God knows the future and it is impossible for an ordinary human to predict what will happen with any degree of accuracy.

Not all prophets prophesy. John the Baptist was one of the greatest prophets according to the Savior, yet we have no record of him offering a single prophecy. So we are not suggesting that it is a mandatory gift for a prophet to have, only that when one does have the gift, it is evidence of divine authority.

People like Edgar Cayce and Nostradamus never pass this test because of their numerous predictions that did not come true. Also, they tended to use vague word choices that could be interpreted any number of ways. This is especially true for Nostradamus. That is the same game that modern psychics play.

In coming weeks I intend to cover prophecy by sharing some of the less well-known prophecies of Joseph Smith, and also addressing some of the "failed prophecies" that our enemies claim.

Hat tip to Mark Giles.

Succession in the Church

Many LDS believe that it is possible for any of the Twelve Apostles to become the President of the Church following the death of the prophet. Please note this teaching of Joseph Fielding Smith from Doctrines of Salvation.

" 'There is no mystery about the choosing of the successor to the President of the Church. The Lord settled this a long time ago, and the senior apostle automatically becomes the presiding officer of the Church, and he is so sustained by the Council of the Twelve which becomes the presiding body of the Church when there is no First Presidency. The president is not elected, but he has to be sustained both by his brethren of the Council and by the members of the Church' (Doctrines of Salvation, 3:156)."

When it is time for President Monson to leave this earth, his successor will be the Senior Apostle, the President of the Quorum of the Twelve. I am so grateful for a system that has no politicking, no ambition. The Lord controls who lives and who dies, and it is through that method that His prophet is selected.

Formal Fallacies

Formal fallacies are arguments that are false due to errors in their technical structure. These types of arguments are specific types of non sequiturs .

The first of these formal fallacies is the ad hominem attack. Ad hominem attacks are attacks on the integrity of the messenger. Rather than argue their point, they argue the messenger's character. One of the more common attacks against the Church consists of attacks on Joseph Smith. He was lazy, he was always digging for gold, he was dishonest, he was a liar, he was an adulterer, etc.... The argument then goes that since Joseph Smith was (fill in the blank with any disreputable trait) , he is not a prophet.

None of these "alleged facts" is relevant to whether he was a prophet of God. Rather than attack the message, they attack the messenger. He never claimed to be perfect. We don't claim he was perfect. What we claim is that he was and is a Prophet of God. That is the message.

The reason enemies of the Church don't attack Joseph's status as a prophet is because he meets all of the scriptural requirements. Although uttering prophecies isn't a pre-requisite for being a prophet (see John the Baptist) the thousands of prophecies of Brother Joseph that have already been fulfilled make challenging Joseph on these points rather fruitless. So it's easier to attack Brother Joseph's charcter since there is no one alive who can refute them from first-hand knowledge.

The other charges are not relevent. Besides, they aren't even true.

Free Agency

I am persuaded that the least understood doctrine of active members of the Church is free agency. I marvel when I hear stories of how people run their families, serve in their callings, and describe events they have participated in. In all too many instances it is evident that they have little or no understanding of the doctrine of free agency.

There is a certain irony in this as the War in Heaven was over free agency. Certainly Satan hasn't forgotten that little disagreement and is still trying to prove he was right. In passing through the veil we have forgotten everything and thus have forgotten how important free agency was to us at one time.

I didn't understand free agency for a long time and it wasn't until a bishop counseled me in my early 30's to read D&C 121:34-46 every day for 90 days that I started to understand free agency. About the 85th day my eyes began to be opened and I began to understand how little I understood, and where I needed to repent.

The brethren understand free agency, you can see it in how the Church operates at a general level. Most Stake Presidents and Bishops understand free agency; we can also see it in how they lead their wards and stakes. Way too many members don't understand free agency and it is to our own detriment.

Membership Numbers

Recently a friend (hat tip to Mark Giles) pointed out to me that there is a discrepency between the number of LDS in the US that Church records reflect, and the number of people who claim adherence to our faith in the US Census. Roughly speaking, the numbers are 50% - only half of the people on our records consider themselves Latter-day Saints. This is not surprising to me.

I have noticed the 50% number appearing frequently in Church statistics. A list of personal observations follows:

• 50% of baptized members consider themselves members (see above)
• 50% of active adults are endowed
• 50% of endowed adults have a current recommend
• 50% home teaching is quite common
• 50% of active members pay tithing

Naturally these 50% figures are all estimates but it is a striking pattern. Then I read the Parable of the Ten Virgins, a parable about active Church members, and I wonder how many of us are truly prepared to pass through to the other side. Is it 50%?

More on the Pew Report

Deseret News has an interesting point of emphasis in an article Study Finds LDS Politically Conservative. I brought up the Pew Report a few days ago in another post but my point of emphasis was on a different aspect of the report. In this article it points out that only 68% of Mormons oppose homosexuality. How can that be? Aren't the scriptures pretty clear on the viewpoint of divinity relative to homosexuality?

On a related note. Since our Father in Heaven's plan is all about families, eternal families, is it possible that his opposition to homosexuality has nothing to do with the sexual acts themselves; rather that homosexuality is the exact opposite of his purposes for His children? My personal belief (please note my name is not Monson, so feel free to disagree) is that that is the reason for the seriousness of sexual sin - it is in opposition to our Heavenly Father's plan more so than things like breaking the Word of Wisdom or the Law of Tithing. Those things are wrong, but they are not exactly OPPOSITE of the plan, and therefore less serious.

The Importance of Giving

The is a great article on giving in the current issue of BYU magazine. In summary it points out that "Acts of charity—giving money, serving others, even donating blood—create a remarkable return, lifting us spiritually and financially."

The article points out that Americans are the most generous people in the world and that this giving is probably the greatest reason for her prosperity. Among the 50 states, Utahans give approximately twice as much as the next closest state. What a wonderful legacy for Utah!